Even if repubs had full control of our government, there are zero policies to fix...

[Stephanie]

Zero huh?

boy oh boy, how did we ever get by until that Dear leader swooped down from the heavens above

cult worshippers are twistwed

 

[gipper]

Say good bye to the clean water, air and national parks
Say goodbye to nasa
Say good bye to the nws
Say goodbye to taxes on the rich
Say goodbye to the safety net
Say goodbye to public education = fuck you poor! Ovaler twist you don't get any today, sucker!
Say goodbye to the cdc
Say good bye to the fda
Say good bye to everything that has to do with a middle class.
Say good bye to banking regulations
Say good bye to monopoly regs

Fuck there isn't anything these assholes wouldn't do away with.

Really? If you believe that, you are out there were the buses don't run.

The Rs had control under Bush and all they did was expand government...just like Ds do. There is little difference between the parties, but the parties need dupes like you to keep the charade going...and you gladly comply like a little puppy dog.

 

[Billy000]

Say good bye to the clean water, air and national parks
Say goodbye to nasa
Say good bye to the nws
Say goodbye to taxes on the rich
Say goodbye to the safety net
Say goodbye to public education = fuck you poor! Ovaler twist you don't get any today, sucker!
Say goodbye to the cdc
Say good bye to the fda
Say good bye to everything that has to do with a middle class.
Say good bye to banking regulations
Say good bye to monopoly regs

Fuck there isn't anything these assholes wouldn't do away with.

Repubs won't understand the importance of government until a lack of it negatively affects their own lives. They lack the necessary cognitive empathy to see how it negatively affects others.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Zero huh?

boy oh boy, how did we ever get by until that Dear leader swooped down from the heavens above

cult worshippers are twistwed

We have the best science institutions on the planet
Once had the best infrastructure.

Why destroy and gut our first world nation because you hate Obama?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Say good bye to the clean water, air and national parks
Say goodbye to nasa
Say good bye to the nws
Say goodbye to taxes on the rich
Say goodbye to the safety net
Say goodbye to public education = fuck you poor! Ovaler twist you don't get any today, sucker!
Say goodbye to the cdc
Say good bye to the fda
Say good bye to everything that has to do with a middle class.
Say good bye to banking regulations
Say good bye to monopoly regs

Fuck there isn't anything these assholes wouldn't do away with.

Really? If you believe that, you are out there were the buses don't run.

The Rs had control under Bush and all they did was expand government...just like Ds do. There is little difference between the parties, but the parties need dupes like you to keep the charade going...and you gladly comply like a little puppy dog.

Losterian assholes like you want to defund them and make us a third world country. Do you ever wonder why the parties agree on these issues? Because we need them!

You like clean air and food?
You like driving your SUV over a well paved road?
You like meteorological warning.

Well, think about that the next time you whine about the parties agreeing.

 

[zeke]

He could be right Obama and the Democrats had full control for awhile and we know how that worked out.

Of course 2x many private jobs were created in Obama's first 4 years than all of Bush's 8. Oh, and the financial crisis happened on his watch.

The problem the majority of those jobs are lowing or part time not full time and high paying not the type people need or want. As for the financial crisis I refer you to Barney Frank in July of 2008.

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) July 14, 2008

Why would a staunch right winger like you need to quote the gay blade from Boston to make your case? Did you really believe Barney when he spoke those words? Fool. He was lying but you ate that bullshit up.

Pretty weak and funny to.

 

[gipper]

Say good bye to the clean water, air and national parks
Say goodbye to nasa
Say good bye to the nws
Say goodbye to taxes on the rich
Say goodbye to the safety net
Say goodbye to public education = fuck you poor! Ovaler twist you don't get any today, sucker!
Say goodbye to the cdc
Say good bye to the fda
Say good bye to everything that has to do with a middle class.
Say good bye to banking regulations
Say good bye to monopoly regs

Fuck there isn't anything these assholes wouldn't do away with.

Really? If you believe that, you are out there were the buses don't run.

The Rs had control under Bush and all they did was expand government...just like Ds do. There is little difference between the parties, but the parties need dupes like you to keep the charade going...and you gladly comply like a little puppy dog.

Losterian assholes like you want to defund them and make us a third world country. Do you ever wonder why the parties agree on these issues? Because we need them!

You like clean air and food?
You like driving your SUV over a well paved road?
You like meteorological warning.

Well, think about that the next time you whine about the parties agreeing.

