Who Really Favors 'Income Inequality'???

[TNHarley]

Both parties have their hands in it. Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater.

"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.




Now...watch how I utterly eviscerate your post:


8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network



I'm going to be interested in your response...

ideology and political parties are not mutually exclusive.
The republican corporatists also backed trade deals that helped create more inequality. The rich got richer and we got poorer.
Bank bailout?
Didn't they help vote to give GM all that money at an 11 billion dollar expense to the tax payers?
Guess what, special interest lobbyists LOVE them some republicans. Don't be so fuckin coy, hack.

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

 

[Rshermr]

Chic, your party got hijacked by corporatists, just like the dems. Grow up, accept it and move on.

Not going to happen. Cons have their talking points. They are nearly all lies. But that's what con tools do.
If you want to see where con's get their cut and paste material, here you are:
Conservative Talking Points - A Conservative's Debating Tool and Reference Database of Political Knowledge
Along with a couple hundred bat shit crazy con web sites, and a few hundred paid email writers. Hell, no need to have a brain, just believe what they are told to believe.

 

[TNHarley]

Chic, your party got hijacked by corporatists, just like the dems. Grow up, accept it and move on.

Not going to happen. Cons have their talking points. They are nearly all lies. But that's what con tools do.
If you want to see where con's get their cut and paste material, here you are:
Conservative Talking Points - A Conservative's Debating Tool and Reference Database of Political Knowledge
Along with a couple hundred bat shit crazy con web sites, and a few hundred paid email writers. Hell, no need to have a brain, just believe what they are told to believe.

You aren't talking about cons. You are talking about ideological hacks

 

[Rshermr]

Chic, your party got hijacked by corporatists, just like the dems. Grow up, accept it and move on.

Not going to happen. Cons have their talking points. They are nearly all lies. But that's what con tools do.
If you want to see where con's get their cut and paste material, here you are:
Conservative Talking Points - A Conservative's Debating Tool and Reference Database of Political Knowledge
Along with a couple hundred bat shit crazy con web sites, and a few hundred paid email writers. Hell, no need to have a brain, just believe what they are told to believe.

You aren't talking about cons. You are talking about ideological hacks

Yup. And all con tools are ideological hacks. Not all cons are, however. A couple percent are open minded.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both parties have their hands in it. Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater.

"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.




Now...watch how I utterly eviscerate your post:


8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network



I'm going to be interested in your response...

ideology and political parties are not mutually exclusive.
The republican corporatists also backed trade deals that helped create more inequality. The rich got richer and we got poorer.
Bank bailout?
Didn't they help vote to give GM all that money at an 11 billion dollar expense to the tax payers?
Guess what, special interest lobbyists LOVE them some republicans. Don't be so fuckin coy, hack.

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

 

[TNHarley]

Both parties have their hands in it. Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater.

"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.




Now...watch how I utterly eviscerate your post:


8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network



I'm going to be interested in your response...

ideology and political parties are not mutually exclusive.
The republican corporatists also backed trade deals that helped create more inequality. The rich got richer and we got poorer.
Bank bailout?
Didn't they help vote to give GM all that money at an 11 billion dollar expense to the tax payers?
Guess what, special interest lobbyists LOVE them some republicans. Don't be so fuckin coy, hack.

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

You have never wounded me. You cant even address my points, chic. The really funny, and quit ironic thing is, you claim defeat over your strawmen you develop when talking to me. Its fuckin weak and very lefty-ish of you

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.




Now...watch how I utterly eviscerate your post:


8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by a Republican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network



I'm going to be interested in your response...

ideology and political parties are not mutually exclusive.
The republican corporatists also backed trade deals that helped create more inequality. The rich got richer and we got poorer.
Bank bailout?
Didn't they help vote to give GM all that money at an 11 billion dollar expense to the tax payers?
Guess what, special interest lobbyists LOVE them some republicans. Don't be so fuckin coy, hack.

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

You have never wounded me. You cant even address my points, chic. The really funny, and quit ironic thing is, you claim defeat over your strawmen you develop when talking to me. Its fuckin weak and very lefty-ish of you

"You have never wounded me"

Wellllllll.....
Now let's show you to be a liar, too!


Did you post this?
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
Yes, you did.



And I proved you to be of the very same condition that caused the Hindenburg to explode: hot air.

I post undeniable facts......like this:

8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by aRepublican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network




And then I wrote this:
I'm going to be interested in your response...


And, sure enough....you blustered forth with posts laced with profanity.
A sure sign that the post left you writhing in pain.


So...your resume now includes 'vulgar,' 'ignorant,' and 'liar.'



