We, The Conservative Savages, Must Confess

[georgephillip]

Then, along came Trump….


b.“U.S. households are back to their free spending ways, with the strength of May’s retail sales figures implying that second-quarter real consumption growth (and GDP growth for that matter) will now be more than 4% annualized.

Are you suggesting a self-proclaimed "King of Debt" has any intention of reversing the policies that have made his class filthy rich over the past thirty years?

States that voted for Trump are more likely to have growing credit-card debt

"On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released data showing that total household debt increased by 1.5% to $13.15 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2017.

"American households are falling deeper into debt, reaching another all-time high last year of more than $1 trillion in outstanding revolving credit — also known as credit-card debt.

"That’s a 6% jump from the year before and a 20% increase since 2013."

Did you forget that GM, Chrysler and Solyndra, all went bankrupt, but GM and Chrysler got bailed out? And guess who did the bailing of those companies not for the share holders but because the over promises of the Unions which gave money to Obama so he could win the presidency? Oh, you forgot all about that? I rest my case....

I wasn't sufficiently gullible to vote for Bush or Obama (or Trump or Clinton).

When will your eyes open?

Effects of the 2008–10 automotive industry crisis on the United States - Wikipedia

"On December 19, George W. Bush announced that he had approved the bailout plan, which would give loans of $17.4 billion to U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler, stating that under present economic conditions, 'allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action.'[80]

"Bush provided $13.4 billion now, with another $4 billion available in February 2009.

"Funds would be made available from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[81] General Motors would get $9.4 billion, and Chrysler $4 billion."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.
Clearly smarter than savages or conservatives, huh?

And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

I guarantee that you will not be able to provide one.


Man are you out to lunch (and prejudiced) on this.

Most liberals do not vote for people because of their superficial attributes. It is just that people with those superficial attributes tend to be more politically 'liberal' than most 'white' men are.

Who voted for these.......Republicans or fools????



And, on those bases, they reward their candidates:

“Record number of women elected to the House”
Record number of women elected to the House - CNNPolitics


“In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers” In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers


“Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections”
Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections


Pretty smart basis for selecting leaders, huh??????

LOL...those links have NOTHING to do with answering my question (though I guess you think they do).

I will ask you again, where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

Who votes based on skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology?

Not Republicans, you dope.

You typed:

'You....Liberals/Progressives....vote for the most superficial of characteristics and most absurd of characteristics.

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.
Clearly smarter than savages or conservatives, huh?'


So I will ask you yet again,

where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

I an truly pleased to have forced you to pretend that that which is clearly and evidently the truth.....

....you dolts vote for skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology while the other side votes for policies and achievement.


You've been exposed.....and embarrassed.

 

[McRocket]

And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

I guarantee that you will not be able to provide one.


Man are you out to lunch (and prejudiced) on this.

Most liberals do not vote for people because of their superficial attributes. It is just that people with those superficial attributes tend to be more politically 'liberal' than most 'white' men are.

Who voted for these.......Republicans or fools????



And, on those bases, they reward their candidates:

“Record number of women elected to the House”
Record number of women elected to the House - CNNPolitics


“In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers” In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers


“Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections”
Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections


Pretty smart basis for selecting leaders, huh??????

LOL...those links have NOTHING to do with answering my question (though I guess you think they do).

I will ask you again, where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

Who votes based on skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology?

Not Republicans, you dope.

You typed:

'You....Liberals/Progressives....vote for the most superficial of characteristics and most absurd of characteristics.

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.
Clearly smarter than savages or conservatives, huh?'


So I will ask you yet again,

where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

I an truly pleased to have forced you to pretend that that which is clearly and evidently the truth.....

....you dolts vote for skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology while the other side votes for policies and achievement.


You've been exposed.....and embarrassed.

So I will ask you yet again,

where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that liberals vote for people based on factors other than where they stand on the issues?

BTW - I have never voted for a Rep or a Dem...I am an indy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rub your face in it again?

Sure.



Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.