This post contradicts your earlier post. You claimed in the earlier post, that Rs would eliminate government programs and then in this post, you claim the two parties agree on keeping government programs.

You can't have it both ways. Are the Rs going to eliminate government or not?

And to think we need a big centralized uncontrolled government, like the one we have, in order to have clean air and water, roads, and etc...is just completely ignorant.

 

[jknowgood]

He could be right Obama and the Democrats had full control for awhile and we know how that worked out.

Of course 2x many private jobs were created in Obama's first 4 years than all of Bush's 8. Oh, and the financial crisis happened on his watch.

That's why we have record number of people on welfare?

 

[Stephanie]

yep, record people on government assistance
more people have dropped in poverty status
record number of people not working
so we should erect a statue of Obama.... for that, ZERO

 

[Stephanie]

but there are zero policies that need fixed...and according to the Dear Leader and his cult followers, we are better off today than when he took office.
and this is from the NYslimes

SNIP:
Datapoints

The Typical Household, Now Worth a Third Less



By ANNA BERNASEKJULY 26, 2014

Credit Source: Russell Sage Foundation

Economic inequality in the United States has been receiving a lot of attention. But it’s not merely an issue of the rich getting richer. The typical American household has been getting poorer, too.

The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.

The Russell Sage study also examined net worth at the 95th percentile. (For households at that level, 94 percent of the population had less wealth and 4 percent had more.) It found that for this well-do-do slice of the population, household net worth increased 14 percent over the same 10 years. Other research, by economists like Edward Wolff at New York University, has shown even greater gains in wealth for the richest 1 percent of households.

all of it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-third-less.html?_r=1

 

[depotoo]

Removals vs returns: how to think about Obama's deportation record - Vox
Yearbook of Immigration Statistics | Homeland Security
From a biased source your way with explanation. He had to correct himself. He also still needs to correct himself on this years illegal immigrant numbers. Secondmlink are, to the actual tables for all years if you don't believe me or him.

It's not propaganda. It is a fact.

Here's how Obama's propaganda masters do their work - the changed the definition of deportation that was used during the Bush term and presto-chango:

The people who count in the “removals” numbers (which is what administration flacks mean when they boast of “deportations”) are legal immigrants who’ve committed crimes or illegal aliens caught inside the country. (The immigration statistics yearbook says, “Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.”) Those numbers do not include “returns,” who are Mexicans caught sneaking in by the Border Patrol and dumped back across. (The yearbook again: “Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.”)

The reason this matters is that, as Representative Smith determined, the administration has started counting certain “returns” as “removals” in order to artificially inflate the numbers and create a “record level” of deportations. Specifically, those illegals caught by the Border Patrol who are shuttled to a different town along the border before they’re returned are being dishonestly counted as deportations. The point of this Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) is to disrupt smuggling networks and make it harder to just keep crossing until you get through. But they’re still just returns, without any “administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry.” This has falsely increased the number of total removals by more than 100,000 in the past two years. Smith noted, “When the numbers from this Border Patrol program are removed from this year’s deportation data, it shows that removals are actually down nearly 20% from 2009.”​

I'll concede deporting illegals would be economically beneficial, but considering illegal immigration was a still a huge problem in 2000 when the economy was great, it is hardly a cure all. It is something that has been a problem for decades and the economy thrived for decades.

The economy has multiple factors influencing its performance. During the late 90s there was a boom in the economy and this was reflected in the labor market and illegals flocked in but the labor market was pretty tight during this period and so we didn't really see illegals driving citizens out of the market. Now we do. We have record low levels of workforce participation. This means that removing 20 million people from the labor market will SIGNIFICANTLY tighten up the labor market, will significantly increase wages and will significantly decrease income inequality.

Look, I get it. Liberals want to be nice and "caring" and they don't want to be mean to illegal infiltrators but at the same time they want to decrease poverty and decrease income inequality. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick which is most important to you.

These figures about deportation are not coming just from Obama. These are non partisan figures. That means Bush's figures had the same parameters. Either way, that is not at all evidenced that the main reason why our economy has been stagnant. You said yourself the economy is influenced by many factors.

 

[Darkwind]

These figures about deportation are not coming just from Obama.

It doesn't matter how many different news organization repeat the claim, they all rely on ONE source, the government's data. When that data is corrupted, then all of the downstream reporting is corrupted.

When Obama's administration changes the definition of deportation so that it is now different than how deportations during the Bush terms were counted, then we're no longer comparing apples to apples.

