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.
Yup, urban legend, my friend. The GOP congress and the presidents of the time are the ones who are responsible. The American mainstream are not about to create Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner. That would be utterly loony.
But, just for fun, if you want to use your above logic that the persons in charge at any given time are directly responsible for anything that happens during that time...........then we can agree Obama and the Dem Congress are responsible for anything that has happened to this country since January 1st, 2009? So no more blaming Bush?
Or do you pick and choose your logic depending on the context and how it will affect the reputation of The Great One?
Yup, urban legend, my friend. The GOP congress and the presidents of the time are the ones who are responsible. The American mainstream are not about to create Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner. That would be utterly loony.
But, just for fun, if you want to use your above logic that the persons in charge at any given time are directly responsible for anything that happens during that time...........then we can agree Obama and the Dem Congress are responsible for anything that has happened to this country since January 1st, 2009? So no more blaming Bush?
Or do you pick and choose your logic depending on the context and how it will affect the reputation of The Great One?
Anything bad that happened under Bush is Bush's fault. Anything bad that happened after Bush is still Bush's fault.
That is the position of the nutwingers here like Jokeyboy.
How is that long rambling self-exculpating post any answer to the questions that have been asked?
LOL, if you lack the ability to keep up with a conversation that jester and I were having then don't intervene and then try to claim that I am going off topic after having to explain the situation to you because you are too damn ignorant to keep up.
Man, you got to take responsibility for your posts and your end of the conversation. Don't keep blaming others for your own failings.
Umm.....yeah, I want a promotion and pay raise. I'll take that scarlet letter.
Doesn't everyone? Union members (aka liberals) strike over wanting both. Welfare people who vote Dem and want free healthcare and more handouts are looking for a "raise" through increased purchasing power through more gov't aid.
A better plot in life is what we all want. Whats so evil about that? And reality is, rich people and rich companies provide the easiest path to a better plot, through education, hard work and using one's talents. If the gov't takes more resources from those people with money, then the less "promotions and a raise" they can give. Again, it's not rocket surgery.
Thanks for admitting that your motives aren't as pure as previously presented. LOL Furthermore, they aren't using what they have to create jobs NOW so how will extending what they already have make them change their minds and start doing what they haven't been doing??
BTW I didn't see an answer to my previous question. I wonder why? LOL
They wont. But we aren't discussing that. We are discussing raising taxes. Please explain how raising taxes is going to create jobs. Even if we agree that maintaining the present rate is not going to create jobs, surely raising them will cost jobs. And the corollary to all that is lowering them will create jobs.
Holy Shit! This thread is never ending!
Why don't we settle this once and for all:
Let's shoot all the people that own assets in excess of 5 million dollars. Then we'll see if the average standard of living for veryone else improves or gets worse.
Oh. I'm sorry they did that in the Soviet Union back in the 1920s & 30s, and gee, the average standard of living for the vast majority of the people improved considerably. Wow, the Soviet Union went from being an economic disaster area to one of the most powerful soceities the world has ever known. What a coincidence!
Guess that settles that question.
(Now, watch Rabbi & the other wingnuts pitch fits...but them's the facts...)
That's why the standard of living went down in all those places?
Wow, are you one fucking world-class moron.
Are you selectively presenting facts again?
Wasn't Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House chairmen of the committees that had oversight on Fannie/Freddie? Weren't they actually "in charge"??HA!!!
Yeah, all those hard right Republicans like Chris Dodd (D), Barney Franke (D), Nancy Pelosi (D), Hillary and Bill Clinton (D), Maxine Waters (D), Jesse Jackson (D)???? They are the ones who led the Fannie/Freddie corruption in the early 90's all the way through 08.
But yeah, only "loons" like us on the right........and other loons like "historians".
SO what happened to the republicans during all of that time?? You posted this earlier,
Yeah, and I thank you for continued postings of it. In fact, lets sum it up:
1994- Republicans take over Congress for first time in 40 years = Largest economic growth the world has ever seen.