And, on those bases, they reward their candidates:

“Record number of women elected to the House”
Record number of women elected to the House - CNNPolitics


“In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers” In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers


“Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections”
Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections


Pretty smart basis for selecting leaders, huh??????

 

[georgephillip]

It appears you fail to recognize the political differences between conservative and modern Liberals.....

I'm unclear on why any political differences between conservatives and liberals would affect their commitment to neoliberal economic policies?

Base and superstructure - Wikipedia

"Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society..."

Your link:

"Ronald Reagan almost single-handedly destroyed the New Deal vision of America that used to guide us. Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise to build a strong nation and protect each other.

"The watchwords of that effort were solidarity, opportunity and public duty.

"Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."

Reagan's picture for America seemed more about replacing the "shackles of the state" with an elitist corporate oligarchy which has just elected its first POTUS.

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia

"See also: Reaganomics and Reagan Era

"David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the United States to Lewis Powell's 1971 confidential memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce.[79]:43

"A call to arms to the business community to counter criticism of the free enterprise system, it was a significant factor in the rise of conservative organizations and think-tanks which advocated for neoliberal policies, such as the Business Roundtable, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academia and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

"For Powell, universities were becoming an ideological battleground, and he recommended the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure to serve as a counterweight to the increasingly popular ideas of Ralph Nader and other opponents of big business.[84][85][86]"

Reagan produced a golden age for all Americans.

And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

1. 
   
   
   • The benefits from Reaganomics:
     1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
     2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
     3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
     4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
     5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
     6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva

Who moved into the White House four years after 1976?

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

"The results of Reaganomics are still debated.

"Supporters point to the end of stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and an entrepreneur revolution in the decades that followed.[3][4]

"Critics point to the widening income gap, an atmosphere of greed, and the national debt tripling in eight years which ultimately reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP."

Ronald Reagan's policies led to one of the worst financial scandals in US history, the S&L debacle, which caused productive taxpayers billions of dollars and set the stage for today's corporate assault on democracy.

The Gipper was for sale to the highest bidder, and GE won that auction.

 

[McRocket]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.

LOL...rub what? Your 'savage' theory is utter blather. And I - with facts/data/expert opinion - made mincemeat of your economic points. The economy probably only improved in early 2018 because of the tax cuts/trickle down nonsense (which hurt the deficit). Those benefits are now gone...forever.
All you did is post a couple of stats and some opinion from a nobody at a tiny, Brit think tank.


But back to my other question...

I will try it a different way.

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears you fail to recognize the political differences between conservative and modern Liberals.....

I'm unclear on why any political differences between conservatives and liberals would affect their commitment to neoliberal economic policies?

Base and superstructure - Wikipedia

"Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society..."

Your link:

"Ronald Reagan almost single-handedly destroyed the New Deal vision of America that used to guide us. Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise to build a strong nation and protect each other.

"The watchwords of that effort were solidarity, opportunity and public duty.

"Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."

Reagan's picture for America seemed more about replacing the "shackles of the state" with an elitist corporate oligarchy which has just elected its first POTUS.

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia

"See also: Reaganomics and Reagan Era

"David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the United States to Lewis Powell's 1971 confidential memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce.[79]:43

"A call to arms to the business community to counter criticism of the free enterprise system, it was a significant factor in the rise of conservative organizations and think-tanks which advocated for neoliberal policies, such as the Business Roundtable, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academia and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

"For Powell, universities were becoming an ideological battleground, and he recommended the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure to serve as a counterweight to the increasingly popular ideas of Ralph Nader and other opponents of big business.[84][85][86]"

Reagan produced a golden age for all Americans.

And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

1. 
   
   
   • The benefits from Reaganomics:
     1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
     2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
     3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
     4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
     5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
     6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva Lending Team: Team REAL Americans | Kiva

Who moved into the White House four years after 1976?

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

"The results of Reaganomics are still debated.

"Supporters point to the end of stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and an entrepreneur revolution in the decades that followed.[3][4]

"Critics point to the widening income gap, an atmosphere of greed, and the national debt tripling in eight years which ultimately reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP."

