Conservatives

[AnnECUCherry]

I knew this would happen once they stopped teaching logic.

Where's the logic in your attacking me because you used publicly available information incorrectly?

OK, let's try again. Unemployment was 17.4% under Hoover. It was called the Great Depression. With me so far?

FDR instituted huge publicly funded programs, such that we would call a Stimulus Plan today. He increased the government's portion of GDP from 2 % to 9 %. He increased it by 360%! The result: no perceptible improvement: unemployment, seven years later, was - guess what- 17.4%.

There is no import to the point that it grew to 24% while he was was "correcting" the unemployment."

Does unemployment represent an important factor in deciding if the New Deal was effective? Let FDR decide:
March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Get it?

I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

You continue to use the incorrect base figure for comparing unemployment rates.

The correct figure is 25%, as I have already pointed out.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

[
Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

Of course your attempted point is not supported by your quote. If a Black Woman's wages go from $1.00 to $1.79, her increase in wages is a whopping 79%. Whooppee! If a White male's incomes rises from $1,000,000.00 to $1,090,000.00 his gain in income is only 9%. Poor disadvantaged white male! How come nobody loves him. Boo hoo - better give him another 8 figure bonus so he doesn't go home sad and mournful.

Without specific figures you are merely blowing very smelly smoke out of your sphincter. Kudos to the WSJ for helping you in your self-deception! You shouldn't even expect a response to as poorly reasoned post as you presented here.

There are IDIOTS, all over the world reading this thinking: "This gal is an IMBECILE..." And it doesn't get any better, up the food chain sis...

Stay out of the voting booth, your presents within 10 miles of one is a crime against humanity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Baloney. "Liberals" are the ones willing to recognize the stultifying effects of being born not white, not straight, and/or not male.

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

You used a source that refuted your own point by referring to a "reduction in gaps."

Obviously, if there are gaps, there is not equality.

I see Remedial Reading in your future.

"the gaps among groups are declining." This means the system is working.

Based on how insipid your posts are, and how you attempt to latch onto peripheral points as though significant, I must believe that, although beaten regularly, you are so lonely and have such a jejune life, that you post simply to have something to do.

I suggest you go back to making toast with a hairdryer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, you failed miserably! CON$ervative "data" is always deliberately deceptive. Earned income does not include unrealized capital gains so the income of the wealthy is deliberately underestimated. Also your data doesn't include regressive taxes like payroll taxes so the tax burden of the wealthy is deliberately overestimated. Wage earners do pay a greater % of their income than they earn as wages, but the "rich" don't earn the bulk of their their income as wages, so the "rich" don't pay a higher % of taxes than the wealth they accumulate each year. Get it???


But the top 50% of wage earners are not the top 50% of capital wealth. The top 50% of wealth pay almost no taxes of any kind, income, payroll, inheritance, etc.
Is it fair that the people who benefit the most from the government protecting their right to private ownership of capital assets pay the least for that protection???

I love your lectures...
]

You have to love them, you can't rebut them, you can only mock them.

Ah, my poor, sad fellow-boardmember, ED-the Trash Basket (until you change the avatar):
Your claim to veracity is some supposed composite of wealth, hidden from view by the IRS.

That's it?

You don't acknowledge that income earned and wealth reported to the IRS is the basis for this discoussion?

Your plan is revealed: use fabricated "60 families" and hidden trillion as evidence?

I think it's time for you to replace the tin foil in your hat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another day, another inaccurate conception of the New Deal as "Keynesian"...or worse, "socialist."

You're the one who brought up the term 'socialist.'

Is that because you have the belt-buckle with the term?

BTW, you know that Keynes criticized FDR, don't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where's the logic in your attacking me because you used publicly available information incorrectly?

OK, let's try again. Unemployment was 17.4% under Hoover. It was called the Great Depression. With me so far?

FDR instituted huge publicly funded programs, such that we would call a Stimulus Plan today. He increased the government's portion of GDP from 2 % to 9 %. He increased it by 360%! The result: no perceptible improvement: unemployment, seven years later, was - guess what- 17.4%.

There is no import to the point that it grew to 24% while he was was "correcting" the unemployment."

Does unemployment represent an important factor in deciding if the New Deal was effective? Let FDR decide:
March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Get it?

I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

You continue to use the incorrect base figure for comparing unemployment rates.

The correct figure is 25%, as I have already pointed out.

Polly wanna cracker?

 

[edthecynic]

I love your lectures...
]

You have to love them, you can't rebut them, you can only mock them.