You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

 

[TNHarley]

ideology and political parties are not mutually exclusive.
The republican corporatists also backed trade deals that helped create more inequality. The rich got richer and we got poorer.
Bank bailout?
Didn't they help vote to give GM all that money at an 11 billion dollar expense to the tax payers?
Guess what, special interest lobbyists LOVE them some republicans. Don't be so fuckin coy, hack.

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

You have never wounded me. You cant even address my points, chic. The really funny, and quit ironic thing is, you claim defeat over your strawmen you develop when talking to me. Its fuckin weak and very lefty-ish of you

Wellllllll.....
Now let's show you to be a liar, too!


Did you post this?
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
Yes, you did.



And I proved you to be of the very same condition that caused the Hindenburg to explode: hot air.

I post undeniable facts......like this:

8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by aRepublican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network




And then I wrote this:
I'm going to be interested in your response...


And, sure enough....you blustered forth with posts laced with profanity.
A sure sign that the post left you writhing in pain.


So...your resume now includes 'vulgar,' 'ignorant,' and 'liar.'



You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

That doesn't prove anything, Rderp.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, remember....this Monbiot is being published in a respected journal, The Guardian.

.....note the effects of Liberal control of the media:


9. "After misrepresenting the views and philosophy of Hayek and Friedman, he then absurdly attempts to tie “neoliberalism” to fascism, totalitarianism, and political violence.

He approvingly cites Naomi Klein’s debunked assertions that free market reforms are so unpopular they have to be forced upon people by violent dictators — apparently unaware of research published in the American Economics Journal that found democracies are much more likely to undergo economic liberalization [that refers to classical liberalism, not the Modern counterfeit version] than non-democracies.

Research by economists Indra de Soysa and Krishna Chaitanya Vadlammanati also concludes that “using the best available data and empirical methods, we find positive effects of market-economic policy reforms on government respect for human rights,” and their results “vindicate those who find positive effects of free markets on economic development and other measures of social welfare.”


a. [The facts are that] the supposedly “socialist” Scandinavian countries they fancy are actually “among the frontrunners in [conservative policies]” — at least according to actual economists in Scandinavia. Sweden, for example, adopted a successful universal school choice system in the 1990s that is nearly identical to the system proposed by Milton Friedman his classic 1955 essay “The Role of Government in Education.” Neoliberalism: the Left’s Eternal Boogeyman | Corey Iacono



So....even the vaunted “socialist” Scandinavian countries have turned to conservative policies, if only for economic viability. And, inadvertently.....it informs individual liberty.

Memo to socialist Obama: wise up.

 

[Markle]

The poverty rate in America, when you include the help given to the poor that raises their measured income,

is about 4%. Why someone like the OP would want to raise that number is anyone's guess.

No one is raising the number, that's what it is BEFORE the handouts paid for by taxpayers.

The author of the opinion piece to which you refer, Tim Worstall, is known to have some...far out ideas. The political party to which he belongs has 46,000 members. Oh, and that's in Great Britain.

Our Greatest President, Abraham Lincoln had a perfect analogy for Mr. Worstall saying that if you call money from the taxpayers, given to those in poverty, fewer people are REALLY in poverty. Quite a joke.

"How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Markle]

Is it the Right.....or the Left?
Whose policies encourage said inequality?

What? LOL...Who has policies to help the poor? And which party objects to them?

There ya go

True, quite simple. Republicans and Conservatives have plans and policies to HELP the poor. Democrats and Progressives have plans and policies to make the poor DEPENDENT ON TAXPAYERS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The poverty rate in America, when you include the help given to the poor that raises their measured income,

is about 4%. Why someone like the OP would want to raise that number is anyone's guess.

No one is raising the number, that's what it is BEFORE the handouts paid for by taxpayers.

The author of the opinion piece to which you refer, Tim Worstall, is known to have some...far out ideas. The political party to which he belongs has 46,000 members. Oh, and that's in Great Britain.

Our Greatest President, Abraham Lincoln had a perfect analogy for Mr. Worstall saying that if you call money from the taxpayers, given to those in poverty, fewer people are REALLY in poverty. Quite a joke.

"How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

If we take all help away from the poor,

how long will it take before America is a better place, with fewer poor people and a smaller gap between rich and poor?

You tell us, genius.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now, remember....this Monbiot is being published in a respected journal, The Guardian.

.....note the effects of Liberal control of the media:


9. "After misrepresenting the views and philosophy of Hayek and Friedman, he then absurdly attempts to tie “neoliberalism” to fascism, totalitarianism, and political violence.

He approvingly cites Naomi Klein’s debunked assertions that free market reforms are so unpopular they have to be forced upon people by violent dictators — apparently unaware of research published in the American Economics Journal that found democracies are much more likely to undergo economic liberalization [that refers to classical liberalism, not the Modern counterfeit version] than non-democracies.