Ronald Reagan's policies led to one of the worst financial scandals in US history, the S&L debacle, which caused productive taxpayers billions of dollars and set the stage for today's corporate assault on democracy.

The Gipper was for sale to the highest bidder, and GE won that auction.

Take notes:


"While the ranks of the wealthy quickly multiplied, middle-class investors also entered the stock market in rapidly growing numbers. The creation by Congress in 1978 of the 401(k) tax-deferred retirement plan provided new incentives for workers to invest their savings in the stock market (often through mutual funds) rather than relying on company-funded pensions for retirement. The 401(k) led to a kind of democratization of Wall Street, as the percentage of American households owning some stake in the stock market—either directly or through mutual funds—shot quickly from 15.9% in 1983 to 29.6% in 1989.23

Thus the great bull market of the 1980s created more wealth, for more American families, than any previous boom in history."

Investment Company Institute, "Equity Ownership in America, 2005," http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_05_equity_owners.pdf,

The Reagan Era Learning Guide: Citations

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.

I will try it a different way.

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

As I have shown, the 'issues' on which Liberals/Progressives/Democrats vote are not beneficial to themselves or to the nation.
They are superficial and insignificant: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.


Rub your face in it again?

Sure.



Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.



And, on those bases, they reward their candidates:

“Record number of women elected to the House”
Record number of women elected to the House - CNNPolitics


“In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers” In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers


“Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections”
Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections


Pretty smart basis for selecting leaders, huh??????




And how about foreign policy for which Liberals/Democrats show their support: Obama's signature foreign policy achievement was to guarantee nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.



Liberals...Progressives....Democrats......not very smart....but good at following orders.

 

[McRocket]

Liberals...Progressives....Democrats......not very smart....but good at following orders.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals...Progressives....Democrats......not very smart....but good at following orders.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

Even this simple question is not beyond your apparently limited education/intellect/emotional stability.

As I have shown, the 'issues' on which Liberals/Progressives/Democrats vote are not beneficial to themselves or to the nation.
They are superficial and insignificant: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.


Rub your face in it again?

Sure.



Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, judge their leaders by different standards: skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and ideology.



And, on those bases, they reward their candidates:

“Record number of women elected to the House”
Record number of women elected to the House - CNNPolitics


“In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers” In ‘Rainbow Wave,’ L.G.B.T. Candidates Are Elected in Record Numbers


“Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections”
Trans Candidates Are Poised to Make History in 2018 Elections


Pretty smart basis for selecting leaders, huh??????




And how about foreign policy for which Liberals/Democrats show their support: Obama's signature foreign policy achievement was to guarantee nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.



Liberals...Progressives....Democrats......not very smart....but good at following orders.

 

[McRocket]

orders.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Of course, there are clear and evident examples in Frazer’s history of warnings for our Liberal/Progressive brethren.

“The Roman annals record that one of the kings of Alba, Romulus, … set up for being a god in his own person, the equal or superior of Jupiter. To support his pretensions and overawe his subjects, he constructed machines whereby he mimicked the clap of thunder and the flash of lightning. … when thunder is loud and frequent, the king commanded his soldiers to drown the roar of heaven’s artillery by clashing their swords against their shields. But he paid the penalty of his impiety, for he perished, he and his house, struck by a thunderbolt in the midst of a dreadful storm.” Frazer, Op. Cit., p. 196





And, the king of the Liberals, Hussein the First, was declared to be Jesus, God, and the messiah, by his acolytes. He claimed to be able to slow the rise of the oceans, and heal the planet.




His media ‘soldiers’ didn’t “drown the roar of heaven’s artillery by clashing their swords against their shields,” but trumpeted hagiographies on a daily, nay…hourly basis.






“But he paid the penalty of his impiety”….

"His presidency will end with Democrats in possession of 11 fewer Senate seats (depending on how you count), more than 60 fewer House seats, at least 14 fewer governorships and more than 900 fewer seats in state legislatures than when it began. That’s a staggering toll." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/o...est&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0


"Democrats suffered a greater loss of power during Obama’s tenure than under any other two-term president since World War II." Obama returns to political fray for a Democratic Party cause



And…he was the laughing stock of the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

orders.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

Your obfuscation has been exposed.....

