If repubs can never come up with specific policy examples of their party helping the...

[Dad2three]

I call the Federal government funding the military complying with the Constitution and Federal funding public schools unconstitutional.

Courts as well as SCOTUS says YOU are full of it though

 

[Dad2three]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut.

Are you saying Americans got to keep millions more of their own earnings AND jobs were created?

That's awesome!!! Let's do that some more!!!

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US about 1/3rd the deficits (according to CBO) 2001-2010, yes, lets get the Gov't less revenues, it worked so well under Dubya/GOP

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

LOL How does a POTUS lose (or find for mattter) jobs

and how do you fund tax cuts?

LOL

Tax cuts are funded by cutting spending. POTUS's policies are a big deal on job creation policy. Not Reagan had 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and Carter had 9+ million in 4 years


Then Clinton had 18+ million, Dubya lost over 1 million in 8 years, then Obama has had a NET of over 6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 6 years.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut.

Are you saying Americans got to keep millions more of their own earnings AND jobs were created?

That's awesome!!! Let's do that some more!!!

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US about 1/3rd the deficits (according to CBO) 2001-2010, yes, lets get the Gov't less revenues, it worked so well under Dubya/GOP

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

LOL How does a POTUS lose (or find for mattter) jobs

and how do you fund tax cuts?

LOL

Tax cuts are funded by cutting spending. POTUS's policies are a big deal on job creation policy. Not Reagan had 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and Carter had 9+ million in 4 years


Then Clinton had 18+ million, Dubya lost over 1 million in 8 years, then Obama has had a NET of over 6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 6 years.

Oh silly me, I look at tax cuts and see no corresponding decrease in spending.

Also, I think you give Presidents entirely too much credit/blame in regards to job creation.

 

[francoHFW]

Ay caramba! Did you hater dupes MISS that Obama has NOT ADDED GOV'T JOBS? And that you are totally FOS as always? The gov't barely changes when the administration does....Obama has like 3 appointments in the IRS, and you believe the IRS did ANYTHING for him. YOU ARE SO BRAINWASHED and STUPID!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

 

[francoHFW]

Dumbass hater dupes- Pub tax cuts on fed level- all you morons are told about- result in higher state and local taxes and fees. After 32 years now of voodoo, the richest pay the lowest percentage of ANYONE in ALL taxes and fees. Stupid drones of the greedy idiot rich...

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut.

Are you saying Americans got to keep millions more of their own earnings AND jobs were created?

That's awesome!!! Let's do that some more!!!

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US about 1/3rd the deficits (according to CBO) 2001-2010, yes, lets get the Gov't less revenues, it worked so well under Dubya/GOP

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

LOL How does a POTUS lose (or find for mattter) jobs

and how do you fund tax cuts?

LOL

Tax cuts are funded by cutting spending. POTUS's policies are a big deal on job creation policy. Not Reagan had 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and Carter had 9+ million in 4 years


Then Clinton had 18+ million, Dubya lost over 1 million in 8 years, then Obama has had a NET of over 6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 6 years.

Oh silly me, I look at tax cuts and see no corresponding decrease in spending.

Also, I think you give Presidents entirely too much credit/blame in regards to job creation.

Yes, THAT'S called an UNFUNDED tax cut (taking away revenues without taking spending off table

No, Prez policy DOES matter, tax cuts on the other hand have almost no relation to creating jobs!

 

[Dad2three]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

Sure, He's cut Bush's last F/Y deficit by 60%, got US back to Reagan level revenues (17%+ of GDP) but NOT to Carter/Clinton's 20%+

 

[francoHFW]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

The hell he is, brainwashed twit. Boosh was a total catastrophe in everything he touched. Without UE, welfare, and other assistance for victims of Booosh's WORLD DEPRESSION, there would be no deficit now.

 

[Boss]

Presidential and government policies have little to do with job creation, unemployment or the economy. The timing of key legislation sometimes has a short-term reactionary effect, but jobs in the private sector are created by capitalists doing capitalism. There are far too many factors regarding supply and demand, return on investment, futures and speculations about markets and such, for the government to really have much to do with it. They can certainly implement policies that enhance or contribute to whatever was going to inevitably happen, but that's about it.

You don't believe me? Well, that's okay... but think about this... How many politicians do you know of in history who would not have changed bad economies and create jobs if they could? If there was some magical way for government to do this, we'd never see bad economies or unemployment, because there's always a politician running for re-election somewhere.

So this whole line of argument has developed a life of it's own, we gather all this data and manipulate it all kinds of ways to make our guy/gal seem to be the savior of a bad economy or creator of jobs. And the stupid gullible voters lap it up like puppies at a bowl of warm milk.

 

[Dad2three]

Presidential and government policies have little to do with job creation, unemployment or the economy. The timing of key legislation sometimes has a short-term reactionary effect, but jobs in the private sector are created by capitalists doing capitalism. There are far too many factors regarding supply and demand, return on investment, futures and speculations about markets and such, for the government to really have much to do with it. They can certainly implement policies that enhance or contribute to whatever was going to inevitably happen, but that's about it.