Ah, my poor, sad fellow-boardmember, ED-the Trash Basket (until you change the avatar [Now that I know that the OBSERVATORY (representing the observation skills of a Cynic) irritates you so much, I'll never change it. LOL]):
Your claim to veracity is some supposed composite of wealth, hidden from view by the IRS.

That's it?

You don't acknowledge that income earned and wealth reported to the IRS is the basis for this discoussion?

Your plan is revealed: use fabricated "60 families" and hidden trillion as evidence?

I think it's time for you to replace the tin foil in your hat.

Unrealized Capital Gains is not taxable so why would it have to be HIDDEN from the IRS??? Your desperation is OBVIOUS! LOL

If you check the disclaimer at the bottom of the chart in the CBO report you CON$ are using, it says only realized Cap Gains were counted as income. But every type of benefit for the middle class and poor is counted as income but the benefit from the increase in value of unrealized Capital Gains is not counted as income.

Notes:
Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is
the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the
employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contri-
butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
tance).
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

How many times will I have to correct you before you take a good look in the mirror?

And if you realize how wrong you are, when do you consider yourself, if I may use a Daily Kos term a 'liar'?

Read and repent:
"America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining. People are being rewarded in today's economy based on what they know and what they can do, not on the basis of who their parents are or the color of their skin."
New Evidence on Taxes and Income
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE
September 15, 2008; Page A23, WSJ

You used a source that refuted your own point by referring to a "reduction in gaps."

Obviously, if there are gaps, there is not equality.

I see Remedial Reading in your future.

"the gaps among groups are declining." This means the system is working.

Based on how insipid your posts are, and how you attempt to latch onto peripheral points as though significant, I must believe that, although beaten regularly, you are so lonely and have such a jejune life, that you post simply to have something to do.

I suggest you go back to making toast with a hairdryer.

"The system" that "is working" is affirmative action.

Did not this discussion include attacks on mechanisms designed to engender equality? Surely, you aren't suggesting that without direct government intervention these gains in equality would have taken place?

 

[WillowTree]

Can we say V-I-C-T-I-M now? oh woe is us,, oh woe is usuns

 

[SassyIrishLass]

THAT is total BS. If anything the playing field has tilted in the black's favor. Oh woe is me I was born a poor black child? Crap, take advantage of what's offered, man up and make something of yourself already. Many deserving people have been passed over due to affirmative action.

It's incredibly false to state that "the playing field has been tilted in the black's favor."

It hasn't? You have no idea what you are blabbering about..........again. I think what you are trying to assert is that blacks are at a disadvantage from the get go because they are black. THAT is "incredibily" false.

And this "many deserving people have been passed over due to affirmative action" is just more whining BS from people who don't understand -- or more likely, just don't want to recognize -- why a niche must be created for people who don't enjoy the benefits of the 'old boy network.'

Like the US Navy? You have no idea how many deserving people were passed over for promotion due to quotas and I have set in many meetings where those quotas were discussed in the very companies I have worked for. As for creating a niche? Thank you for proving my point.

As I posted on another thread, a lot of truth lies in the comment about people being born on third base and thinking they've hit a triple.

And there is the problem, if they work hard take advantage of what is offered they can get home........you can get home from first base also.

Too many advantaged people don't even acknowledge their advantage and try to pretend that their success is due to their "harrrd werrrk," without admitting that it is a result of the situation into which they were born.

Too many advantaged people? This is about those that are born into a situation where they have to work to get ahead but instead people like you want to just hand it to them w/o them working for it because of race. There is nothing stopping them from accomplishing that if they set their minds to it. Doesn't matter if they are black, white, red or purple.

I am sorry you've had to "set" in so many meetings.

Maybe one of them will cover how to reply to posts using the quote function.

Not that I am an expert myself -- I am still trying to figure out how to divide quotes so I can respond at varying points within the quote.

But you've managed to distort the original post to the point that posting it again results in misattribution.

Try again.

Remember, we ain't in Kansas no more, Toto.[/QUOTE]

Get real Annie, if anyone is capabale of distorting a thread it's you. You are the one that made this a class or situation matter and when you got caught you tried to backpedal. Same old Annie but on a new board........they'll wise up to you wait and see. As for using quote? As soon as you figure it out THEN you can comment on my abilities. How's that?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

OK, let's try again. Unemployment was 17.4% under Hoover. It was called the Great Depression. With me so far?

FDR instituted huge publicly funded programs, such that we would call a Stimulus Plan today. He increased the government's portion of GDP from 2 % to 9 %. He increased it by 360%! The result: no perceptible improvement: unemployment, seven years later, was - guess what- 17.4%.

There is no import to the point that it grew to 24% while he was was "correcting" the unemployment."