Research by economists Indra de Soysa and Krishna Chaitanya Vadlammanati also concludes that “using the best available data and empirical methods, we find positive effects of market-economic policy reforms on government respect for human rights,” and their results “vindicate those who find positive effects of free markets on economic development and other measures of social welfare.”


a. [The facts are that] the supposedly “socialist” Scandinavian countries they fancy are actually “among the frontrunners in [conservative policies]” — at least according to actual economists in Scandinavia. Sweden, for example, adopted a successful universal school choice system in the 1990s that is nearly identical to the system proposed by Milton Friedman his classic 1955 essay “The Role of Government in Education.” Neoliberalism: the Left’s Eternal Boogeyman | Corey Iacono



So....even the vaunted “socialist” Scandinavian countries have turned to conservative policies, if only for economic viability. And, inadvertently.....it informs individual liberty.

Memo to socialist Obama: wise up.

Who are you to tell us whether the Guardian is a 'respected journal'. You can't put an original thought together.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ideology and political parties are not mutually exclusive.
The republican corporatists also backed trade deals that helped create more inequality. The rich got richer and we got poorer.
Bank bailout?
Didn't they help vote to give GM all that money at an 11 billion dollar expense to the tax payers?
Guess what, special interest lobbyists LOVE them some republicans. Don't be so fuckin coy, hack.

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

You have never wounded me. You cant even address my points, chic. The really funny, and quit ironic thing is, you claim defeat over your strawmen you develop when talking to me. Its fuckin weak and very lefty-ish of you

"You have never wounded me"

Wellllllll.....
Now let's show you to be a liar, too!


Did you post this?
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
Yes, you did.



And I proved you to be of the very same condition that caused the Hindenburg to explode: hot air.

I post undeniable facts......like this:

8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by aRepublican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network




And then I wrote this:
I'm going to be interested in your response...


And, sure enough....you blustered forth with posts laced with profanity.
A sure sign that the post left you writhing in pain.


So...your resume now includes 'vulgar,' 'ignorant,' and 'liar.'



You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

The EITC and the child tax credit are two of the main reasons that 40+% of American households pay no income taxes,

a situation that 99% of your RWnut pals around here constantly bitch about.

 

[TNHarley]

And there it is.....the vulgarity that flows from small minded individuals who recognize that I've smashed a custard pie in their kissers.


Clearly, an admission that your post...
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
....was simply more of the hot air for which you are infamous.

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

You have never wounded me. You cant even address my points, chic. The really funny, and quit ironic thing is, you claim defeat over your strawmen you develop when talking to me. Its fuckin weak and very lefty-ish of you

"You have never wounded me"

Wellllllll.....
Now let's show you to be a liar, too!


Did you post this?
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
Yes, you did.



And I proved you to be of the very same condition that caused the Hindenburg to explode: hot air.

I post undeniable facts......like this:

8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by aRepublican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network




And then I wrote this:
I'm going to be interested in your response...


And, sure enough....you blustered forth with posts laced with profanity.
A sure sign that the post left you writhing in pain.


So...your resume now includes 'vulgar,' 'ignorant,' and 'liar.'



You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

The EITC and the child tax credit are two of the main reasons that 40+% of American households pay no income taxes,

a situation that 99% of your RWnut pals around here constantly bitch about.

yep. Just like all the shit about refugees and shit getting money when they come here. That department that puts forth those ideas were started by a Republican
Its never ending with ideological hacks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

DUDE, all your arrogant ass does is talk shit. Self awareness not your strong suit, ey?
Please show me I was wrong. Your cut/paste didn't prove shit.

Ooooo.....look!

More vulgarity.

How.....impressive.

I love how you reveal how I've wounded you.

Won't be the last time.

You have never wounded me. You cant even address my points, chic. The really funny, and quit ironic thing is, you claim defeat over your strawmen you develop when talking to me. Its fuckin weak and very lefty-ish of you

"You have never wounded me"

Wellllllll.....
Now let's show you to be a liar, too!


Did you post this?
"Neither party cares about Americans. Its just political theater."
Yes, you did.



And I proved you to be of the very same condition that caused the Hindenburg to explode: hot air.

I post undeniable facts......like this:

8. "....Milton Friedman wrote, “Our [conservative] humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who draw blanks in the lottery of life,” and “there is justification in trying to achieve a minimum income for all.” In Capitalism and Freedom, he proposed a negative income tax as a means to achieve that goal. Monbiot really should have known this, since he links to this very article in his own piece." Fee, Op. Cit.


Guess who put that idea into effect? The Left???? Nope.

a. The EITC has a sterling Republican heritage. It was first instituted in the 1920s by aRepublican Congress at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Repealed in 1943, Republican President Gerald Ford revived it in 1975.