During Bush's terms "returns" were not counted as deportations, only "removals" counted as deportations. Now Obama counts both removals and returns and claims that deportations have increased when they have in fact decreased by 20%.

Think about it on a different level - when has a Democrat ever been honest about anything? Look at all of the lies that are always needed to sell Democratic policies, like immigration, like civil rights, etc so why would you expect a Democrat to report honestly on deportations?

Either way, that is not at all evidenced that the main reason why our economy has been stagnant. You said yourself the economy is influenced by many factors.

The economy is influenced by many factors but a good many of them, in fact probably all of them are interrelated. Just like you can't pull an isolated thread out of a tapestry without influencing the tapestry.

The problem we have in the economy is intimately tied in with labor force surpluses. Those surpluses work to depress wages and give disproportionate returns to capital. This is why rich people and big business LUV high immigration - it lowers their labor costs and allows them to keep the differential. The sell high immigration levels to the saps by pulling on heartstrings and using other tactics to influence the gullible.

If you want to lower income inequality then a.) stop importing poverty and b.) stop adding additional labor to the labor market. If we had choked off Hispanic immigration back in the early 90s, the progress made in our social welfare system would have almost removed every American citizen from poverty. Look back to the Washington Post report I linked. ALL our increases in poverty since 1990 have been from Hispanics.

The principle in discussion here is really quite simple - supply and demand. That's the only tool you need to fix what bothers you leftists so much - inequality. Make labor scarce and then employers have to keep increasing wages in order to attract and then to hold onto their employees. This will lower the returns to capital and increase the returns to labor. This is, by definition, a reduction in income inequality.

Excellent statement. Just to add, there is a second way to alleviate the labor glut in addition to removing an illicit work force.

Increase the number of jobs available to sustain a growth oriented economy. This means that we must create businesses of a high enough order that a skilled workforce is once again in demand.

That can and is directly affected by poor governmental policy toward an open and free business climate. Currently, business growth faces a tremendous disincentive climate due to excessive regulatory restrictions and punitive taxation in the form of social engineering.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...our economic problems. Tell me republicans, assuming they had full control over congress and the presidency, how would republicans fix the following problems:

1) Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. That means many people have NO CHOICE but to have low wage jobs that they can't support themselves with.

2) 1% of the top earners in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth. 95% of income gains in 2013 have gone to the top 95% of earners. In fact, wages for the bottom 5% have only increased 8% since the 30s despite productivity increasing 100%.

Tell me republicans - how would republicans fix these problems if, hypothetically, they had full control of congress and the presidency? Let me guess. Tax cuts? Yeah that won't do shit. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. All it will do is further increase our national debt. Face it, republican policies won't do shit to save this country.

Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs.

Another side effect of Obamacare.

 

[OKTexas]

Try reading the 321 House bills sitting on reids desk and get back to us.

Or how about you just answer my plainly worded questions?

Why bother when you clearly have no connection to reality? You've already made up your little pea brain and don't want to be bothered with facts. You get what you deserve.

 

[zeke]

...our economic problems. Tell me republicans, assuming they had full control over congress and the presidency, how would republicans fix the following problems:

1) Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. That means many people have NO CHOICE but to have low wage jobs that they can't support themselves with.

2) 1% of the top earners in this country own 40% of the nation's wealth. 95% of income gains in 2013 have gone to the top 95% of earners. In fact, wages for the bottom 5% have only increased 8% since the 30s despite productivity increasing 100%.

Tell me republicans - how would republicans fix these problems if, hypothetically, they had full control of congress and the presidency? Let me guess. Tax cuts? Yeah that won't do shit. Corporate profits are already at an all time high. All it will do is further increase our national debt. Face it, republican policies won't do shit to save this country.

[B]Since the recession hit, there has been a huge increase in low wage jobs and huge decrease in high wage jobs. [/B]

Another side effect of Obamacare.

Gee I wonder if that was a trend well before the Obama years and Obamacare? Why, yes it was a trend.

Gee I wonder if it has anything to do with that fact that people in job that made a product got paid more than those flipping a burger or running a cash register. Or mopping a floor or making a bed.

Problem is, around where I live, there are plenty of good paying manufacturing jobs going unfilled because the companies can't find high level employees with experience building things.

Gee how did that happen. Was it planned? Was it an accident? Who benefited from moving those manufacturing jobs away from the USA?

Does anyone know? Must of been fate.