Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[kaz]

[Ayn Rand who railed against collectivists and collectivism

Your standard? Well, Obama said he should pay more taxes ... and didn't. What a hypocrite you are

OK with Obama paying the taxes he pays according to current law?

Your standard for your boy, Obama. Current law. Do you apply that standard to Rand? Um...no, she obviously got a little of her taxes back according to "current law," but you reject it. You are a hypocrite

[I fight for CHANGING the laws, (like Obama), not a voluntary taxing system

Actually, Holmes, you can donate taxes. Here you go.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Maybe the government will get an extra dollar this year from you and Obama combined. Probably not

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

Gotcha, if the government ever hired contractors before then it's the same. one contractor = one million contractors. It's as much brainpower as you apply to anything else...

When caught in a lie, Kaz resorts to ad hominem.

Two graphic examples too prove his statement was untrue, and he doubles down on being dishonest.

Others may want to read about POGO:

About POGO

Our Work

Featured Investigations

POGO's Action Center

And,

Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors

When Wry's ad hominem gets ad hominem back, he cries and whines like a little bitch.

And none of your links still show actual content regarding the extent on contractors, only that contractors existed. that the founding fathers weren't anarchists doesn't make them marxists, completely contrary to your black and white world

Your spin does not exonerate your lie, and using the term "little bitch" is comical, fact to face you'd never call me that, which is why you feel so strongly about owning a gun. Of course you don't need one hiding behind your keyboard.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The vote in GB is not sophistry, it's reality; the popularity of Sanders and Trump suggests the potential for a tsunami and a rejection of DC Insiders and the status quo.

Thus, there is more reason for, and we can expect more rhetoric from, the GOP and their anti-democratic conservative base to work harder to suppress the vote.

Please.....

That's thought provoking? The only thought provoked is, you've parroted a talking point of right wing rhetoric, formed in bigotry and framed in hate.

I suggest, a futile suggestion I suspect, that you read the link posted in the OP. Then consider the reality of income inequality in America and the influence of SuperPacs and their impact on democracy.

Then, listen to the stump speech of Sen. Sanders, and ask yourself why it resonates in so many and so diverse a population?

You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please.....
You're supporting Bernie Sanders. We get it. So what?....
BTW, who are the "so many" that Sanders' words of left wing radicalism resonate?
The guy is a card carrying socialist who has some of you eating his redistribution pot brownies.
The guy is a kook. This is his last stand. He no more has a chance of wining the WH than you do.

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's obvious, the callous conservatives won't awaken until ...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

...they find themselves the victims, when it is too late.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's obvious, the callous conservatives won't awaken until ...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

...they find themselves the victims, when it is too late.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

It's unfortunate you chose to use a very thoughtful statement about history to support a rather pathetic partisan position.

 

[Dad2three]

Obama objects to the collectivist? Really?


I get it though Bubs, Rand couldn't stand by her "principles" like the other travelers, it was a money thing

Right, Rand's principles are that government should be small, so she should pay more for it. Obama says government should be big, he should pay more, and he doesn't. And you see Rand as the hypocrite.

You can use this as one of the bullet points in your resume as a qualification for you to be the village idiot.

For your next trick, you'll drink grape juice and dribble it down the front of your shirt.

Rim shot!

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

Gotcha, if the government ever hired contractors before then it's the same. one contractor = one million contractors. It's as much brainpower as you apply to anything else...

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right sorry, Rand spent her life railing against the collectivists, but as soon as she was able, started sucking at the teet of it, unlike the other 2 travelers, but SHE had principles to stand on.. lol

You do accept she was ONLY believed in an individuals rights and not a societies, but you "think" it was just the size she railed against? lol


The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand

lol

Rand paid so much more than her fair share that getting a little of it back was hypocrisy zero.

now Obama, saying he should pay more taxes and fighting to raise taxes while not paying them, that hits the perfect 10 in the hypocrisy scale

Sorry, I keep forgetting, Rands two fellow travelers who CHOSE not to suck off the teet of the collectivists, weren't the principled ones it was was Miss Rand who chose to indulge. Got it

Paying less in taxes is sucking off government. Gotcha, Karl. Of course, government taking money is government giving money, all money is the people's money.