You don't believe me? Well, that's okay... but think about this... How many politicians do you know of in history who would not have changed bad economies and create jobs if they could? If there was some magical way for government to do this, we'd never see bad economies or unemployment, because there's always a politician running for re-election somewhere.

So this whole line of argument has developed a life of it's own, we gather all this data and manipulate it all kinds of ways to make our guy/gal seem to be the savior of a bad economy or creator of jobs. And the stupid gullible voters lap it up like puppies at a bowl of warm milk.

Got it, you believe in the mythical right wing capitalism that has NEVER worked the way right wingers posit, if it did Somalia and every other 3rd world nation would be booming with jobs and prosperity


How did the US create the worlds largest middle class AND a booming economy post WW2? Hint GOOD GOV'T POLICY STARTED UNDER PROGRESSIVE POLICIES


Aynd Rand wrote fiction

 

[Boss]

Presidential and government policies have little to do with job creation, unemployment or the economy. The timing of key legislation sometimes has a short-term reactionary effect, but jobs in the private sector are created by capitalists doing capitalism. There are far too many factors regarding supply and demand, return on investment, futures and speculations about markets and such, for the government to really have much to do with it. They can certainly implement policies that enhance or contribute to whatever was going to inevitably happen, but that's about it.

You don't believe me? Well, that's okay... but think about this... How many politicians do you know of in history who would not have changed bad economies and create jobs if they could? If there was some magical way for government to do this, we'd never see bad economies or unemployment, because there's always a politician running for re-election somewhere.

So this whole line of argument has developed a life of it's own, we gather all this data and manipulate it all kinds of ways to make our guy/gal seem to be the savior of a bad economy or creator of jobs. And the stupid gullible voters lap it up like puppies at a bowl of warm milk.

Got it, you believe in the mythical right wing capitalism that has NEVER worked the way right wingers posit, if it did Somalia and every other 3rd world nation would be booming with jobs and prosperity


How did the US create the worlds largest middle class AND a booming economy post WW2? Hint GOOD GOV'T POLICY STARTED UNDER PROGRESSIVE POLICIES


Aynd Rand wrote fiction

You are a Socialist. You want to implement a system of Marxist Socialism, much like what the Russians operated under for the years of the Cold War. Why don't you go ask any Russian immigrant who wasn't part of the ruling class, just how well that worked for them?

The free market capitalist free enterprise system has created more millionaires and billionaires than anything man has ever tried. Progressive policies are anathema to free markets.

Somalia and other 3rd world countries don't have a Constitutional Republic where a vibrant free market and free enterprise system exists, or can exist. We could install such systems but we have to fight Communists like you who still think centralized government planning is a better system.

All "Progressivism", in essence, is repackaged Marxism. Oh, you'll get predictably butt-hurt at that claim, but it's the truth. New Marxists pop up all over the world with a refined, retuned version of the same failed ideology, claiming it is something new and different... see, it has a different name! And the insidious thing about Marxism is how it can appeal to the masses. Once you've established the emotive antipathy for "class" the rest is easy. That's what we're seeing happen in America today with all the talk of "middle class" ...there are no "classes" in a free republic.

 

[Dad2three]

Presidential and government policies have little to do with job creation, unemployment or the economy. The timing of key legislation sometimes has a short-term reactionary effect, but jobs in the private sector are created by capitalists doing capitalism. There are far too many factors regarding supply and demand, return on investment, futures and speculations about markets and such, for the government to really have much to do with it. They can certainly implement policies that enhance or contribute to whatever was going to inevitably happen, but that's about it.

You don't believe me? Well, that's okay... but think about this... How many politicians do you know of in history who would not have changed bad economies and create jobs if they could? If there was some magical way for government to do this, we'd never see bad economies or unemployment, because there's always a politician running for re-election somewhere.

So this whole line of argument has developed a life of it's own, we gather all this data and manipulate it all kinds of ways to make our guy/gal seem to be the savior of a bad economy or creator of jobs. And the stupid gullible voters lap it up like puppies at a bowl of warm milk.

Got it, you believe in the mythical right wing capitalism that has NEVER worked the way right wingers posit, if it did Somalia and every other 3rd world nation would be booming with jobs and prosperity


How did the US create the worlds largest middle class AND a booming economy post WW2? Hint GOOD GOV'T POLICY STARTED UNDER PROGRESSIVE POLICIES


Aynd Rand wrote fiction

You are a Socialist. You want to implement a system of Marxist Socialism, much like what the Russians operated under for the years of the Cold War. Why don't you go ask any Russian immigrant who wasn't part of the ruling class, just how well that worked for them?

The free market capitalist free enterprise system has created more millionaires and billionaires than anything man has ever tried. Progressive policies are anathema to free markets.

Somalia and other 3rd world countries don't have a Constitutional Republic where a vibrant free market and free enterprise system exists, or can exist. We could install such systems but we have to fight Communists like you who still think centralized government planning is a better system.

