Forget Econ Stats, Do Americans Feel Economic Exhuberance or Malaise?

[kaz]

Who says? Why? Less is more?

Ten percent is the rate that has been shown through history that when taxes are at or below that rate, people feel that the taxes they pay are fair. There is very little tax evasion and people do not make decisions based on taxes. Every empire in the history of man arose with rates at 10% or less. Every empire fell with them higher. Interestingly the bible also picks 10% as the rate of tithing. I am not religious, I'm not arguing it's a "because the bible says" thing. I'm just saying that for some reason 10% if considered fair in our basic makeup.

So in fact, government revenue peaks at 10%. Lower, government is "leaving money on the table." People would pay more. Increasing taxes above that does not raise revenue because people just work that much harder to not pay them. And their efforts to evade taxes harm the economy. You want people investing and spending freely.

If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization."

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/For-Good-Evil-Impact-Civilization/dp/1568332351]For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The book is fascinating.

"If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization.""

TALKING ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE THINKING HUH? lol

Talk about talking out of your ass about a book you haven't read regarding a post you didn't understand.

 

[kaz]

Just MORE right wing GARBAGE

I stopped reading here, you know why.

 

[EconChick]

Wow DaddyO, when your arguments have all been flattened, by all means, turn to a diversion about whether someone is Republican or Libertarian or a Green-Eyed Martian.

Your tack is pathetic. If you were on a sailboat, this tack would run you into the mud.

 

[EconChick]

Ten percent is the rate that has been shown through history that when taxes are at or below that rate, people feel that the taxes they pay are fair. There is very little tax evasion and people do not make decisions based on taxes. Every empire in the history of man arose with rates at 10% or less. Every empire fell with them higher. Interestingly the bible also picks 10% as the rate of tithing. I am not religious, I'm not arguing it's a "because the bible says" thing. I'm just saying that for some reason 10% if considered fair in our basic makeup.

So in fact, government revenue peaks at 10%. Lower, government is "leaving money on the table." People would pay more. Increasing taxes above that does not raise revenue because people just work that much harder to not pay them. And their efforts to evade taxes harm the economy. You want people investing and spending freely.

If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization."

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books


The book is fascinating.

"If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization.""

TALKING ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE THINKING HUH? lol

Talk about talking out of your ass about a book you haven't read regarding a post you didn't understand.

LOL, Kaz, if you were on Twitter, that would probably get retweeted about 60,000 times. LMAO.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Laugh My Fucking Ass Off, Everybody.

NEWS FLASH. Jakey Fakey thinks economic/consumer confidence has nothing to do with Obama's Unpopularity!!


Holy shit, the more you talk Fakey the more you dig your hole.

First of all, Obama has been popular for 5 years IN SPITE of all the things he's fucked up. Now the masses are finally realizing they backed a loser and that reality is now showing up in the popularity polls.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about popularity polls, I was talking specifically about the polls that rate his performance in each category.

He is WAY DOWN when they're asked about the economy.

Good Lord you're inept.

It must be tough trying to support a loser. I do feel for you.

Given that we've proven to you that consumer confidence is UP from where it was when Bush left,

you're not making much of an argument for putting the Republicans back in power.

And here is where my attempt to explain non-linear math keeps preventing peeps' understanding of why your assessments are wrong.

1) The Financial crash was caused by both parties and many actors, going back for numerous years. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that.

2) Bush's econ numbers were great before the impact of this crash hit them. The tremendous negative numbers coming from THIS event completely skewed his overall numbers. Any objective person knows they don't deserve to all be given to Bush. But that's what you libs keep doing. He certainly should get partial blame but not full blame.

Now if you're a dishonest slug like Daddy2three who only spurts propaganda, you will claim the crash was 100% Bush's fault.

But we all know he's nothing but a discredited hack.

3) For those of us who know ALL President's numbers are calculated objectively by algorithms and not simple, linear math.... we know that simple minded hacks like D23 are as ignorant as they come.

In other words, you have to honestly go through each presidency giving some positives here and some negatives there for the many variables. We economists (of all political colors) fight over how this WEIGHTING gets done, but sophisticated analysts do the WEIGHTING.

So when you see someone who talks in 2+2=4 terms, you should stop wasting your time even listening to them.