EITC supporters argued that because the credit would be available only to those with earned income, it would reinforce work incentives and help get people off welfare. By making the credit refundable, it would offset the disincentive effects of higher payroll tax rates, which had risen from 4.8 percent on workers and employers in 1970 to 5.85 percent in 1975.

b. In the 1980s, Republican Ronald Reagan supported a big increase in the EITC rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. In 1990, George H.W. Bush supported a further increase.

Despite the exploding cost of the EITC, Republicans in Congress created another tax credit in the 1997 tax bill. The child credit was intended to make it easier for mothers to stay at home and raise their children, rather than work outside the home. Bruce Bartlett - Republicans and the Earned Income Tax Credit

c. “…the earned income tax credit ("EITC") that was enacted by Republican Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... could it be, don't tell me, say it ain't so!... Ronald Reagan.” Reagan the Redistributor: Check Out the Earned Income Tax Credit

d. “…a child care tax deduction included in the immense Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (who was President?)…” Welcome | Work and Family Researchers Network




And then I wrote this:
I'm going to be interested in your response...


And, sure enough....you blustered forth with posts laced with profanity.
A sure sign that the post left you writhing in pain.


So...your resume now includes 'vulgar,' 'ignorant,' and 'liar.'



You will never be able to live down to your reputation!

The EITC and the child tax credit are two of the main reasons that 40+% of American households pay no income taxes,

a situation that 99% of your RWnut pals around here constantly bitch about.

yep. Just like all the shit about refugees and shit getting money when they come here. That department that puts forth those ideas were started by a Republican
Its never ending with ideological hacks.

Don't think for a second that the OP supports the progressive income tax. She frequently, blindly, praises Reagan policies without realizing she opposes those policies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "Monbiot then attempts to link “neoliberalism” to fascism by blaming it for the rise of Donald Trump, because “neoliberals” in the political establishment have supposedly alienated voters and sent them into the arms of demagogues like Trump, who will then push the political system towards fascism.

There is no evidence for any of this. Hayek and Friedman are certainly not the guiding lights of today's Republican or Democratic political establishments, and it's laughable to argue that Trump supporters are upset by some nonexistent wave of “neoliberal” deregulation. Monbiot also fails to note that the populist backlash driving Trump's campaign is the same fuel propelling the rise of Bernie Sanders. Are Hayek and Friedman to blame for every contemporary populist uprising?

Of course not. The great classical liberal economists of the 20th century provided an ethical, nuanced, and empirically rigorous defense of free market capitalism at a time when central planning and totalitarian ideologies were sweeping the globe. Liberals in the West owe them a huge debt, but unfortunately, they are defaulting on their obligation."
Fee, Op. Cit.





And,...contrary to the nonsense from Monbiot, and every other Leftist...
" In fact, by almost every measure, America is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, or 30 years ago, or even eight years ago." Remarks by the President at Commencement Address at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey


a. "The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.

In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.

In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune! " David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge," chapter ten.

 

[The Great Goose]

If women can take no pay penalty for taking time off to procreate(for their own gratification),then men should take no py penalty for cruising singlesclubs and church meet up groups.

I always love autobiographical posts....but....this one relates to the OP......how?
Did you stumble into this thread inadvertently?

You're a dick. Bye.

 

[Agit8r]

Neoliberalism involves the dogma of privatizing everything, including education. That isn't what our founders believed in at all.

"there should not be a district of one Mile square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselv they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen"
-- John Adams; from letter to John Jebb (Sept. 10, 1785)

"The first stage of this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV

"It is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity."
-- James Madison; from letter to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)

Based on your post....you must actually be imagining that the wholly owned subsidiary of Liberalism, Inc., the government school system....

....is doing the job it did when it was less biased, less under the thumb of Leftists like John Dewey and Paulo Freire and Barack Obama.


Or....do you see our current system as.....exemplary?

We should clearly have a better funded school system. After all, to render the people safe to govern, "their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neoliberalism involves the dogma of privatizing everything, including education. That isn't what our founders believed in at all.

"there should not be a district of one Mile square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselv they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen"
-- John Adams; from letter to John Jebb (Sept. 10, 1785)

"The first stage of this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV

"It is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity."
-- James Madison; from letter to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)

Based on your post....you must actually be imagining that the wholly owned subsidiary of Liberalism, Inc., the government school system....

....is doing the job it did when it was less biased, less under the thumb of Leftists like John Dewey and Paulo Freire and Barack Obama.


Or....do you see our current system as.....exemplary?

We should clearly have a better funded school system. After all, to render the people safe to govern, "their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"....a better funded school system."

And in your post one finds the very heart of why Liberals, Progressives, socialists, fascists, Nazis and Communists all get it wrong.

Materialism.

Money will not fix the schools, the welfare system, or....mark the path to a better society.

….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but believe that it is a change of values needed to cure poverty, education, and every other ill that besets society.