Just Like I've Been Trying To Tell You

[Pete7469]

I've asked this question of democrats many times yet I cant get a straight answer.

You'll never get an answer.

You're better off asking your cat why it licks it's asshole.

 

[defcon4]

This poster is for the further brain bleaching of dumb fucks who canot think and have no idea about the governance of the country. You conveniently "forgot" to display which party ruled CONGRESS during those years. The complexity is missing from the picture.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This poster is for the further brain bleaching of dumb fucks who canot think and have no idea about the governance of the country. You conveniently "forgot" to display which party ruled CONGRESS during those years. The complexity is missing from the picture.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I've asked this question of democrats many times yet I cant get a straight answer.

You'll never get an answer.

You're better off asking your cat why it licks it's asshole.

So are their tongues as rough as everyone says?

 

[jwoodie]

This poster is for the further brain bleaching of dumb fucks who canot think and have no idea about the governance of the country. You conveniently "forgot" to display which party ruled CONGRESS during those years. The complexity is missing from the picture.

Still haven't figured out the difference between correlation and causation?

 

[Edgetho]

There's lies, there's damned lies and then there's statistics

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Didn't you get the link I posted yesterday that the graph you're posting is one big lie?

Here it is again.

Do Dems run the economy better Nope. - The Washington Post

did you not read this ...you need to get your mind right....
Good For The National Economy Bad For Americans - Business Insider

Democratic presidents and congresses, has shown consistent and overwhelming superiority of economic performance with Democrats in the White House, and also with Democrats in Congress, as compared to Republicans. The popular myth to the contrary is unquestionably and decisively empirically false. Furthermore, in my recent book, They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, I document, from these and from many other studies, that this Democratic economic superiority extends not only to the performance of the stock markets, but also to employment, wages, economic equality, and all other major economic variables. This economic record is consistent during at least the past 100 years. Should one expect that the next four years will be any different – the lone exception to the past hundred years? That would be foolish.

Read more:Good For The National Economy Bad For Americans - Business Insider

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Still haven't figured out the difference between correlation and causation?

No but let me guess ...fortunately you Saint Albert Einstein are here to Enlighten...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There's lies, there's damned lies and then there's statistics

There is liars, psychotic liars and Conservatives but I repeat myself...

 

[Jarhead]

This poster is for the further brain bleaching of dumb fucks who canot think and have no idea about the governance of the country. You conveniently "forgot" to display which party ruled CONGRESS during those years. The complexity is missing from the picture.

I am curious...

Do you have any idea of how to read a graph?

LMAO...if you did, you would realize that the graphs you presented do not actually say what you think they do.

But I am not in the mood to edumucate you.

Hint.....the top 5%?

It includes ONLY 5% of the people.

No wonder there are less people being taxed in that percentile.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There is no scientific "causality" established between cigarette smoking and lung cancer...cigarette smoking does not cause cancer however it is "highly correlated" with the development of lung cancer....now what would St Einstein say that cigarette smoking is not dangerous ..... change your name to Moe Ronne dude...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This poster is for the further brain bleaching of dumb fucks who canot think and have no idea about the governance of the country. You conveniently "forgot" to display which party ruled CONGRESS during those years. The complexity is missing from the picture.

I am curious...

Do you have any idea of how to read a graph?

LMAO...if you did, you would realize that the graphs you presented do not actually say what you think they do.

But I am not in the mood to edumucate you.

Hint.....the top 5%?

It includes ONLY 5% of the people.

No wonder there are less people being taxed in that percentile.

Here comes another genius fortunately he does not have time to "edumucate" for which I am of course grateful to the operating system of the universe....
The Gish Gallop thread is not here dude ...

 

[auditor0007]

Been trying to get this across to you for years.

But dims aren't exceptionally bright, not even for an eggplant.

If the 'party' is so committed to the 'middle class' and the Workers' Wages and all the other populist crap we keep hearing every freaking day......?

Then how come they keep importing low skill, low wage illegal immigrants into this Country who will take your jobs for half the wages and work twice as hard?

I know, but the average dim is, as always, clueless.