2006- Democrats take Congress back for first time since 1994 = Worst economic disaster since the Depression.
I don't know, lets use some good ole boy logic.
1994-2006 Republican Congress = Massive economic growth
2006-Present Democrat Congress = Worst economic drop sine Depression.
I'm no genius, but the moral of the story is DONT VOTE LIBERAL IN NOVEMBER.
Oh and in case you missed REPUBLICANS who were in charge of congress during that time CHOSE to do NOTHING about the "Fannie/Freddie corruption" so who really is to b
Wasn't Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House chairmen of the committees that had oversight on Fannie/Freddie? Weren't they actually "in charge"??HA!!!
Yeah, all those hard right Republicans like Chris Dodd (D), Barney Franke (D), Nancy Pelosi (D), Hillary and Bill Clinton (D), Maxine Waters (D), Jesse Jackson (D)???? They are the ones who led the Fannie/Freddie corruption in the early 90's all the way through 08.
But yeah, only "loons" like us on the right........and other loons like "historians".
SO what happened to the republicans during all of that time?? You posted this earlier,
Yeah, and I thank you for continued postings of it. In fact, lets sum it up:
1994- Republicans take over Congress for first time in 40 years = Largest economic growth the world has ever seen.
2006- Democrats take Congress back for first time since 1994 = Worst economic disaster since the Depression.
I don't know, lets use some good ole boy logic.
1994-2006 Republican Congress = Massive economic growth
2006-Present Democrat Congress = Worst economic drop sine Depression.
I'm no genius, but the moral of the story is DONT VOTE LIBERAL IN NOVEMBER.
Oh and in case you missed REPUBLICANS who were in charge of congress during that time CHOSE to do NOTHING about the "Fannie/Freddie corruption" so who really is to b
Holy Shit! This thread is never ending!
Why don't we settle this once and for all:
Let's shoot all the people that own assets in excess of 5 million dollars. Then we'll see if the average standard of living for veryone else improves or gets worse.
Oh. I'm sorry they did that in the Soviet Union back in the 1920s & 30s, and gee, the average standard of living for the vast majority of the people improved considerably. Wow, the Soviet Union went from being an economic disaster area to one of the most powerful soceities the world has ever known. What a coincidence!
Guess that settles that question.
(Now, watch Rabbi & the other wingnuts pitch fits...but them's the facts...)
That's why the standard of living went down in all those places?
Wow, are you one fucking world-class moron.
I know how hard it is for you to break out of your fantasy land, but under Communism the average standard of living for the vast majority of the peole in the Soviet Union improved dramatically under Stalin and kept improving thru Brezhnev's rule.
Do you seriously claim that the people's standard of living was better under the Czars?
The mean standard of living may never have caught up with the west, however the deviation from the mean was tiny as compared to the west. Many millions of people in the west lived by a standard that was much lower than the people of the Soviet Union.
If you were to take into account the concept of economic security, then the standard of living of the People of the Soviet Union was overwhelmingly better than the majority of the American people.
It's worth noting as well, that for the vast majority of people in the former Soviet Union the free liberatarian period under Yeltsin was a complete economic disaster.
Nowadays under the semi-authoritarian government of Putin, the standard is the highest it's ever been.
So, using the experience of the Sovirt Union and it's various political phases, it could be said with confidence that we do not need the wealthy and that we would be much better off without them.
Tax the living shit out of 'em!
Don't get upset Rabbi! McDonald's will still be hiring!
I seem to remember a post all about this. From that it was clear--crystal clear--that the Dems had the power to rein in Fannie/Freddie and refused to do so.Wasn't Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House chairmen of the committees that had oversight on Fannie/Freddie? Weren't they actually "in charge"??SO what happened to the republicans during all of that time?? You posted this earlier,
Oh and in case you missed REPUBLICANS who were in charge of congress during that time CHOSE to do NOTHING about the "Fannie/Freddie corruption" so who really is to b
NOPE. but then the lies that you spew are what you get when you feed at the trough of right wing hacks.