Oh that's quite an argument.

...Bush's numbers were great if you take out the numbers that weren't....

Inform whoever is telling you how to think that he shouldn't quit his day job.

 

[Dad2three]

THE PREMISE:

""You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM""



FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WHY DIDN'T IT WORK?

You know because you rant, don't respond to points and don't address what I said, I tend to not want to bother. But I'll give you a chance. If you want me to respond to future questions, you have to demonstrate you grasp what I said here. You do not have to agree with it, but you can't rant about things I didn't say as if it has anything to do with what I did say.

The reason is because you are only counting taxes as being the money which taken from the economy directly into the general treasury. Those are only a portion of the taxes. Four big things you are missing are:

1) Other Federal taxes, like FICA taxes which are far higher than they were then.

2) State and local taxes which are generally far higher than they were then.

3) Printing money. Let's say if you add up the value of all assets in the country, they are worth $1 million. Now let's say nothing changes except the treasury prints $100,000. Now the total size of the money supply is now $1.1 million. However, they created no value, just printed more money. They have $100,000 that came from the value of people who own all the assets, they took your money. It is a stealth tax.

4) Mandates. When government forces employers to overpay for employees, provide them with benefits they would not receive without the mandate, comply with regulations, ... All of those things are in reality taxes on the economy regardless that government didn't get a check, and government mandates are massively higher.

YOUR PREMISE, LESS TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY VIA TAXES, AND THE ECONOMY WILL DO BETTER!

Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com




January 15, 2004

TOTAL REVENUES FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT DROP TO LOWEST SHARE OF ECONOMY SINCE 1968

Combined federal, state, and local revenues fell in fiscal year 2003 to their lowest level, measured as a share of the economy, since 1968.



Highlights

In fiscal year 2003, as a share of the economy:

Total government revenues (federal, state, and local combined) declined to their lowest level since 1968.

Total federal revenues declined to their lowest level since 1959.

Federal income taxes fell to their lowest level since 1942.

State and local revenues were lower than since 1988.

Total Revenues From All Levels Of Government Drop To Lowest Share Of Economy Since 1968, 1/15/04

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

Of course it was. It had real data in it. And this post here? Where's the data dumbass? You're the one using generalizations about the Confidence Index without putting it into any detailed context. I was the one that drilled down and explained it.

Self-loathing? LOL, if I suffer from anything, it's too much self-esteem darlin.

Now you're down to baby talk since you're not only out of data that supports this idiot president, you're also out of cool one-liners for your personal attacks.

When the opposition gets to this low of a point in a debate, you KNOW they've completely lost the debate.

Jakey Fakey, you and your allies on this thread are the lowest caliber libs I've ever debated anywhere. Hate to hurt your feelings but sharp liberals would disown you, sweetheart.

you are trolling your own thread because you can't defend the OP

 

[EconChick]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

True.

But the OP wants everyone to “Forget Econ Stats,” ignore facts and evidence, and go with subjective, partisan rhetoric that comports with the errant agenda of the right.

Really? What do you call the data I just posted to explain how you Obummer synchophants can't even put surveys into context?

You're right. No stats, no facts, no evidence there.

Next stupid post?

 

[JakeStarkey]

THE PREMISE:

""You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM""



FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WHY DIDN'T IT WORK?

You know because you rant, don't respond to points and don't address what I said, I tend to not want to bother. But I'll give you a chance. If you want me to respond to future questions, you have to demonstrate you grasp what I said here. You do not have to agree with it, but you can't rant about things I didn't say as if it has anything to do with what I did say.

The reason is because you are only counting taxes as being the money which taken from the economy directly into the general treasury. Those are only a portion of the taxes. Four big things you are missing are:

1) Other Federal taxes, like FICA taxes which are far higher than they were then.

2) State and local taxes which are generally far higher than they were then.

3) Printing money. Let's say if you add up the value of all assets in the country, they are worth $1 million. Now let's say nothing changes except the treasury prints $100,000. Now the total size of the money supply is now $1.1 million. However, they created no value, just printed more money. They have $100,000 that came from the value of people who own all the assets, they took your money. It is a stealth tax.

4) Mandates. When government forces employers to overpay for employees, provide them with benefits they would not receive without the mandate, comply with regulations, ... All of those things are in reality taxes on the economy regardless that government didn't get a check, and government mandates are massively higher.

