Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PLEASE give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on
that is way beyond dumb of course!! Conservatives like Aristotle and our Founders are/were for freedom from govt. Liberals are 100% opposed and so spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Now they have elected Obama, a guy with 3 communist parents who voted to left of Bernie Sanders, the only open lib commie in Congress!!!
Wrong side of history?? Do you understand now?
can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?
PRIVATE SECTOR CAUSED THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE 2004-2007 ALLOWED THE US SUBPRIME BUBBLE TO INFLATE AND BUST. Simple really
The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.
MORE HERE
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Typing it in all caps doesn't make it true, bub.
That part is true. But how about the third question, which you've ignored.I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
Just saying.
Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his. How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?
When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?
For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money. How would you define it?
I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred. Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.
In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer. There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy. It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent. That's just the way math and percentages work. That doesn't make it evil, it just is.
How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?
I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred.
Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?
Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?
Should be in the data then right? lol
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?
You are an historic ignoramous. Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).
The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%. Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.
Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.
Just because you linked to something on the interwebs, doesn't make it true.
And, I have a policy of not performing clickage on links for which the poster has neither the intellectual honesty nor the intelligence to provide an explanation in his own words as to why they are relevant to the discussion.
Thank you for sharing!
You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong
total illiterate!!! they are both huge advocates of free markets and both are/were for cuting taxes all the time and for any reason!
The most recent supply-side proposal, riding a boomlet of popu-
]arity, is a fiat rate income tax.6 Properly termed a degressive tax, it
would apply a fiat rate to all income above some exemption level.
The virtue of this scheme, ]ong advocated by Milton Friedman, is
that it could raise revenue in amounts comparahle to the present
system yet with a rate below 15 percent. This would drastically
reduce marginal tax rates, simplify the tax system, eliminate the tax
shelter game, and improve resource allocation
Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree
Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree
OMG!! our corporations are moving to China because wages are lower and so they can afford to employ people!! Our corporations are moving off shore, (Walgreen just announced yesterday) to escape the highest taxes in the world.
Labor cost and tax cost obviously matter 100%. We see it every day!! Do you know how slow you have to be not to see it? What is wrong with you?
Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.
And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.
Lincoln wanted to end slavery, welfare/ entitlement slavery and dependency we all want to end, but credit card debt is really an individual choice to end or not so not of concern here really.
That part is true. But how about the third question, which you've ignored.
Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his. How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?
When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?
For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money. How would you define it?
I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred. Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.
In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer. There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy. It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent. That's just the way math and percentages work. That doesn't make it evil, it just is.
Weird, so from 1945-1980 the top 1% (yes ALWAYS 1%) received 6%-9% of ALL US income, but by 2007 they TOOK 23%. What changed?
Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree
OMG!! our corporations are moving to China because wages are lower and so they can afford to employ people!! Our corporations are moving off shore, (Walgreen just announced yesterday) to escape the highest taxes in the world.
Labor cost and tax cost obviously matter 100%. We see it every day!! Do you know how slow you have to be not to see it? What is wrong with you?
I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred. Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.
In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer. There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy. It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent. That's just the way math and percentages work. That doesn't make it evil, it just is.
Weird, so from 1945-1980 the top 1% (yes ALWAYS 1%) received 6%-9% of ALL US income, but by 2007 they TOOK 23%. What changed?
TOOK? Your bias is evident in your word choice.
We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology. That was the change. Knowledge of history helps me.
That part is true. But how about the third question, which you've ignored.
Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his. How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?
When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?
For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money. How would you define it?
I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred. Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.
In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer. There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy. It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent. That's just the way math and percentages work. That doesn't make it evil, it just is.
Weird, so from 1945-1980 the top 1% (yes ALWAYS 1%) received 6%-9% of ALL US income, but by 2007 they TOOK 23%. What changed?
Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?
Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?
Should be in the data then right? lol
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?
You are an historic ignoramous. Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).
The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%. Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.
Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.
I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred. Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.
In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer. There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy. It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent. That's just the way math and percentages work. That doesn't make it evil, it just is.
Weird, so from 1945-1980 the top 1% (yes ALWAYS 1%) received 6%-9% of ALL US income, but by 2007 they TOOK 23%. What changed?
the world shrank. The CEO now sells to the entire world rather than just his own country so he manages a far bigger business and is worth far more on the free market. If baseball spreads to the entire world salaries will go up because there will be more customers to bid up wages. Over your head? Any more quesrions?