All "Progressivism", in essence, is repackaged Marxism. Oh, you'll get predictably butt-hurt at that claim, but it's the truth. New Marxists pop up all over the world with a refined, retuned version of the same failed ideology, claiming it is something new and different... see, it has a different name! And the insidious thing about Marxism is how it can appeal to the masses. Once you've established the emotive antipathy for "class" the rest is easy. That's what we're seeing happen in America today with all the talk of "middle class" ...there are no "classes" in a free republic.

lol

Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!




Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.


It really is quite laughable to hear people refer to Warren, Obama, and the Democrats in general as "far left" and/or "socialist." I think it is a point of view issue. The Republicans have been pulled so far to the extreme right by the Tea Party that, from their vantage point, just about ANYONE else seems like a leftist. How else do you explain Glenn Beck calling John McCain a "progressive?"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dumbass hater dupes- Pub tax cuts on fed level- all you morons are told about- result in higher state and local taxes and fees. After 32 years now of voodoo, the richest pay the lowest percentage of ANYONE in ALL taxes and fees. Stupid drones of the greedy idiot rich...

result in higher state and local taxes and fees.

I'm in favor of helping poor people by reducing state and local taxes as well as fees.
Why do you hate poor people?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

Sure, He's cut Bush's last F/Y deficit by 60%, got US back to Reagan level revenues (17%+ of GDP) but NOT to Carter/Clinton's 20%+

Nope. Every one of his deficits was higher than Bush's biggest deficit.

 

[Dad2three]

Presidential and government policies have little to do with job creation, unemployment or the economy. The timing of key legislation sometimes has a short-term reactionary effect, but jobs in the private sector are created by capitalists doing capitalism. There are far too many factors regarding supply and demand, return on investment, futures and speculations about markets and such, for the government to really have much to do with it. They can certainly implement policies that enhance or contribute to whatever was going to inevitably happen, but that's about it.

You don't believe me? Well, that's okay... but think about this... How many politicians do you know of in history who would not have changed bad economies and create jobs if they could? If there was some magical way for government to do this, we'd never see bad economies or unemployment, because there's always a politician running for re-election somewhere.

So this whole line of argument has developed a life of it's own, we gather all this data and manipulate it all kinds of ways to make our guy/gal seem to be the savior of a bad economy or creator of jobs. And the stupid gullible voters lap it up like puppies at a bowl of warm milk.

Got it, you believe in the mythical right wing capitalism that has NEVER worked the way right wingers posit, if it did Somalia and every other 3rd world nation would be booming with jobs and prosperity


How did the US create the worlds largest middle class AND a booming economy post WW2? Hint GOOD GOV'T POLICY STARTED UNDER PROGRESSIVE POLICIES


Aynd Rand wrote fiction

You are a Socialist. You want to implement a system of Marxist Socialism, much like what the Russians operated under for the years of the Cold War. Why don't you go ask any Russian immigrant who wasn't part of the ruling class, just how well that worked for them?

The free market capitalist free enterprise system has created more millionaires and billionaires than anything man has ever tried. Progressive policies are anathema to free markets.

Somalia and other 3rd world countries don't have a Constitutional Republic where a vibrant free market and free enterprise system exists, or can exist. We could install such systems but we have to fight Communists like you who still think centralized government planning is a better system.

All "Progressivism", in essence, is repackaged Marxism. Oh, you'll get predictably butt-hurt at that claim, but it's the truth. New Marxists pop up all over the world with a refined, retuned version of the same failed ideology, claiming it is something new and different... see, it has a different name! And the insidious thing about Marxism is how it can appeal to the masses. Once you've established the emotive antipathy for "class" the rest is easy. That's what we're seeing happen in America today with all the talk of "middle class" ...there are no "classes" in a free republic.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


American School of Economics

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Dad2three]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

Sure, He's cut Bush's last F/Y deficit by 60%, got US back to Reagan level revenues (17%+ of GDP) but NOT to Carter/Clinton's 20%+

Nope. Every one of his deficits was higher than Bush's biggest deficit.

EXCEPT the final F/Y (2009, Started Oct 1, 2008) deficit Dubya had on Jan 8, 2009 CBO said would be $1.2+ trillion

OOPS

 

[Dad2three]

Dumbass hater dupes- Pub tax cuts on fed level- all you morons are told about- result in higher state and local taxes and fees. After 32 years now of voodoo, the richest pay the lowest percentage of ANYONE in ALL taxes and fees. Stupid drones of the greedy idiot rich...

result in higher state and local taxes and fees.

I'm in favor of helping poor people by reducing state and local taxes as well as fees.
Why do you hate poor people?

Liar

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

The hell he is, brainwashed twit. Boosh was a total catastrophe in everything he touched. Without UE, welfare, and other assistance for victims of Booosh's WORLD DEPRESSION, there would be no deficit now.

Thank goodness Obama got in there to fix it all.
I love how he ended the Iraq war. Great job!!!
Didn't Obama get back the jobs Bush lost? End the wars?
So why can't he cut spending below Bush levels? LOL!