All of those lame spliced video clips of democrat members of congress like barney frank were from 2003-2004 back when the right had control of congress and CHOSE to do NOTHING. Barney frank was ranking member for the democrats at that time but the chair was a republican. You bought into the lies and CHOOSE to be willfully misinformed. Thanks for exposing yourself as nothing but a trolling hack.
I seem to remember a post all about this. From that it was clear--crystal clear--that the Dems had the power to rein in Fannie/Freddie and refused to do so.Wasn't Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House chairmen of the committees that had oversight on Fannie/Freddie? Weren't they actually "in charge"??
NOPE. but then the lies that you spew are what you get when you feed at the trough of right wing hacks.
All of those lame spliced video clips of democrat members of congress like barney frank were from 2003-2004 back when the right had control of congress and CHOSE to do NOTHING. Barney frank was ranking member for the democrats at that time but the chair was a republican. You bought into the lies and CHOOSE to be willfully misinformed. Thanks for exposing yourself as nothing but a trolling hack.
The Fannie Mae debacle was brought to you by the vast bipartisan conspiracy. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine
And their case for "bipartisanship" is weak.
That's why the standard of living went down in all those places?
Wow, are you one fucking world-class moron.
I know how hard it is for you to break out of your fantasy land, but under Communism the average standard of living for the vast majority of the peole in the Soviet Union improved dramatically under Stalin and kept improving thru Brezhnev's rule.
Do you seriously claim that the people's standard of living was better under the Czars?
The mean standard of living may never have caught up with the west, however the deviation from the mean was tiny as compared to the west. Many millions of people in the west lived by a standard that was much lower than the people of the Soviet Union.
If you were to take into account the concept of economic security, then the standard of living of the People of the Soviet Union was overwhelmingly better than the majority of the American people.
It's worth noting as well, that for the vast majority of people in the former Soviet Union the free liberatarian period under Yeltsin was a complete economic disaster.
Nowadays under the semi-authoritarian government of Putin, the standard is the highest it's ever been.
So, using the experience of the Sovirt Union and it's various political phases, it could be said with confidence that we do not need the wealthy and that we would be much better off without them.
Tax the living shit out of 'em!
Don't get upset Rabbi! McDonald's will still be hiring!
If you wouldn't mind taking your head out of your ass for 30 seconds and reading this, you might think otherwise. Of course you won't, because you're a major douche bag.
For Grim Soviet Consumers, The New Year of Discontent - NYTimes.com
Typical pansy leftist. Insists others do the dirty work, then takes credit.Holy Shit! This thread is never ending!
Why don't we settle this once and for all:
Let's shoot all the people that own assets in excess of 5 million dollars. Then we'll see if the average standard of living for veryone else improves or gets worse.
Oh. I'm sorry they did that in the Soviet Union back in the 1920s & 30s, and gee, the average standard of living for the vast majority of the people improved considerably. Wow, the Soviet Union went from being an economic disaster area to one of the most powerful soceities the world has ever known. What a coincidence!
Guess that settles that question.
(Now, watch Rabbi & the other wingnuts pitch fits...but them's the facts...)
The intellectual juice for Reagan's historic tax cuts came from Milton Friedman. He said that if you cut Government revenue, they will spend less. He thought he understood human nature. (This man is responsible for America's post 70s economic policy, so he better be right).
Unfortunately, he was wrong. The government didn't spend less under Reagan -- in fact, with a huge increase in military and law enforcement outlays, spending increased sharply over the Carter years. The consequences of Friedman's miscalculation were debt and deficits as far as the eye could see.
Same thing with investment in education. Friedman said that the government didn't need to invest in education because the market would deliver a utopian trickle of degrees to the middle class. Consequently, after Reagan began America's long divestment from education, the USA went from #1 to #12 amongst the #36 developed nations, and is woefully behind in the global competition for solutions to our largest problems.