Does unemployment represent an important factor in deciding if the New Deal was effective? Let FDR decide:
March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Get it?

I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.

You continue to use the incorrect base figure for comparing unemployment rates.

The correct figure is 25%, as I have already pointed out.

Polly wanna cracker?

Do I need to explain this another way?

Okay. Here goes:

You balloon up to 300 pounds from your usual weight of 120.

You decide to invest in a weight loss program, home exercise equipment, and membership in a gym.

It works. You lower your weight to 120.

Are you going to suffer gladly the fool who insists that the money you spent did no good because, after all, you're at the same weight now you were previously?

Remember, this part of the discussion began with a question about whether 'stimulus' ever worked.

I replied that it did in the 1930's.

And it did. It, among other positive results, lowered the unemployment rate in the U.S. from a high of 25%.

Your 17%-percent-under-Hoover comparison is not valid because 17% was only one point in a rising unemployment rate. The FDR 'stimulus' lowered the rate from a high of 25%.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You continue to use the incorrect base figure for comparing unemployment rates.

The correct figure is 25%, as I have already pointed out.

Polly wanna cracker?

Do I need to explain this another way?

Okay. Here goes:

You balloon up to 300 pounds from your usual weight of 120.

You decide to invest in a weight loss program, home exercise equipment, and membership in a gym.

It works. You lower your weight to 120.

Are you going to suffer gladly the fool who insists that the money you spent did no good because, after all, you're at the same weight now you were previously?

Remember, this part of the discussion began with a question about whether 'stimulus' ever worked.

I replied that it did in the 1930's.

And it did. It, among other positive results, lowered the unemployment rate in the U.S. from a high of 25%.

Your 17%-percent-under-Hoover comparison is not valid because 17% was only one point in a rising unemployment rate. The FDR 'stimulus' lowered the rate from a high of 25%.

Rover wanna dog biscuit?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

It's incredibly false to state that "the playing field has been tilted in the black's favor."

It hasn't? You have no idea what you are blabbering about..........again. I think what you are trying to assert is that blacks are at a disadvantage from the get go because they are black. THAT is "incredibily" false.

And this "many deserving people have been passed over due to affirmative action" is just more whining BS from people who don't understand -- or more likely, just don't want to recognize -- why a niche must be created for people who don't enjoy the benefits of the 'old boy network.'

Like the US Navy? You have no idea how many deserving people were passed over for promotion due to quotas and I have set in many meetings where those quotas were discussed in the very companies I have worked for. As for creating a niche? Thank you for proving my point.

As I posted on another thread, a lot of truth lies in the comment about people being born on third base and thinking they've hit a triple.

And there is the problem, if they work hard take advantage of what is offered they can get home........you can get home from first base also.

Too many advantaged people don't even acknowledge their advantage and try to pretend that their success is due to their "harrrd werrrk," without admitting that it is a result of the situation into which they were born.

Too many advantaged people? This is about those that are born into a situation where they have to work to get ahead but instead people like you want to just hand it to them w/o them working for it because of race. There is nothing stopping them from accomplishing that if they set their minds to it. Doesn't matter if they are black, white, red or purple.

I am sorry you've had to "set" in so many meetings.

Maybe one of them will cover how to reply to posts using the quote function.

Not that I am an expert myself -- I am still trying to figure out how to divide quotes so I can respond at varying points within the quote.

But you've managed to distort the original post to the point that posting it again results in misattribution.

Try again.

Remember, we ain't in Kansas no more, Toto.

Get real Annie, if anyone is capabale of distorting a thread it's you. You are the one that made this a class or situation matter and when you got caught you tried to backpedal. Same old Annie but on a new board........they'll wise up to you wait and see. As for using quote? As soon as you figure it out THEN you can comment on my abilities. How's that?[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you the same thing I told PoliticalChic: You can't just insist you're right. You have to prove it.

And neither of you have disproved that inequity exists for people of color, people who are gay, and/or females.

And the point is that these inequities demonstrate that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities.

 

[WillowTree]

yessirrebibbitybob i think we can say victim now.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Polly wanna cracker?

Do I need to explain this another way?

Okay. Here goes:

You balloon up to 300 pounds from your usual weight of 120.

You decide to invest in a weight loss program, home exercise equipment, and membership in a gym.

It works. You lower your weight to 120.

Are you going to suffer gladly the fool who insists that the money you spent did no good because, after all, you're at the same weight now you were previously?

Remember, this part of the discussion began with a question about whether 'stimulus' ever worked.

I replied that it did in the 1930's.

And it did. It, among other positive results, lowered the unemployment rate in the U.S. from a high of 25%.