Here's my bona fides

Congress Middle class incomes drop as immigration surges WashingtonExaminer.com

Congress: Middle class incomes drop as immigration Surges


Wages of America's middle class have dropped below 1970s levels as immigration has surged 325 percent, according to a new congressional report that questions claims that native Americans are economically helped by greater immigration.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report studied immigration and middle class income from 1945-2013 and found that as immigration slowed between 1945 and 1970, American incomes increased.

RELATED: Census: Record 51 million immigrants in 8 years, will account for 82% of U.S. growth

But when immigration expanded, the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of Americans went flat and then dropped beginning in 2000.

In the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the CRS reported that the foreign-born population of the United States surged 324.5 percent, from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, from 1970 to 2013.

And as that happened, incomes of the bottom 90 percent dropped 7.9 percent in 2013 dollars, from an average of $33,621 to $30,980.

Edge:

Yes, they are, dimocraps. They ARE the future of America.

Know who's not?

You. Your too stupid. And like all things too stupid, you are killing yourselves off with your stupidity.

You are actually that stupid that you think the dimocrap party cares about you? Haven't you seen what they've done for those they claim to care about already......

You people are pathetically funny.... Selling your souls and your children's future for your simple minded little single issue while the dim party works to keep you permanently in the lower class

Wages have dropped as union representation has dropped. Conservatives hate unions and have pushed for their removal as much as possible, helping lead the way to lower incomes for middle class workers. One of the many problems with conservatives is that they actually believe that they are smarter than everyone else, when in fact they are not. Another problem with conservatives is that they believe that only conservatives work for a living and everyone else just lives off of government handouts.

 

[defcon4]

Didn't you get the link I posted yesterday that the graph you're posting is one big lie?

Here it is again.

Do Dems run the economy better Nope. - The Washington Post

did you not read this ...you need to get your mind right....
Good For The National Economy Bad For Americans - Business Insider

Democratic presidents and congresses, has shown consistent and overwhelming superiority of economic performance with Democrats in the White House, and also with Democrats in Congress, as compared to Republicans. The popular myth to the contrary is unquestionably and decisively empirically false. Furthermore, in my recent book, They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, I document, from these and from many other studies, that this Democratic economic superiority extends not only to the performance of the stock markets, but also to employment, wages, economic equality, and all other major economic variables. This economic record is consistent during at least the past 100 years. Should one expect that the next four years will be any different – the lone exception to the past hundred years? That would be foolish.

Read more:Good For The National Economy Bad For Americans - Business Insider

Great quote from a guy who says:
"Zuesse urges Democrats to turn on Obama, mainly over his dealings with Wall Street and his proposal to possibly change the way the cost of living adjustments are made to Social Security benefits:

The rot is on both sides now. Let’s see if our side will clamp down against it – as Senator Warren obviously wishes to do. Are we with her, or are we with Obama? That question does not concern a white woman versus a black man; it concerns a nation of equality under law, versus a champion of “Too Big To Fail.” In fact, Obama has been disastrous for Blacks, and not just for the rest of “the 99%.”

The Democratic Party will have to show where it stands – and with whom, and for whom."
The Erstwhile Conservative A Blog of Repentance liberal politics

 

[Dragonlady]

Been trying to get this across to you for years.

But dims aren't exceptionally bright, not even for an eggplant.

If the 'party' is so committed to the 'middle class' and the Workers' Wages and all the other populist crap we keep hearing every freaking day......?

. . . .rest of post snipped for brevity

Neither your original post, nor the article you linked to show any cause and effect.

Here's a notion: Post WWII, the US economy thrived. There was basically full employment when Americans came home from the war. Women gave up their factory jobs, and there was a massive baby boom worldwide, the likes of which the world had never seen before or since.

Part of the reason the North American economy thrived, was the much of the rest of the first' World was in ruins. Manufacturing in Europe and utterly destroyed in WWII. Europe. Japan wasn't totally destroyed by the war, but it wasn't in good shape, either. The US was the only major manufacturing nation which wasn't heavily damaged in the war, so it's goods were in high demand. Europe had to be rebuilt and much of the goods and materials to do that rebuilding, came from the US. American firms and American workers prospered.