YOUR PREMISE, LESS TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY VIA TAXES, AND THE ECONOMY WILL DO BETTER!

Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com




January 15, 2004

TOTAL REVENUES FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT DROP TO LOWEST SHARE OF ECONOMY SINCE 1968

Combined federal, state, and local revenues fell in fiscal year 2003 to their lowest level, measured as a share of the economy, since 1968.



Highlights

In fiscal year 2003, as a share of the economy:

Total government revenues (federal, state, and local combined) declined to their lowest level since 1968.

Total federal revenues declined to their lowest level since 1959.

Federal income taxes fell to their lowest level since 1942.

State and local revenues were lower than since 1988.

Total Revenues From All Levels Of Government Drop To Lowest Share Of Economy Since 1968, 1/15/04

Just so.

And the glibertarians and the far wacky reactionary righties can only ad hom and personal attack.

They have nothing.

 

[Dad2three]

Just MORE right wing GARBAGE

I stopped reading here, you know why.

3rd grade reading comprehension?

 

[Dad2three]

Ten percent is the rate that has been shown through history that when taxes are at or below that rate, people feel that the taxes they pay are fair. There is very little tax evasion and people do not make decisions based on taxes. Every empire in the history of man arose with rates at 10% or less. Every empire fell with them higher. Interestingly the bible also picks 10% as the rate of tithing. I am not religious, I'm not arguing it's a "because the bible says" thing. I'm just saying that for some reason 10% if considered fair in our basic makeup.

So in fact, government revenue peaks at 10%. Lower, government is "leaving money on the table." People would pay more. Increasing taxes above that does not raise revenue because people just work that much harder to not pay them. And their efforts to evade taxes harm the economy. You want people investing and spending freely.

If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization."

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization: Charles Adams: 9781568332352: Amazon.com: Books


The book is fascinating.

"If this is a serious question, here's a great book by Charles Adams that retells history and the rise and fall of empires through their tax policy and how it directly drove their success and failures. The book is, "For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization.""

TALKING ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE THINKING HUH? lol

Talk about talking out of your ass about a book you haven't read regarding a post you didn't understand.

Yes, because a book premised on success and failure of EMPIRES and the role of taxation that "directly drove their success and failures." needs to be taken seriously? lol

I bet my university profs would've LOVED to teach from such an ideological driven book *shaking head*

 

[EconChick]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

Of course it was. It had real data in it. And this post here? Where's the data dumbass? You're the one using generalizations about the Confidence Index without putting it into any detailed context. I was the one that drilled down and explained it.

Self-loathing? LOL, if I suffer from anything, it's too much self-esteem darlin.

Now you're down to baby talk since you're not only out of data that supports this idiot president, you're also out of cool one-liners for your personal attacks.

When the opposition gets to this low of a point in a debate, you KNOW they've completely lost the debate.

Jakey Fakey, you and your allies on this thread are the lowest caliber libs I've ever debated anywhere. Hate to hurt your feelings but sharp liberals would disown you, sweetheart.

you are trolling your own thread because you can't defend the OP

LOL, and then when you COMPLETELY run out of ANY stats that support reality on the ground, and you run out of posts replete with funny or even corny personal attacks, then you have nothing more to post

Like this dumbass post. Thanks Fakey, I gotta go, but you sure have made my day. I haven't done this much laughing in months.

 

[Dad2three]

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

Socialism is a centrally planned economy. You will see it written different ways, but that is what it boils down to.

Got it, you'll throw out a false premise AND NEVER ANSWER WHY THE US ECONOMY DIDN'T BOOM UNDER DUBYA, EVEN THOUGH HE TOOK AROUND 25% LESS TAX REVENUES OUT OF THE ECONOMY. lol

Read the post after this one and what you have to do if you want me to answer these questions.

Now what if you answer mine. Name a policy I support Republicans which is not libertarian.

I showed ALL levels of Gov't taxation were RECORD lows under Dubya, from 2003-2007 in FACT. HMM. Why didn't the economy boom again? lol



"Name a policy I support Republicans which is not libertarian"


NEVER said you did, but I bet you VOTE GOPers at MUCH greater rates, and GOPers ECONOMIC policy YOU support NEVER works for ANYONE but 1%ers, EVER!