...be gone, child.

 

[McRocket]

world.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

 

[PoliticalChic]

world.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

Answered over and over.

You're a slow learner.

 

[McRocket]

orders.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

Your obfuscation has been exposed.....

...be gone, child.

LOL...asking a simple, True or False question is 'obfuscating? I think not.

'obfuscate
verb

ob·fus·cate | \ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt; äb-ˈfə-ˌskāt, əb-\
obfuscated; obfuscating
Definition of obfuscate


transitive verb

1a: to throw into shadow : DARKEN

b: to make obscureobfuscate the issueofficials who … continue to obscure and obfuscate what happened— Mary Carroll

2: CONFUSE

Definition of OBFUSCATE


Once again:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?


All you have to do is type 'T' or 'F'.

And you cannot seem to even manage that.

 

[McRocket]

world.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

Answered over and over.

You're a slow learner.

LOL, nope...you did not. No 'true' or 'false' to be found.

Those are the only answers I will accept in this case.


Once again:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?


All you have to do is type 'T' or 'F'.

 

[Timmy]

The economy was booming before trump got elected . Why would you give Big tax cuts to Big biz and the wealthy at this time?? You play that card when the economy is faltering and needs a boost.

Now what you have is ballooning deficits at a time where you could’ve done something about them .

Watch me smash a custard pie in your ugly kisser:


"The stronger the economy gets under President Trump, the more desperate his critics are to hand credit over to Obama. Even if that entails changing the past.


...the economy was stagnating in 2016 after the weakest recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.


In fact, The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016: "For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%."


...GDP growth decelerated in each of the last three quarters of 2016."





And on January 27, 2017, after the government reported that GDP growth for all 2016 was a mere 1.6% — the weakest in five years —"

Economic Boom: Media Rewrite History To Credit Obama Instead Of Trump




NEXT!!!!

Changing the past? While Trump was running he claimed the low unemployment numbers were lies . Now that he’s president, their TRUE ! And it’s all thanks to him .

Are you going to deny that history?

"The economy was booming before trump got elected ."

An absolute lie.

I just made you eat those words.....so now you'd like to change the subject?


Nope.....not allowed.



Now....were you lying, or simply stupid?????

Here’s the unemployment stats . Notice the trend ? Trump riding Obama’s wave

 

[Tax Man]

world.

LOL...you do realize that I am not even reading your replies...haven't for a while? I look at the first word...if it does not answer my question - I assume you have not answered it. And then I just ask again.

I will ask again...obviously you are afraid to answer the question for fear of being proved wrong:

Do liberals vote for people primarily on where they stand on the issues?

True or false?

Answered over and over.

You're a slow learner.

Stupid. That covers most everything you post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 230453

The economy was booming before trump got elected . Why would you give Big tax cuts to Big biz and the wealthy at this time?? You play that card when the economy is faltering and needs a boost.

Now what you have is ballooning deficits at a time where you could’ve done something about them .

Watch me smash a custard pie in your ugly kisser:


"The stronger the economy gets under President Trump, the more desperate his critics are to hand credit over to Obama. Even if that entails changing the past.


...the economy was stagnating in 2016 after the weakest recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.


In fact, The New York Times itself described Obama's economy this way in August 2016: "For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1%. In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9% and 0.8%, respectively. The initial reading for the second quarter of this year, released on Friday, was a disappointing 1.2%."


...GDP growth decelerated in each of the last three quarters of 2016."





And on January 27, 2017, after the government reported that GDP growth for all 2016 was a mere 1.6% — the weakest in five years —"

Economic Boom: Media Rewrite History To Credit Obama Instead Of Trump




NEXT!!!!

Changing the past? While Trump was running he claimed the low unemployment numbers were lies . Now that he’s president, their TRUE ! And it’s all thanks to him .

Are you going to deny that history?

"The economy was booming before trump got elected ."

An absolute lie.