Your 17%-percent-under-Hoover comparison is not valid because 17% was only one point in a rising unemployment rate. The FDR 'stimulus' lowered the rate from a high of 25%.

Rover wanna dog biscuit?

???

I am to assume you can't continue your point?

 

[Agnapostate]

You're the one who brought up the term 'socialist.'

Is that because you have the belt-buckle with the term?

BTW, you know that Keynes criticized FDR, don't you?

I'm just trying to head off any inaccurate misconceptions about the New Deal. I've actually heard some claim that Keynesianism is a form of socialism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do I need to explain this another way?

Okay. Here goes:

You balloon up to 300 pounds from your usual weight of 120.

You decide to invest in a weight loss program, home exercise equipment, and membership in a gym.

It works. You lower your weight to 120.

Are you going to suffer gladly the fool who insists that the money you spent did no good because, after all, you're at the same weight now you were previously?

Remember, this part of the discussion began with a question about whether 'stimulus' ever worked.

I replied that it did in the 1930's.

And it did. It, among other positive results, lowered the unemployment rate in the U.S. from a high of 25%.

Your 17%-percent-under-Hoover comparison is not valid because 17% was only one point in a rising unemployment rate. The FDR 'stimulus' lowered the rate from a high of 25%.

Rover wanna dog biscuit?

???

I am to assume you can't continue your point?

It has been made eminently clear that you are one of those forum members who have no intention of arriving at the truth, but merely who will babble for the enjoyment of babbling.

My point has been made, clearly and completly- for those who are capable of understanding, and speaking of point, how about jumping in the lake to see if the point on your head will write under water.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Rover wanna dog biscuit?

???

I am to assume you can't continue your point?

It has been made eminently clear that you are one of those forum members who have no intention of arriving at the truth, but merely who will babble for the enjoyment of babbling.

My point has been made, clearly and completly- for those who are capable of understanding, and speaking of point, how about jumping in the lake to see if the point on your head will write under water.

You did propose your point.

However, you haven't proved it.

There is a difference.

And again, where is the logic in your attacking me because you used the wrong data?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many advantaged people? This is about those that are born into a situation where they have to work to get ahead but instead people like you want to just hand it to them w/o them working for it because of race. There is nothing stopping them from accomplishing that if they set their minds to it. Doesn't matter if they are black, white, red or purple.

I am sorry you've had to "set" in so many meetings.

Maybe one of them will cover how to reply to posts using the quote function.

Not that I am an expert myself -- I am still trying to figure out how to divide quotes so I can respond at varying points within the quote.

But you've managed to distort the original post to the point that posting it again results in misattribution.

Try again.

Remember, we ain't in Kansas no more, Toto.

Get real Annie, if anyone is capabale of distorting a thread it's you. You are the one that made this a class or situation matter and when you got caught you tried to backpedal. Same old Annie but on a new board........they'll wise up to you wait and see. As for using quote? As soon as you figure it out THEN you can comment on my abilities. How's that?

I'll tell you the same thing I told PoliticalChic: You can't just insist you're right. You have to prove it.

And neither of you have disproved that inequity exists for people of color, people who are gay, and/or females.

And the point is that these inequities demonstrate that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities.[/QUOTE]

PoliticalChic cleaned your proverbial clock Annie and again anyone that really wants to get ahead can.........it's simple but to you there has to be a victim somewhere. I mean seriously you are a Liberal...eh?

 

[AnnECUCherry]

I am sorry you've had to "set" in so many meetings.

Maybe one of them will cover how to reply to posts using the quote function.

Not that I am an expert myself -- I am still trying to figure out how to divide quotes so I can respond at varying points within the quote.

But you've managed to distort the original post to the point that posting it again results in misattribution.

Try again.

Remember, we ain't in Kansas no more, Toto.

Get real Annie, if anyone is capabale of distorting a thread it's you. You are the one that made this a class or situation matter and when you got caught you tried to backpedal. Same old Annie but on a new board........they'll wise up to you wait and see. As for using quote? As soon as you figure it out THEN you can comment on my abilities. How's that?

I'll tell you the same thing I told PoliticalChic: You can't just insist you're right. You have to prove it.

And neither of you have disproved that inequity exists for people of color, people who are gay, and/or females.

And the point is that these inequities demonstrate that everyone doesn't have the same opportunities.

PoliticalChic cleaned your proverbial clock Annie and again anyone that really wants to get ahead can.........it's simple but to you there has to be a victim somewhere. I mean seriously you are a Liberal...eh?[/QUOTE]

Prove that "anyone that really wants to get ahead can."

Factor discrimination into your response. Don't just pretend it doesn't exist.