 

[NYcarbineer]

THE PREMISE:

""You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gov't? HMM""



FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WHY DIDN'T IT WORK?

You know because you rant, don't respond to points and don't address what I said, I tend to not want to bother. But I'll give you a chance. If you want me to respond to future questions, you have to demonstrate you grasp what I said here. You do not have to agree with it, but you can't rant about things I didn't say as if it has anything to do with what I did say.

The reason is because you are only counting taxes as being the money which taken from the economy directly into the general treasury. Those are only a portion of the taxes. Four big things you are missing are:

1) Other Federal taxes, like FICA taxes which are far higher than they were then.

2) State and local taxes which are generally far higher than they were then.

3) Printing money. Let's say if you add up the value of all assets in the country, they are worth $1 million. Now let's say nothing changes except the treasury prints $100,000. Now the total size of the money supply is now $1.1 million. However, they created no value, just printed more money. They have $100,000 that came from the value of people who own all the assets, they took your money. It is a stealth tax.

4) Mandates. When government forces employers to overpay for employees, provide them with benefits they would not receive without the mandate, comply with regulations, ... All of those things are in reality taxes on the economy regardless that government didn't get a check, and government mandates are massively higher.

YOUR PREMISE, LESS TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY VIA TAXES, AND THE ECONOMY WILL DO BETTER!

Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com




January 15, 2004

TOTAL REVENUES FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT DROP TO LOWEST SHARE OF ECONOMY SINCE 1968

Combined federal, state, and local revenues fell in fiscal year 2003 to their lowest level, measured as a share of the economy, since 1968.



Highlights

In fiscal year 2003, as a share of the economy:

Total government revenues (federal, state, and local combined) declined to their lowest level since 1968.

Total federal revenues declined to their lowest level since 1959.

Federal income taxes fell to their lowest level since 1942.

State and local revenues were lower than since 1988.

Total Revenues From All Levels Of Government Drop To Lowest Share Of Economy Since 1968, 1/15/04

It's the tax cut death spiral I used to refer to. Tax cuts are addictive. Borrowing to pay for tax cuts is the enabler of that addiction.

You must make people pay for tax cuts with spending cuts. You must make people pay for spending increases with tax increases.

That is the only system that will work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it was. It had real data in it. And this post here? Where's the data dumbass? You're the one using generalizations about the Confidence Index without putting it into any detailed context. I was the one that drilled down and explained it.

Self-loathing? LOL, if I suffer from anything, it's too much self-esteem darlin.

Now you're down to baby talk since you're not only out of data that supports this idiot president, you're also out of cool one-liners for your personal attacks.

When the opposition gets to this low of a point in a debate, you KNOW they've completely lost the debate.

Jakey Fakey, you and your allies on this thread are the lowest caliber libs I've ever debated anywhere. Hate to hurt your feelings but sharp liberals would disown you, sweetheart.

you are trolling your own thread because you can't defend the OP

LOL, and then when you COMPLETELY run out of ANY stats that support reality on the ground, and you run out of posts replete with funny or even corny personal attacks, then you have nothing more to post

Like this dumbass post. Thanks Fakey, I gotta go, but you sure have made my day. I haven't done this much laughing in months.

trollin trollin trollin keep those econchicks strollin

Support your generalizations with real facts. Your melt down is not argument.

 

[EconChick]

Given that we've proven to you that consumer confidence is UP from where it was when Bush left,

you're not making much of an argument for putting the Republicans back in power.

And here is where my attempt to explain non-linear math keeps preventing peeps' understanding of why your assessments are wrong.

1) The Financial crash was caused by both parties and many actors, going back for numerous years. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that.

2) Bush's econ numbers were great before the impact of this crash hit them. The tremendous negative numbers coming from THIS event completely skewed his overall numbers. Any objective person knows they don't deserve to all be given to Bush. But that's what you libs keep doing. He certainly should get partial blame but not full blame.

Now if you're a dishonest slug like Daddy2three who only spurts propaganda, you will claim the crash was 100% Bush's fault.

But we all know he's nothing but a discredited hack.

3) For those of us who know ALL President's numbers are calculated objectively by algorithms and not simple, linear math.... we know that simple minded hacks like D23 are as ignorant as they come.