Friedman also convinced Reagan that lowering taxes on the wealthy would lead to investment and jobs. It didn't. It went to the purchase of politicians and the Wall Street casino. As a result, middle class spending had to be kept alive on credit, while America's infrastructure and economy died.
Same thing with energy. Carter begged America to move into a less petro-intensive system. He warned that some day the demand for energy would outstrip supply, and your economy would be held hostage by terrorist states. Reagan framed him as a hysterical Lefty, and he crushed the alternative energy movement. He tore down the solar panels on the White House roof, and then he proclaimed that the market would take care of energy. It did the opposite. Big Oil bribed politicians to rig Cafe standards and crush the first big electric car movement. At every juncture, America's politicians expanded oil use. Now you are paying dearly for it.
The market mantra became a catch-all for anything America didn't want to pay for, invest in, or devote resources to.
"Don't worry, the market will take care of it. Let's go to Aspen!"
America tried to have its cake and eat it too. It got seduced by Reagan's voodoo. You believed that you did not have to pay as you go; you believed that you did not have to tend to big problems. You simply channeled all your resources to making a small group of people insanely wealthy -- and now it's time to pay (but you don't have any money, because the wealthy parachuted away with it. Trillions have been stuffed into dynastic coffers or moved off shore. Your great public sector is dead. You are living in a hyper-privatized neoliberal dystopia of concentrated wealth surrounded by rapidly expanding poverty).
You swallowed poison in 1980. The money is gone. The game is over. Nothing left to do but build prisons for all the poverty you created.
(the market didn't take care of it, and the price is your children's future)
I know how hard it is for you to break out of your fantasy land, but under Communism the average standard of living for the vast majority of the peole in the Soviet Union improved dramatically under Stalin and kept improving thru Brezhnev's rule.
Do you seriously claim that the people's standard of living was better under the Czars?
The mean standard of living may never have caught up with the west, however the deviation from the mean was tiny as compared to the west. Many millions of people in the west lived by a standard that was much lower than the people of the Soviet Union.
If you were to take into account the concept of economic security, then the standard of living of the People of the Soviet Union was overwhelmingly better than the majority of the American people.
It's worth noting as well, that for the vast majority of people in the former Soviet Union the free liberatarian period under Yeltsin was a complete economic disaster.
Nowadays under the semi-authoritarian government of Putin, the standard is the highest it's ever been.
So, using the experience of the Sovirt Union and it's various political phases, it could be said with confidence that we do not need the wealthy and that we would be much better off without them.
Tax the living shit out of 'em!
Don't get upset Rabbi! McDonald's will still be hiring!
If you wouldn't mind taking your head out of your ass for 30 seconds and reading this, you might think otherwise. Of course you won't, because you're a major douche bag.
For Grim Soviet Consumers, The New Year of Discontent - NYTimes.com
Do you ever get anything right? Talk about a fucking idiot. You didn't even look at the date of that article! Fucking fool!
1989 - The height of the rule of the capitalist darling Gorbachev.
BTW - Don't even try to tell me a thing about the Soviet Union or Russia. My wife grew up in the Soviet Union. My in-laws under Stalin. I get my informatiion from average, non-political, professional people from all over Russia.
You know nothing about the Soviet Union or Russia.
I seem to remember a post all about this. From that it was clear--crystal clear--that the Dems had the power to rein in Fannie/Freddie and refused to do so.Wasn't Chris Dodd in the Senate and Barney Frank in the House chairmen of the committees that had oversight on Fannie/Freddie? Weren't they actually "in charge"??
NOPE. but then the lies that you spew are what you get when you feed at the trough of right wing hacks.
All of those lame spliced video clips of democrat members of congress like barney frank were from 2003-2004 back when the right had control of congress and CHOSE to do NOTHING. Barney frank was ranking member for the democrats at that time but the chair was a republican. You bought into the lies and CHOOSE to be willfully misinformed. Thanks for exposing yourself as nothing but a trolling hack.
The Fannie Mae debacle was brought to you by the vast bipartisan conspiracy. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine
And their case for "bipartisanship" is weak.
