Republicans kick some Democrat butt

[Dad2three]

Tell us the last time a two term democrat president had a follow up democrat president, Job. Tell us all about it.

Yes, AmeriKa people ARE dumb. I guess we can't fix stupid with soooo many red staters voting against their best interests?

As far as they are concerned they are voting for their best interests. Freedom from Big government.

You mean as they suck on the teet of big Gov't SS and Medicare?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Got it, you jump in mid conversation and

1) Complain it's off topic, AFTER you are shown you are full of shit

You don't post "off topic,' you randomly fling shit - you are a feral baboon.

You have no clue what the topic is - ever. You hope to derail conversations with the cut & paste idiocy you post, over and over,

Seriously, if I want to know George Soros' talking point, I'll log on to ThinkProgress myself - i don't need you to cut & paste that shit here.

Oh, and you have never "shown" anything to anyone, you just cut & paste with no real grasp of what you are posting.

2) NYTimes fact based story is a 'hate site' from G Soros? lol

3) Of course, Denmark can pay a living wage to their employees, of Starbuck's. McD's, Burger King, etc but IF they paid a living wage in AmeriKa, Corps would be going out of Biz left and right?

Gawwwd you simpletons and your hate and divisiveness are simply amazing

To the looter, costs are irrelevant. That a company makes a profit is just greed. McDonald's should be run for the benefit of the workers, not to earn profits for the share holders...

Double the cost of labor, and either prices are raised significantly, or owners invest in capital costs instead of labor costs.

Of course this has nothing to do with this thread - you are just tossing out talking points - flinging shit like the feral baboon that you are.

 

[Dad2three]

Well I wouldn't say I like the dem's leadership. I think they are pussies. I like the policies that they push however. Repubs have nothing to offer this country while dems do. Part of the problem is that repubs won't compromise on anything the dems put out:

1) Raising the minimum wage
2) Extending unemployment benefits
3) Jobs training programs in community colleges
4) SNAP benefits for those who truly need it (not me)
5) Consumer protection laws

1. 1% of american workers make minimum wage, most of them are part time teens flipping burgers, minimum wage is a non-issue
2. why should unemployment go on for 99 weeks? would you extend it forever? when is enough?
3. good, republicans support that
4. good, republicans support that
5. good, republicans support that.

got anything else? the real reason is the D behind your name, we understand, and thats just fine. But admit it and then we can discuss these things reasonably.

1) 1% make 7.25 an hour. 16.5 million people make less than $10 an hour. That's the problem I am getting at. If raised to 10.10, anyone under that wage would see theirs go up. I don't understand why you cons can't grasp this. Oh and the average fast food worker is 29 years old.
2) Not everyone who is unemployed is even on it. It's a win win for everyone. The Benefits gives money to people who would otherwise not be spending money. This increases economic demand which creates jobs. And no, not forever.
3) No they don't. Obama proposed that early in his second term and republicans blocked it.
4) are you kidding me? They cut the funding for it.
5) Um name one.

1. if minimum wage is raised McDonalds has three choices, raise prices, lay off workers, use more electronics and lay off workers. Which of those is good for the part time teens working at McDonalds?

2. where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits? do you have any idea?

3. being in favor of something but not being able to afford it are two different things.

4. same as 3

5. lemon laws, hazardous substance laws, anti pollution laws. there are 3 for ya

1) Actually the McDonald's CEO has said he would support the raise. What you fail to understand is the actual wage proposal. If raised to 10.10, the raise would be gradual over 3 years. This would give the market time to prepare. That proposed raise would only raise prices pennies on the dollar. Like I said, more and more adults are working at McDonalds. The economy is not like it was
2) Nowadays it wouldn't be paid for based on how low the revenue as percentage of GDP is, but tax cuts aren't paid for either now are they? Where's your outrage over that? I propose we cut defense spending to pay for it.
3) Do you even know how much this country spends on food stamps? Less than 75 billion. How many billions do you think we give to our allies? Way more than that.
4) Give me proof republicans support that. Better yet, tell me how many.

I can only speak for myself, if you want to know what the republicans in congress intend to do ask them.

I would cut the federal budget by 30% across the board, all agencies, all budget items, including SS, medicare, DOD, foodstamps, foreign aid, and congressional salaries and staffs. I would revise the tax code so that every working american paid something, not a flat % but we should all have some skin in the game.

