Democrats Give Trillions of Our Money Away, but Question Giving a Token Back to American Taxpayers

[22lcidw]

Seriously? In February last year Donald knew how contagious and deadly this virus was and he lied to us about it because he didn’t want to shut the economy down. It was an election year. It wasn’t about what’s best for Americans it was about him.

And 500,000 people died. 500,000. How many died in Benghazi?

Trump lied 500,000 people died.

4,400 U.S. soldiers died looking for WMDs that we knew weren`t there and you`re dragging Biden into it? You got a whole lot of crazy shit going on but that`s what Newsmax does to people. Go to dumb news sites and "learn" dumb shit. Carry on.

4,400 U.S. soldiers died looking for WMDs

DAMN YOU BIDEN AND HILLARY FOR PUSHING FOR WAR!!

Bush and Cheney were responsible for this idiocy.

Now get your Prog Boys to eliminate the Patriot Act, tame the TSA and then remove Homeland Security in all ways except the parts you like. That is to start. Bush and Cheney played their hands in that. Just like Beijing Biden is a bigot and racist. And that means there are more of them in your Party. And as the nation slowly becomes poorer, the resources doled out will decline. Or if the peasant is taxed to extortion, he will just stop working and find other ways to survive.

 

[Markle]

Seriously? In February last year Donald knew how contagious and deadly this virus was and he lied to us about it because he didn’t want to shut the economy down. It was an election year. It wasn’t about what’s best for Americans it was about him.

And 500,000 people died. 500,000. How many died in Benghazi?

Trump lied 500,000 people died.

4,400 U.S. soldiers died looking for WMDs that we knew weren`t there and you`re dragging Biden into it? You got a whole lot of crazy shit going on but that`s what Newsmax does to people. Go to dumb news sites and "learn" dumb shit. Carry on.

4,400 U.S. soldiers died looking for WMDs

DAMN YOU BIDEN AND HILLARY FOR PUSHING FOR WAR!!

Bush and Cheney were responsible for this idiocy.

Why do you so desperately continue to post the same ol' proven LIE? Aside from these quotes, you also know that our Congress supported and voted for the use of force as did the United Nations after dozens of resolutions also authorized the use of force against Iran.

"The United Nations issued its 67th resolution of condemnation over the Iranian regime’s human rights violations on December 16. Less than a week after the UN resolution, the regime executed 14 prisoners, showing its absolute defiance of international norms, condemnations, and human rights standards."
###
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “
###
[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
###
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .
###
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
###
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
###
“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
###
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998
###
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
###
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
###
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
###
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .
###
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .
###
Former Vice President Joe Biden urged the U.S. government in 1998 to pursue a strategy to ‘dethrone’ Saddam Hussein over allegations the Iraqi strongman was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Biden, the-then ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was one of President Bill Clinton’s most vocal allies in the battle to pressure Hussein to abide by terms established after the Gulf War requiring Iraq to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons. - Former Vice President Joe Biden 1998 1998: Joe Biden Urged U.S. to 'Dethrone' Saddam Hussein Over WMDs
###
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .
###
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
###
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .
###
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
###
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .
###
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
###
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .
###
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
###
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
###
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
###
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
###
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .
###
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
###
I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

###

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.

###

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)



###

He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

 

[Oddball]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

 

[dudmuck]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

 

[Oddball]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

The funding for that "21% of GDP" comes from somewhere, Karl....Care to tell the class who earns those funds first?

BTW, you have no Product (i.e. the "P") when you don't produce anything.

 

[AntonToo]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

The funding for that "21% of GDP" comes from somewhere, Karl....Care to tell the class who earns those funds first?

BTW, you have no Product (i.e. the "P") when you don't produce anything.

Dummy, I've just explained you that it's funded by debt in large part. Last stimulus was credit. Wars on credit. New stimulus on credit.

Also, Government creates plenty of product, it's completely nuts to say it doesn't.

When you get $1200 check or paycheck from the Feds and spend it, that's product. When feds spend on defense, infrastructure, education or medical research that's OF COURSE product.

I swear, some of you rightwingers live on the fn moon.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

The funding for that "21% of GDP" comes from somewhere, Karl....Care to tell the class who earns those funds first?

BTW, you have no Product (i.e. the "P") when you don't produce anything.

Dummy, I've just explained you that it's funded by debt in large part. Last stimulus was credit. Wars on credit. New stimulus on credit.

Also, Government creates plenty of product, it's completely nuts to say it doesn't.

When you get $1200 check or paycheck from the Feds and spend it, that's product. When feds spend on defense, infrastructure, education or medical research that's OF COURSE product.

I swear, some of you rightwingers live on the fn moon.

Name one product government produces.
Just one.
And while you’re at it, link to where we can buy this product.

 

[Oddball]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

The funding for that "21% of GDP" comes from somewhere, Karl....Care to tell the class who earns those funds first?

BTW, you have no Product (i.e. the "P") when you don't produce anything.

Dummy, I've just explained you that it's funded by debt in large part. Last stimulus was credit. Wars on credit. New stimulus on credit.