By the late 1960's, Europe had been rebuilt, and it's manufacturing capability had been restored. American goods had a lot more competition. Both Europe and Japan had rebuilt their manufacturing capability using new, state of the art equipment which was more efficient than the older US equipment. With more competition, who could manufacture more efficiently, US companies were not as generous as they had been during the post-war boom.

At home, the baby boom was over. The housing, schools, hospitals needed for the increased population had all been built so there were fewer construction jobs, so wages stagnated.

This makes much more sense than tying the wage stagnation to immigration.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Didn't you get the link I posted yesterday that the graph you're posting is one big lie?

Here it is again.

Do Dems run the economy better Nope. - The Washington Post

did you not read this ...you need to get your mind right....
Good For The National Economy Bad For Americans - Business Insider

Democratic presidents and congresses, has shown consistent and overwhelming superiority of economic performance with Democrats in the White House, and also with Democrats in Congress, as compared to Republicans. The popular myth to the contrary is unquestionably and decisively empirically false. Furthermore, in my recent book, They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, I document, from these and from many other studies, that this Democratic economic superiority extends not only to the performance of the stock markets, but also to employment, wages, economic equality, and all other major economic variables. This economic record is consistent during at least the past 100 years. Should one expect that the next four years will be any different – the lone exception to the past hundred years? That would be foolish.

Read more:Good For The National Economy Bad For Americans - Business Insider

Great quote from a guy who says:
"Zuesse urges Democrats to turn on Obama, mainly over his dealings with Wall Street and his proposal to possibly change the way the cost of living adjustments are made to Social Security benefits:

The rot is on both sides now. Let’s see if our side will clamp down against it – as Senator Warren obviously wishes to do. Are we with her, or are we with Obama? That question does not concern a white woman versus a black man; it concerns a nation of equality under law, versus a champion of “Too Big To Fail.” In fact, Obama has been disastrous for Blacks, and not just for the rest of “the 99%.”

The Democratic Party will have to show where it stands – and with whom, and for whom."
The Erstwhile Conservative A Blog of Repentance liberal politics

So ?.... there is no doubt who is better

 

[defcon4]

Come on Ty, don't spin. The guy so far to the left that he cannot move any further because of the Pacific. Although it would be good for him swimming with the great whites.
BTW, there was a great weed-smoking event here in San Francisco the other day. Did you attend? I tried to locate you on the local news broadcasted but I did not know how did you look for positive identification.

 

[jwoodie]

There is no scientific "causality" established between cigarette smoking and lung cancer...cigarette smoking does not cause cancer however it is "highly correlated" with the development of lung cancer....now what would St Einstein say that cigarette smoking is not dangerous ..... change your name to Moe Ronne dude...

Scientific causation is generally established through controlled testing (i.e., holding all other variables constant) and a plausible hypothesis as to relationship. Thus the isolated bilateral correlation between smoking and lung cancer, combined with a theory of cellular mutation due to invasion of hydrocarbon particulate matter, leads to a scientific conclusion of causation.

None of these factors are present in your Presidential analysis.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There is no scientific "causality" established between cigarette smoking and lung cancer...cigarette smoking does not cause cancer however it is "highly correlated" with the development of lung cancer....now what would St Einstein say that cigarette smoking is not dangerous ..... change your name to Moe Ronne dude...

Scientific causation is generally established through controlled testing (i.e., holding all other variables constant) and a plausible hypothesis as to relationship. Thus the isolated bilateral correlation between smoking and lung cancer, combined with a theory of cellular mutation due to invasion of hydrocarbon particulate matter, leads to a scientific conclusion of causation.

None of these factors are present in your Presidential analysis.

Yawn ...is that it St Albert Einstein .....? change your name to Moe Ronne ....

 

[NYcarbineer]

They want to 'fix' Social Security on the backs of the retiring because the alternative is for the government to actually start repaying some of the money it's borrowed from the Trust Fund, or,

raise the payroll tax.