I would also allow the billions in corporate profits that is sitting in foreign banks to come back into this country tax free. We are the only country that taxes profits made in foreign countries.

I would pass a immigration act that allowed the illegals here today to stay, after paying a fine and getting at the end of the line behind those who immigrated legally.

As to your lie about tax cuts, when the bush tax cuts (continued by obama) took affect, federal revenues increased, because the economy expanded.

"We are the only country that taxes profits made in foreign countries."


WHY THE FUKKKK SHOULDN'T WE TAX THEM???



"As to your lie about tax cuts, when the bush tax cuts (continued by obama) took affect, federal revenues increased, because the economy expanded."

WEIRD:


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

 

[Uncensored2008]

You mean as they suck on the teet of big Gov't SS and Medicare?

Comrade, I went to the dentist last month. I pulled out my Blue Cross card and had my insurance pay.

According to you, I was "sucking on the teet" of the insurance, even though I pay dearly for it?

Social Security is a shitty system, poorly run with marginal returns, BUT those who get retirement benefits PAID for those benefits, they aren't "sucking any teet," They paid every pay period for a pension plan, it ain't charity - it sure the fuck ain't welfare.

 

[peach174]

Tell us the last time a two term democrat president had a follow up democrat president, Job. Tell us all about it.

Yes, AmeriKa people ARE dumb. I guess we can't fix stupid with soooo many red staters voting against their best interests?

As far as they are concerned they are voting for their best interests. Freedom from Big government.

You mean as they suck on the teet of big Gov't SS and Medicare?

You got any proof of that?

 

[Dad2three]

Tell us the last time a two term democrat president had a follow up democrat president, Job. Tell us all about it.

Yes, AmeriKa people ARE dumb. I guess we can't fix stupid with soooo many red staters voting against their best interests?

Your policies have seen the net wealth of the average American plummet dumb ass. They DID vote for their best interests. You're just too fucking stupid to understand that.

PLEASE tell me which policies cause that? Pretty please?

Bushs documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

OBAMA has been the POTUS for 6 years asshat. Blaming Bush for Obama's mistakes and ineptitudes is just simply stupid. As are you.

Amnesia huh? Typical of right wingers

Weird, Dubya lost 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Obama has 7,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs (NET) in less than 6

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Obama cut Dubya's final F/Y deficit by nearly 70% Got Dubya's revenues that went to Korean war levels, back up near Ronnie's levels (though not to Carter/Clinton's levels) ECONOMISTS MEASURE TAX REVENUES SHARE OF GDP. YES DUBYA/RONNIE GUTTED THEM!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Libertarians are FARRRRRRR right wingers Bubba, especially on economics!

Get thee to a baboonery.

 

[Dad2three]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

 

[Antares]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Poverty is gone eh?

 

[Dad2three]

Here's a couple of articles that explain what I see as a positive move for the GOP.

Why the GOP Blowout Is So Scary for Democrats
It's not just that the GOP won key races across the board. It's that the party showed a new hunger to cross over to moderates and win.
<snip>
In 2008 and 2012, Republicans couldn’t pull this off. Party elites backed John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom had records of bipartisan achievement and ideological independence that might have made them attractive to swing voters. But McCain and Romney faced so much hostility from the GOP’s conservative base that in order to win the nomination, and then ensure a decent base turnout in November, they had to repudiate the very aspects of their political identity that might have impressed independents. McCain, who had once called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance,” made another such agent, Sarah Palin, his running mate. Romney, who given his druthers would likely have supported comprehensive immigration reform, instead demonized illegal immigrants to curry favor with the GOP base.
This year has been different: GOP activists have given their candidates more space to craft the centrist personas they need to win. First, in senate races in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alaska, Tennessee, Georgia, Kansas and Texas, comparatively moderate Republicans triumphed over Tea Party-backed challengers. Then many of those Republicans downplayed their opposition to gay marriage and highlighted their support for greater access to contraception in an effort to win over the young and women voters who in past elections spurned the GOP as too extreme. “On social issues,” wrote Slate’s Will Saletan, “Republicans are mumbling, cringing, and ducking. They don’t want the election to be about these issues, even in red states.”
Why the GOP Blowout Is So Scary for Democrats - The Atlantic