Also, Government creates plenty of product, it's completely nuts to say it doesn't.

When you get $1200 check or paycheck from the Feds and spend it, that's product. When feds spend on defense, infrastructure, education or medical research that's OF COURSE product.

I swear, some of you rightwingers live on the fn moon.

Ahhh, the stale old an thoroughly debunked broken window fallacy raises its tired old head again.

So it's funded by debt, which inflates the currency, which is a defacto tax, which hits hardest those least able to afford it, dummy.

Oh, and debt isn't a "product" by an stretch of your deluded imagination, dummy.

Face it, you haven't the first fucking idea of what you're blabbering about.

 

[sealybobo]

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

 

[AntonToo]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

The funding for that "21% of GDP" comes from somewhere, Karl....Care to tell the class who earns those funds first?

BTW, you have no Product (i.e. the "P") when you don't produce anything.

Dummy, I've just explained you that it's funded by debt in large part. Last stimulus was credit. Wars on credit. New stimulus on credit.

Also, Government creates plenty of product, it's completely nuts to say it doesn't.

When you get $1200 check or paycheck from the Feds and spend it, that's product. When feds spend on defense, infrastructure, education or medical research that's OF COURSE product.

I swear, some of you rightwingers live on the fn moon.

Ahhh, the stale old an thoroughly debunked broken window fallacy raises its tired old head again.

So it's funded by debt, which inflates the currency, which is a defacto tax, which hits hardest those least able to afford it, dummy.

Oh, and debt isn't a "product" by an stretch of your deluded imagination, dummy.

Face it, you haven't the first fucking idea of what you're blabbering about.

Stop beclowning yourself with your little sandbox economics.

Inflation has been low and well under control dumbass. Maybe you should check with reality before posting your insane, ignorant garbage you come to believe not out of familiarity with the subject, but out of political drivel some mouthpiece on the radio fed you.

 

[sealybobo]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP in 2020 slot if which is financed by debt.

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

Just think if we DOUBLE SPENDING how much better the economy would be!!

It would be short term growing through the roof and mid-to-long term collapsing as our debt becomes unsustainable and interest rates shoot up.

JUST PRINT MORE MONEY!!

First time you’ve said that in four years. What’s changed?

 

[AntonToo]

The DC swamp creatures say eat cake.
Gender studies in Pakistan is more important than our homeless shivering on the street.

Biden tells Democrats he's willing to target COVID relief checks, but not shrink them — ABC News

He said he wants the checks to stay at $1,400 so he won't break a "promise."

apple.news

Republicans want to give nothing.

Only hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have.

"Nothing".....roflmfao

Wait. We had the money in 2016 for Trump to give rich people the biggest tax break in US history but we don't have the money now to give away? Flip flop much?

People keeping what's theirs to begin with isn't "giving away" anything...It's their money not the gubmint's, you economic ignoramus.

The government needed that money. You have to pay your taxes. And if we have a debt, maybe your taxes need to go up. Yea yea, cut more spending. We've heard that before. What spending would you like to cut?

Irrelevant to the point....The money belongs to the people who earned it.....Claiming that tax cuts "cost the gumbmint money" presumes that it's not your money in the first place.

And if the gubmint is so strapped, they should cut ther spoending and shutter some bureaucracies, like people in businesses have to do when their balance sheets are off.

I see we have a deep recession afecianado in the house.

I see we have another economic dilettante in the house....Gubmint produces nothing of added value for the economy.

As a matter of basic economics you are dead wrong.

Federal Spending makes up about 25% of American GDP, a lot of which is financed by deficit (not taxes).

If you believe you can significantly cut this without contracting general economy then you simply don't know wtf you are talking about. Your economic understandings add up to politico fairy tales.

And if that 25% were left in the private sector, rather than expropriated to pay bureaucrats who produce nothing, people would just stuff the extra money in their mattresses....Right?

You wouldn't know sound macroeconomic understanding if it kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.

federal spending is about 21 percent of GDP, but the vast majority of it goes back either to the tax payers or private sector.

The funding for that "21% of GDP" comes from somewhere, Karl....Care to tell the class who earns those funds first?

BTW, you have no Product (i.e. the "P") when you don't produce anything.

Dummy, I've just explained you that it's funded by debt in large part. Last stimulus was credit. Wars on credit. New stimulus on credit.

Also, Government creates plenty of product, it's completely nuts to say it doesn't.

When you get $1200 check or paycheck from the Feds and spend it, that's product. When feds spend on defense, infrastructure, education or medical research that's OF COURSE product.

I swear, some of you rightwingers live on the fn moon.

Name one product government produces.
Just one.
And while you’re at it, link to where we can buy this product.

...I just did exactly that in the post you quoted. What the f is your malfunction?

 

[Markle]

Name one product government produces.
Just one.
And while you’re at it, link to where we can buy this product.

CHECKS! It is the one thing government effectively produces, writing checks.

