Putting the "Bogus" in Liberalism

[The Rabbi]

I like Taft's statement: The world will not be saved by legislation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've always liked this one:

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge

 

[NYcarbineer]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

2. Government spending stimulates the economy. Case in point is the $830 billion 2009 stimulus bill, touted by the Obama administration as necessary for keeping unemployment below 8%. Result: four years of average unemployment above 8%. Federal outlays soared in 2009 to $3.5 trillion...but all we got was this lousy 2% growth ...

You claimed yesterday that Ronald Reagan's spending stimulated the economy when you were defending his exploding deficits and debt.

Liar.

I made no such connection.

You certainly did. You said (and have said repeatedly in defending Reagan's spending that caused huge deficits)

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion

Now entertain us with a few thousand randomly selected words to try to weasel out of that.

Desperately Seeking Reagan Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats[/QUOTE]

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[QUORcarbineer, post: 10149250, member: 18701"]

2. Government spending stimulates the economy. Case in point is the $830 billion 2009 stimulus bill, touted by the Obama administration as necessary for keeping unemployment below 8%. Result: four years of average unemployment above 8%. Federal outlays soared in 2009 to $3.5 trillion...but all we got was this lousy 2% growth ...

You claimed yesterday that Ronald Reagan's spending stimulated the economy when you were defending his exploding deficits and debt.

But reagan wasn't spending on entitlements and illegals to buy votes[/QUOTE]

That's irrelevant to this discussion. PoliticalChic added another misstep to her impressive collection by inadvertently making an argument for the merits of Keynesian economics as part of her desperate attempt to defend the borrow and spend policies that occurred on Reagan's watch.

 

[JoeB131]

"1. Spending more money improves education. The U.S. spent $12,608 per student in 2010—more than double the figure, in inflation-adjusted dollars, spent in 1970....Adjusted state SAT scores have declined on average 3% since the 1970s, ...

Oh, this is tiresome. This is what happens when you sit home all day and listen to Hate Radio.

The SAT is only taken by students who plan to go to college. As more students try to get into college, most students take the exam. And of course, when more people take a test, you are going to have a decline in the numbers.

SAT - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

However, starting in the mid-1960s and continuing until the early 1980s, SAT scores declined: the average verbal score dropped by about 50 points, and the average math score fell by about 30 points. By the late 1970s, only the upper third of test takers were doing as well as the upper half of those taking the SAT in 1963. From 1961 to 1977, the number of SAT tests taken per year doubled, suggesting that the decline could be explained by demographic changes in the group of students taking the SAT. Commissioned by the College Board, an independent study of the decline found that most (up to about 75%) of the test decline in the 1960s could be explained by compositional changes in the group of students taking the test;

 

[JoeB131]

I like Taft's statement: The world will not be saved by legislation.

Taft is routinely listed as one of the worst Presidents. Even his own party didn't want to renominate him. He had to CHEAT to get renominated in 1912.

 

[The Rabbi]

I like Taft's statement: The world will not be saved by legislation.

Taft is routinely listed as one of the worst Presidents. Even his own party didn't want to renominate him. He had to CHEAT to get renominated in 1912.

That's relevant how?

 

[The Rabbi]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

You claimed yesterday that Ronald Reagan's spending stimulated the economy when you were defending his exploding deficits and debt.

Liar.

I made no such connection.

You certainly did. You said (and have said repeatedly in defending Reagan's spending that caused huge deficits)

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion

Now entertain us with a few thousand randomly selected words to try to weasel out of that.

Desperately Seeking Reagan Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.[/QUOTE]
So after Obama became president nothing in the economic, regulatory or political landscape changed? So you admit he has been ineffective. That's a start.

 

[NYcarbineer]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

Liar.

I made no such connection.

You certainly did. You said (and have said repeatedly in defending Reagan's spending that caused huge deficits)

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion

Now entertain us with a few thousand randomly selected words to try to weasel out of that.