The sobering message for Obama
<snip>
Conservatives will likely disagree, but one takeaway for Republicans is that they were well served this year by recruiting conservatives whom voters saw as less hard right than the tea party. Look at Cory Gardner of Colorado: The GOP establishment intentionally promoted him as an alternative in Colorado who -- unlike Ken Buck, a tea partyer who lost a few years ago (but won the conservative 4th Congressional District this year) -- would appeal to moderates as well as conservatives. Even The Denver Post endorsed him -- just as The Boston Globe endorsed Republican Charlie Baker, who wrested the Massachusetts State House from Democrats.
Midterms The sobering message for Obama Opinion - CNN.com
========================================================
This sure makes a lot of sense. The Tea Party had very little influence on this election. "The Establishment' of the GOP made efforts to broaden the appeal for the GOP label by attracting more moderate/centralist candidates and the Tea Party challengers didn't fare well in the primaries.
The Democrats really didn't offer up many moderately liberal candidates and stayed hard left. On the other hand the GOP moved somewhat more to the center and attracted voters they had been losing when the GOP veered too far to the right.

"The Democrats really didn't offer up many moderately liberal candidates and stayed hard left"


PLEASE list five for me?

 

[Dad2three]

Newsflash!!!! Dodd-Frank and EPA regs were negotiated by the GOP house in order to pass spending bills. Affordable care act (not called Obamacare) is good for the country. I have seen with my own eyes octogenarians still working minimum jobs to buy medications and afford their Drs. The Affordable care act now allows them to retire as they should. The CEO of Bank of America received a bonus of 11.3 million after the 2nd quarter. I am sure he deserved it while middle income families struggle to meet monthly expenses..

Please show us where the Affordable Care Act allows seniors to retire.

Specifically, what were the changes to Medicare that lowered costs for seniors?

ONLY lowering costs for seniors on Medicare is the only way to measure it? lol

How the Affordable Care Act Helps Seniors


The Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law on March 23, 2010, aims to provide greater access to health care coverage, improve the quality of services delivered and reduce the rate of increase in health spending. The ACA provides new ways to help hospitals, doctors and other health care providers coordinate care for beneficiaries so that health care quality is improved and unnecessary spending reduced. Many seniors are already benefiting from provisions of the law such as receiving preventive services and paying lower Medicare prescription drug costs. Below are some of the ways that the Affordable Care Act is helping seniors.



Medicare Benefits Expanded

Preventive Services and Annual Wellness Visit

Lower Medicare Part B Premiums


Lower-Cost Prescription Drugs

Improvements for Medicare Advantage Plan Members

Medicare Fraud, Waste and Abuse



The ACA includes new resources and tools to protect taxpayer dollars by preventing fraud in Medicare and Medicaid by building on the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department.



Medicare Delivery System and Payment Reforms

Helping Americans of All Ages

The ACA helps seniors and Americans of all ages. The law stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions; prohibits insurance companies from taking away coverage when someone needs services, eliminates lifetime limits on insurance coverage, allows young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26 and provides assistance to employers to help them continue providing retiree health insurance benefits. In 2014, the following ACA benefits go into effect, improving health care for more individuals and families.

• Requiring guaranteed issue and renewability of health insurance regardless of health status and allowing rating variation based only on age (limited to a 3 to 1 ratio), geographic area, family composition and tobacco use in the individual, small group market and the health insurance exchanges.
• Prohibiting annual limits on the dollar value of coverage.
• Creating state-based health insurance marketplaces where individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees can purchase qualified coverage.
• Providing refundable, advance tax credits and cost sharing subsidies to eligible individuals to help pay for health insurance.

MORE
How the Affordable Care Act Helps Seniors

 

[OnePercenter]

Obamacare

Which is needed since healthcare insurance rates have risen 360% since Reagan deregulated the healthcare insurance industry.

 

[westwall]

Which welfare programs, Peach?

All of them.
They do not really help to get them out of poverty.
If the programs actually worked we would have a very low number of people in poverty.
The Cato Institute explaind it very well in 2006.
More Welfare More Poverty Cato Institute

A libertarian 'think tank' says so? It MUST be true right? After all we can point to MANY successful libertarian economic models such as??????