 

[Markle]

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY that you refused to include your reliable sources and working links supporting your statement that it was the increases in the minimum wage "all over the country" that raised wages nationwide. Go figure!

You just demand to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding the Trump economy, are you not? In simpler words, why are you always lying?

 

[toobfreak]

Crumbs!

Where's my $20,000? First the democrats refuse to let me catch Covid keeping me alive, then refuse to allow me to work for a year, then Joe defines poverty as anything below $31,200, and now offers me $2,000 for it all while telling me I might not even get my shot until next summer?

Where's my fucking $31,000, Joe? the LEAST you can do is keep me at your poverty level!

 

[Bobob]

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY that you refused to include your reliable sources and working links supporting your statement that it was the increases in the minimum wage "all over the country" that raised wages nationwide. Go figure!

You just demand to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding the Trump economy, are you not? In simpler words, why are you always lying?

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY that you refused to include your reliable sources and working links supporting your statement that it was the increases in the minimum wage "all over the country" that raised wages nationwide. Go figure!

You just demand to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding the Trump economy, are you not? In simpler words, why are you always lying?

Your Joe Bidens "decisions" are overflowing with innuendos, falsehoods, ignorance, and half-truths (the full context be damned).

"The truly shocking story of how Biden used U.S. aid to have the Ukrainian government fire the very prosecutor investigating him and his son." This is one example of a half-truth.

 

[sealybobo]

Crumbs!

Where's my $20,000? First the democrats refuse to let me catch Covid keeping me alive, then refuse to allow me to work for a year, then Joe defines poverty as anything below $31,200, and now offers me $2,000 for it all while telling me I might not even get my shot until next summer?

Where's my fucking $31,000, Joe? the LEAST you can do is keep me at your poverty level!

Are you out of work still?

 

[Bobob]

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY that you refused to include your reliable sources and working links supporting your statement that it was the increases in the minimum wage "all over the country" that raised wages nationwide. Go figure!

You just demand to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding the Trump economy, are you not? In simpler words, why are you always lying?

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY that you refused to include your reliable sources and working links supporting your statement that it was the increases in the minimum wage "all over the country" that raised wages nationwide. Go figure!

You just demand to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding the Trump economy, are you not? In simpler words, why are you always lying?

I love it. Trump taking credit for the fact minimum wage went up in 2019. But it wasn't Trump who raised the minimum wage. And it wasn't Republicans in those states who raise the minimum wage. Yet here you are giving Trump credit for these minimum wage increases.

In a few cities and states, just as they did during the failed Obama administration. Please show us where those few increases in the minimum wage, in a few places, affected the wages of the entire country.

Your reliable source, not your wishes are not relevant will be appreciated along with your working links.

You show us a smart right wing article explaining how little the minimum wage increases impacted the numbers. Otherwise, minimum wage went up all over the country.

And you show us how wages helped people who make under $100,000 compared to the employees who make more than $100,000 a year. Yes wages went up under trump but how much went to the top?

The answer is too much.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY that you refused to include your reliable sources and working links supporting your statement that it was the increases in the minimum wage "all over the country" that raised wages nationwide. Go figure!

You just demand to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding the Trump economy, are you not? In simpler words, why are you always lying?

Your list of Joe Biden's "DECISIONS" is overflowing with falsehoods, innuendos,
half-truths and contexts (the full context be damned).

One example: "The truly shocking story of how Biden used U.S. aid to have the Ukrainian government fire the very prosecutor investigating him and his son."
Biden was sent to Ukraine by Obama, along with 40 officials from other countries, to demand that the Ukraine president fire a corrupt prosecutor or forego U.S aid. This had nothing to do with your "shocking" insinuation.

• So please be honest in your evaluations because you have mostly reinvented history right down the line.

 

[Bobob]

Seriously? In February last year Donald knew how contagious and deadly this virus was and he lied to us about it because he didn’t want to shut the economy down. It was an election year. It wasn’t about what’s best for Americans it was about him.

And 500,000 people died. 500,000. How many died in Benghazi?

Trump lied 500,000 people died.

4,400 U.S. soldiers died looking for WMDs that we knew weren`t there and you`re dragging Biden into it? You got a whole lot of crazy shit going on but that`s what Newsmax does to people. Go to dumb news sites and "learn" dumb shit. Carry on.

4,400 U.S. soldiers died looking for WMDs

DAMN YOU BIDEN AND HILLARY FOR PUSHING FOR WAR!!

Bush and Cheney were responsible for this idiocy.

Now get your Prog Boys to eliminate the Patriot Act, tame the TSA and then remove Homeland Security in all ways except the parts you like. That is to start. Bush and Cheney played their hands in that. Just like Beijing Biden is a bigot and racist. And that means there are more of them in your Party. And as the nation slowly becomes poorer, the resources doled out will decline. Or if the peasant is taxed to extortion, he will just stop working and find other ways to survive.

Your response has no relevance. Patriot Act? TSA? Homeland Security?
Biden a racist and bigot? More of them in our party? Peasant taxed to extortion?
What are you talking about?? Iraq, yes?