In other words, you have to honestly go through each presidency giving some positives here and some negatives there for the many variables. We economists (of all political colors) fight over how this WEIGHTING gets done, but sophisticated analysts do the WEIGHTING.

So when you see someone who talks in 2+2=4 terms, you should stop wasting your time even listening to them.

Oh that's quite an argument.

...Bush's numbers were great if you take out the numbers that weren't....

Inform whoever is telling you how to think that he shouldn't quit his day job.

I'm not surprised that went past your third grade reading comprehension. Go back and read what I said about sharp libs. Get a clue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And here is where my attempt to explain non-linear math keeps preventing peeps' understanding of why your assessments are wrong.

1) The Financial crash was caused by both parties and many actors, going back for numerous years. Everyone with a brain acknowledges that.

2) Bush's econ numbers were great before the impact of this crash hit them. The tremendous negative numbers coming from THIS event completely skewed his overall numbers. Any objective person knows they don't deserve to all be given to Bush. But that's what you libs keep doing. He certainly should get partial blame but not full blame.

Now if you're a dishonest slug like Daddy2three who only spurts propaganda, you will claim the crash was 100% Bush's fault.

But we all know he's nothing but a discredited hack.

3) For those of us who know ALL President's numbers are calculated objectively by algorithms and not simple, linear math.... we know that simple minded hacks like D23 are as ignorant as they come.

In other words, you have to honestly go through each presidency giving some positives here and some negatives there for the many variables. We economists (of all political colors) fight over how this WEIGHTING gets done, but sophisticated analysts do the WEIGHTING.

So when you see someone who talks in 2+2=4 terms, you should stop wasting your time even listening to them.

Oh that's quite an argument.

...Bush's numbers were great if you take out the numbers that weren't....

Inform whoever is telling you how to think that he shouldn't quit his day job.

I'm not surprised that went past your third grade reading comprehension. Go back and read what I said about sharp libs. Get a clue.

Are you denying that you said that Bush's numbers were great if you didn't include the bad numbers?

Can I take all the bad numbers out of Obama's presidency to show you how great he's been?

btw, Bush's numbers weren't that great.

 

[EconChick]

you are trolling your own thread because you can't defend the OP

LOL, and then when you COMPLETELY run out of ANY stats that support reality on the ground, and you run out of posts replete with funny or even corny personal attacks, then you have nothing more to post

Like this dumbass post. Thanks Fakey, I gotta go, but you sure have made my day. I haven't done this much laughing in months.

trollin trollin trolling keep those econchicks strollin

Support your generalizations with real facts. Your melt down is not argument.

Awww, look? Fakey is regressing from 5th grade to 2nd grade. Awwwww.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, econchick, you have posted another worthless post.

Your opinion is not fact, and your passion is nothing more than your own self loathing lashing out.

No, your generalization is not fact: the data contradicts you.

You won't throw any punch, for a fact.

Econchick, you are melting down. Instead, put together an assertion with solid evidence and a conclusion what it is all important. To that folks can logically respond.

Keep acting out and folks will keep spanking you.

Of course it was. It had real data in it. And this post here? Where's the data dumbass? You're the one using generalizations about the Confidence Index without putting it into any detailed context. I was the one that drilled down and explained it.

Self-loathing? LOL, if I suffer from anything, it's too much self-esteem darlin.

Now you're down to baby talk since you're not only out of data that supports this idiot president, you're also out of cool one-liners for your personal attacks.

When the opposition gets to this low of a point in a debate, you KNOW they've completely lost the debate.

Jakey Fakey, you and your allies on this thread are the lowest caliber libs I've ever debated anywhere. Hate to hurt your feelings but sharp liberals would disown you, sweetheart.

you are trolling your own thread because you can't defend the OP

We now have two PoliticalChic style punching bags to work out on.

 

[kaz]

Just MORE right wing GARBAGE

I stopped reading here, you know why.

3rd grade reading comprehension?

I had a bet with myself that I would get a playground response to this. I won. You realize you're a big boy. Just so you know, adult conversations are more fun. Adult conversations also do not include misrepresenting people's views.

I also like the irony you nag me about answering your contrived questions, but you won't answer mine. Name a policy I have that is Republican and is not libertarian.