The Great Society At 50; Yes, It Has Abolished Poverty

Nicholas Eberstadt has an excellent essay about the effects of the Great Society and the War on Poverty and its success over the past 50 years. Entirely contrary to what we’re usually told about it it has indeed succeeded, it has got as close as government work ever will to abolishing poverty. The problem is that we’re still using the wrong methods to measure that success. We are measuring the incomes of the poor, not their consumption possibilities, and we are also measuring those incomes without taking into account the things we do to raise those incomes. When we correct for those two failings we find that there really isn’t any poverty to speak of in the US. We should therefore conclude that the war has been won.
The Great Society At 50 Yes It Has Abolished Poverty - Forbes

Really? After 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars a poverty rate of 15% or so is considered "abolished"? What the hell are you idiots smoking?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

My definition of 'big government' is CONSERVATIVES/LIBERTARIANS in charge of it, who don't 'believe in it' therefore it fails, EVERY TIME!

 

[westwall]

Yes, the Republicans suck. Which is why I always say the Republicans suck. That doesn't remotely address the question, which is about Obama, not W.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly "big government" means to a right winger. I lean left on most issues, but to me, big oppressive government is big intrusive government agencies that spy on their own citizens. Big spending, to me, is wasting trillions of dollars on useless unnecessary wars. Just trying to break the code.

Well, then you should ask a right winger. Stopped reading here since the question wasn't for me.

Sorry. I had you pegged as one. But what is "big government" to you?

I'm a libertarian. It's sad that you have to ask that. Big government is more spending and more regulations. What is it that confuses liberals about that? What else would it be?

My definition of 'big government' is CONSERVATIVES/LIBERTARIANS in charge of it, who don't 'believe in it' therefore it fails, EVERY TIME!

Your version of BIG GOVERNMENT is STALINIST in nature and look how well that worked out for the Russians.

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing to me how bent out of shape you cons get over spending yet are too stupid to realize tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Where was your outage over Bush's huge tax cuts?.

Bullshit. There are many instances in which revenues INCREASED following tax rate cuts. Sometimes revenues go down following a cut, sometimes they stay about the same. Your statement is a lie.

Nobody is surprised.

Oh and raising the minimum wage helps the economy by boosting consumer spending. Any capital initially lost would be regained over time.

One, you have no facts or evidence to back this up. Just another lie. Two, you COMPLETELY avoided the fact that raising the min wage is devastating to the most vulnerable citizens. So cruel to force people on the dole. Nothing worse than preventing a man from working. Shame on you.

What you avoid the other points, which were thoroughly repudiated.

Fail, fail, fail...

Here is your proof. Tax cuts aren't free. Both Bush and Obama's cuts have cost us.

US Debt by President

Not too bright, are you? The level of debt is determined by SPENDING over income. Your link in no way demonstrates that tax cuts always result in less revenue.

Fail again. Does it hurt to be so damn stupid???

Lol um yes. Those tax cuts have contributed trillions to our debt.

Oh and here's proof of the raising of the wage boosting the economy:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

A projection by the CBO is not proof of anything.

Also:

Are CBO Estimates Really The Gold Standard Of Accuracy - Forbes

CBO Forecast Accuracy Cato Liberty

Weird, the US has ha LONG history of increasing the min wage and despite right wingers predictions, the economy has ALWAYS boomed. Of course nothing related to increasing the min wage, but the same folks against increasing min wage SWEAR tax cuts will create jobs and boom the economy, but recent examples have said they are morons!

 

[OnePercenter]

Means Hillary might not get Iowa's four electoral votes. A major blow to her campaign

A major blow to working class Americans. A huge bonus to the rich.

 

[OnePercenter]

Obamacare isn't specific? That's both massive spending and massive legislation. You seriously need me to show you that Obama wants to spend lots and lots of money? You don't know that? And he is expanding regulations over energy, financial services and business in general. You're thinking he's a small government socialist?

Taxpayer monies to pay for the uninsured ISN'T massive spending?

 

[OnePercenter]

It boils down to getting rid of the Oligarchy Club in both parties and Mitch is very much one of them in that elite's club.
I don't see that happening in just 2 years.
The people themselves need to vote them all out or we will never have true reform that will be for the people rather than for the few who control everything.

It would help if the middle class would stop voting against their own best interest.

 

[Dad2three]

So you're admitting that the $30 Big Mac is a hyperbole and a half?

The correction is to $4.99. not $7.25. An increase of 1 dollar instead of 68 cents.

The belief that doubling labor cost will have no or a negligible impact of the price of the product is utterly ridiculous.

The REAL impact will be the new McDonalds employee:

democrats; putting the needy out of work and onto the streets since 1972!

Weird, that HASN'T been the case in nations, like Denmark, Australia, etc who DON'T put Corp profits above EVERYTHING else?