Note you're still not man enough to respond to the part that while you demand Rand give government more money, you are actually OK with obama saying he should pay more taxes while proposing higher taxes, then not paying them

YOUR inability to be honest, EVER is noted Bubba

Ayn Rand who railed against collectivists and collectivism, unlike the other two fellow travelers, sucked hard on the teet of the collective as soon as she could!

OK with Obama paying the taxes he pays according to current law? Sure just like I think it was stupid of Romney to pay more than he was required to pay, just because he wanted to look better than he was on the tax system he fought for!

I fight for CHANGING the laws, (like Obama), not a voluntary taxing system, if I wanted that I'd try Greece or Somalia!


Now that ALL your talking points were demolished, what else do you have Bubba?

So Obama is following "current law." that's your standard, right? Well no Rand can't follow "current law" she has to give government money.

Even you have to feel butt hurt from that flagrant hypocrisy

I agree Bubs, I do feel the hypocracy from Rand who detested the collectivists but started sucking on the teet of it as soon as she could, the opposite of her other two travelers who had a principled stand against it!

 

[Dad2three]

Yet under Ronnie/Dubya those numbers STILL went up while under Clinton/Obama they went down. Weird...

Republicans can't stop thinking in partisan terms about anything, can you?

Yeah, says the guy who supports their policies.

Can't refute the FACTS huh bubs? Not surprised at your lack of even trying!

You support Republican policies WAY more than I do, dickless one

Sure Bubba, sure. We "believe" you...lol

"we?" so who are these hordes of Republicans hanging on your every word? Name them.

Just so you know, "I" is a far more powerful word than "we." Why? You can speak for "I." When you say "we" that means your dick isn't inflated without the approval of others. Others who don't exist

I think it's just about every honest person on this forum, that excludes most GOPers and Randian fetishists like yourself Bubs

 

[Dad2three]

It's not what they say, it's what they do. For example:

"Given the grinding budget battles of recent years, it’s almost hard to believe the federal government now employs the fewest people since the mid-1960s. Yet according to Friday’s jobs report, the federal government now employs 2,711,000 people (excluding non-civilian military). Among the economy’s largest job sectors, it was theonly one to shrink over the past year.

"Not since July 1966 has the federal government’s workforce been so small. (The spikes every decade are the hiring of several hundred thousand temporary workers to conduct the census.) Federal government hiring climbed in the 1960s, moved sideways in the 1970s, climbed to the highest level ever outside of a census in the 1980s, declined in the 1990s and then again held steady for most of the 2000s."

The Federal Government Now Employs the Fewest People Since 1966

That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively. Also, our military with technology is less direct manpower dependent, as well as they also use huge numbers of contractors for logistics they didn't do previously

Who built the Transcontinental RR? Oh yeah, "In 1862, the Pacific Railroad Act chartered the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific Railroad Companies, and tasked them with building a transcontinental railroad that would link the United States from east to west. Over the next seven years, the two companies would race toward each other from Sacramento, California on the one side and Omaha, Nebraska on the other, struggling against great risks before they met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869."

Looks like President Lincoln and The Congress had the idea to hire contractors 150 years ago.

"A list of modern day construction projects that demonstrate a construction company's ingenuity and creativity may very well begin with The Hoover Dam.

"The Hoover Dam was built by a construction company called Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies: Morrison-Knudsen Co., Utah Construction Co., J. F. Shea Co., Pacific Bridge Co., MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. and a joint venture of W. A. Bechtel Co., Henry J. Kaiser, and Warren Brothers. The reason these construction companies got together was simple: no single construction company could raise the $5 million needed to secure the performance bond."

Your comment, "That's because they use contractors now instead of direct employees, which they used to do exclusively" is a half-truth, aka, a lie by omission.