I just made you eat those words.....so now you'd like to change the subject?


Nope.....not allowed.



Now....were you lying, or simply stupid?????

Here’s the unemployment stats . Notice the trend ? Trump riding Obama’s wave

Obama?????


This Obama?


1... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun


2. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama

["BET Founder: Trump’s economy bringing black workers back into the workforce"

BET Founder: Trump's economy bringing black workers back into the workforce]




3. . "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession


4. . In a stunning Tuesday report, Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed that “for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”Clifton says for the past six years since 2008, employer business startups have fallen below the business failure rate, spurring what he calls “an underground earthquake” that only stands to worsen as lagging U.S. Census data becomes available.
“Let’s get one thing clear: This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses,” writes Clifton."Economic Death Spiral: More American Businesses Dying Than Starting - Breitbart


5. "Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing
It's not only the just-released University of Michigan consumer confidence report and February retail sales on Thursday that surprised economists and investors with another dose of underwhelming news. Overall, U.S. economic data have been falling short of prognosticators' expectations by the most in six years." Surprise: U.S. Economic Data Have Been the World's Most Disappointing

6. . "That basic math is why middle class incomes have been in decline under Obama. The Census Bureau reports that since Obama became President 7 years ago, real median household income has fallen by $1,300 a year. Heritage Foundation Chief Economist Steve Moore explained in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, “At 2 percent growth the economy doesn’t spin off enough jobs to increase wages, and tax revenues grow much too slowly to balance the budget.”
The recession officially ended more than 6 years ago. Wages and incomes have always grown in recoveries, not declined. Moreover, the American historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy is supposed to boom in a recovery to catch up with its long term economic growth trendline. But over 6 years after the recession ended, that still has not happened. Instead, what we have gotten under President Obama is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression." Realizing The Super Bowl Of American Economic Growth



7. "Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth. " http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence...-obama-has-lowest-average-1stq-gdp-growth-any


8. The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually....twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Red Tape Rising: Five Years of Regulatory Expansion


9. . "...take-home pay for many American workers has effectively fallen since the economic recovery began in 2009, according to a new study by an advocacy group that is to be released on Thursday.

The declines were greatest for the lowest-paid workers in sectors where hiring has been strong — home health care, food preparation and retailing — even though wages were already below average to begin with in those service industries.

“Stagnant wages are a problem for everyone at this point, but the imbalance in the economy has become more pronounced since the recession,”..." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/b...rkers-see-biggest-drop-in-paychecks.html?_r=0


10. . "Obamacare health insurance co-ops surged past the $1 billion mark in losses this week, making history of sorts.The insolvencies, totaling $1.36 billion, mean that the co-ops have burned through more than half of the original $2 billion appropriatedin 2010 for the program under the Affordable Care Act. The funds were loaned to the start-up co-ops in 2012 and were to be repaid in 15 years, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manages Obamacare.


...13 of the 23 federally-financed Obamacare co-ops have officially failed in only two years. Most are in the process of default as insurance regulators attempt to pay customer’s medical bills, cover medical providers and pay other creditors.
Obamacare Co-Op Mess Causes $1.3 Billion In Losses


11. Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion | Investor's Business Daily

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth."Hedge fund billionaire calls Obama economy 'amazing'



12. ".... calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion. That's why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president."
How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?


13. "The Tipping Point: Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class

December 9, 2015

A just-released analysis of government data shows that as of 2015, middle-income households have become the minority.


And middle-income Americans not only have shrunk as a share of the population but have fallen further behind financially, with their median income down 4 percent compared with the year 2000, Pew said."

The Tipping Point: Most Americans No Longer Are Middle Class



14. “Last week the Commerce Department released its third revision for fourth-quarter 2016 gross domestic product. The number came in at a paltry 2.1 percent, meaning that growth during President Obama’s final year in office — the end of an “Error of Hope” — landed with a big thud at just 1.6 percent.” https://nypost.com/2017/04/01/obama-was-terrible-for-economic-growth/






Be sure to let me know if you find any errors in the above.