Desperately Seeking Reagan Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.

So after Obama became president nothing in the economic, regulatory or political landscape changed? So you admit he has been ineffective. That's a start.[/QUOTE]

So you want a president that will narrow the gap between rich and poor?

What policies do you support to do that?

 

[The Rabbi]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

You certainly did. You said (and have said repeatedly in defending Reagan's spending that caused huge deficits)

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion

Now entertain us with a few thousand randomly selected words to try to weasel out of that.

Desperately Seeking Reagan Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.

So after Obama became president nothing in the economic, regulatory or political landscape changed? So you admit he has been ineffective. That's a start.

So you want a president that will narrow the gap between rich and poor?

What policies do you support to do that?[/QUOTE]
No. Lets get it straight. You want a president to narrow that gap. Specifically you want to make the rich poorer, even if it means the poor are only somewhat poorer.
That's what wealth envy is all about.
So tell us why you still support Obama after his policies have done the opposite of what you wanted.

 

[Spoonman]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

You certainly did. You said (and have said repeatedly in defending Reagan's spending that caused huge deficits)

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion

Now entertain us with a few thousand randomly selected words to try to weasel out of that.

Desperately Seeking Reagan Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.

So after Obama became president nothing in the economic, regulatory or political landscape changed? So you admit he has been ineffective. That's a start.

So you want a president that will narrow the gap between rich and poor?

What policies do you support to do that?[/QUOTE]eliminating entitlements and forcing the lazy slugs to get an education and go to work

 

[PoliticalChic]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.

So after Obama became president nothing in the economic, regulatory or political landscape changed? So you admit he has been ineffective. That's a start.

So you want a president that will narrow the gap between rich and poor?

What policies do you support to do that?

eliminating entitlements and forcing the lazy slugs to get an education and go to work[/QUOTE]



Now look what you went and did!!!!

You used the word 'education'....hurt his feelings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

E="NYcarbineer, post: 10149934, member: 18701"]

The conclusion is yours, isn't it.
Not mine.

Admit it, sewage.

Since you won't state your point in posting it, I'm free to draw the most logical conclusion. You were defending Reagan's deficit spending by pointing to the increase in national wealth in an implied cause and effect relationship,

which amounts to a defense of Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

Oh, btw did you catch that the national wealth is up 26 trillion since 2010? I guess whatever Reagan did in 8 years, Obama has done far more in 4.

lol

So you agree the rich have gotten richer under the democrats

The Rich have gotten richer, the wealth gap has increased, because of conditions put in place long before Obama became president.

So after Obama became president nothing in the economic, regulatory or political landscape changed? So you admit he has been ineffective. That's a start.

So you want a president that will narrow the gap between rich and poor?

What policies do you support to do that?

eliminating entitlements and forcing the lazy slugs to get an education and go to work[/QUOTE]

You want PoliticalChic to get a job!? Oh my.

 

[hazlnut]

5. Global warming is causing increasingly violent weather.Tell that to Floridians, who are enjoying the ninth consecutive season without a hurricane landfall. The Atlantic hurricane season in 2013 was the least active in 30 years. Oh, and global temperatures have not increased for 15 years.

Another brain dead post from PoliChic.

#5 is especially humorous as Tropical Storm Andrea hit Florida.

and re: Global Temps not increasing (can't believe people that stupid can use a computer) but anyway... NASA says different.

Wow, two completely wrong points.

 

[The Rabbi]

5. Global warming is causing increasingly violent weather.Tell that to Floridians, who are enjoying the ninth consecutive season without a hurricane landfall. The Atlantic hurricane season in 2013 was the least active in 30 years. Oh, and global temperatures have not increased for 15 years.

Another brain dead post from PoliChic.

#5 is especially humorous as Tropical Storm Andrea hit Florida.

and re: Global Temps not increasing (can't believe people that stupid can use a computer) but anyway... NASA says different.

Wow, two completely wrong points.

You're not real bright, are you?