Gotcha, if the government ever hired contractors before then it's the same. one contractor = one million contractors. It's as much brainpower as you apply to anything else...

When caught in a lie, Kaz resorts to ad hominem.

Two graphic examples too prove his statement was untrue, and he doubles down on being dishonest.

Others may want to read about POGO:

About POGO

Our Work

Featured Investigations

POGO's Action Center

And,

Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors

When Wry's ad hominem gets ad hominem back, he cries and whines like a little bitch.

And none of your links still show actual content regarding the extent on contractors, only that contractors existed. that the founding fathers weren't anarchists doesn't make them marxists, completely contrary to your black and white world

Founders who got rid of that Articles of Confederation, the thing the libertarians should LOVE for that BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION? The Founders who gave US HEAVILY protected economy over Adam Smith's "free markets"? The guys who chose the socialized medicine and mandated not only employer funded insurance but BUYING and owning a gun for adult males? How very unMarxist of them right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

p

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

[Ayn Rand who railed against collectivists and collectivism

Your standard? Well, Obama said he should pay more taxes ... and didn't. What a hypocrite you are

OK with Obama paying the taxes he pays according to current law?

Your standard for your boy, Obama. Current law. Do you apply that standard to Rand? Um...no, she obviously got a little of her taxes back according to "current law," but you reject it. You are a hypocrite

[I fight for CHANGING the laws, (like Obama), not a voluntary taxing system

Actually, Holmes, you can donate taxes. Here you go.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Maybe the government will get an extra dollar this year from you and Obama combined. Probably not

Wait advocating for Gov't POLICY to have the richest pay higher taxes means by not VOLUNTARILY paying them makes you a hypocrite?



BUT railing against the collectivist society, like Rand did, but as soon as she was able to suck off the teet of the collective, unlike her two fellow travelers, DOESN'T?


THAT'S your premise Bubba? SERIOUSLY? LMAROG

 

[Dad2three]

Wrong, I agree with Sen. Sanders and so do many of our fellow citizens.
Do I think he could win the GE, likely not. What Sanders has done, and Trump too, is to change the discussion.

The Neo Cons are out in full force, pushing their agenda via Rubio and Fiorina. They will be rejected by the main stream voters - I's, R's and D's, IMO.

Sanders will be attacked as too far left which will take a toll, but I'll vote for him in the primary if he's on the ballot, for I believe our nation has moved too far too the right. Pick your poison - a POTUS who wants to "redistribute" the wealth, or one who wants to vote for the status quo - and keep us moving toward a Plutocracy.

The direction in which we are headed, is one which is sure to further divide our nation.

Our nation has never been more divided than it is today.

Redistribute wealth? Don't you mean more taxation? You can't redistribute wealth. All you can do is take from those who have it which does little for those who don't. They will see very little if any of that money while the greedy government will see most of it,

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Yep, those red staters voting against their pwn economic interests, and they wonder why they NEED to suck off the teet of the blue states? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Myopia seems to be fatal to your thinking, though I think you emote, for you surely don't consider all parts or elements of an issue.

Doing away with collective bargaining, Union busting, keeping a minimum wage stagnated and seeking new tax strategies which benefits the haves and harms the have nots is the scheme of plutocrats and their fellow travelers.

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

 

[Dad2three]

It's obvious, the callous conservatives won't awaken until ...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

...they find themselves the victims, when it is too late.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

It's unfortunate you chose to use a very thoughtful statement about history to support a rather pathetic partisan position.

LMAOROG

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many times have the "have-nots" been harmed by direct taxation? Taxation doesn't harm them. Many don't pay into the system anyway. How they are harmed is when the "haves" have to make up a loss somewhere from increased taxes. They get that money back through their employees or customers.

Union busting? Who is union busting these days?

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

 

[bripat9643]

It's obvious, the callous conservatives won't awaken until ...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

...they find themselves the victims, when it is too late.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

No one is putting union members in prison, numskull.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

p

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.