Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   If it weren't for GOP obstructionism and austerity measures unemployment would be under 6%   (dailykos.com) divider line 510
    More: Interesting, GOP, American Recovery, austerity measures, ARRA, spillover effect, economic cost, Health Care, International, unemployment  
•       •       •

5246 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2012 at 7:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



510 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-10 09:41:05 AM  
paygun:
On the other hand, I see a lot of the same on another forum I visit that leans right. Oh my god the Obammer is going to outlaw the bible! It's retarded.

The only thing I can come up with it that this manufactured drama imparts meaning to a pretty empty life.

Here's another one. I know this is true in at least ONE case. I used to live in East Lansing, MI. One of my acquaintances worked for a WAY left Democrat, Mark Grebner. Grebner has a sense of humor, and actually cared about doing the job, which makes him unusual. Anyway, his worker, who was even FURTHER leftist, would call radio stations during call-in shows, and say some line of utter crap, starting it out "Hi, Bob, long-time listener, first time caller. I've been a Republican all my life, and I think we should just ship any of them negroes back to Africa if they don't like it here. Hell, we'll even pay for it. Well worth it to have one less of 'em."

I normally don't listen to call-in programs, and I was shocked to recognize his voice, with a phony name. I confronted him with it, and he said it was common practice to do that. I don't know HOW common, but there may be only a few of those uber-redneck types out there, and a whole gaggle of impostors, pretending to be Republicans, and then airing their secret racist screed. Heck, look upthread. It's almost always a leftist who brings up race first.
 
2012-07-10 09:43:56 AM  
And here they were just two months ago praising Obama for shrinking the government.

Good things from smaller government=Obama
Bad things from smaller government=Republicans

/And the kos link is like a cherry on top of the tard cake.
 
2012-07-10 09:44:31 AM  
Calmamity:
Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.

That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.
 
2012-07-10 09:45:59 AM  

GeneralJim: I know this is true in at least ONE case.


GeneralJim: Heck, look upthread. It's almost always a leftist who brings up race first.


Your post is a steaming pile of bullshiat. PLONK.
 
2012-07-10 09:49:06 AM  
The article seems to just reflect on (2009) a year of spending money at record rates. Followed by 2010, where America saw the grand spending plan as a lemon.... We got rhetoric, not jobs.

"If fire trucks came roaring up to your house, and the firemen started spraying water, breaking out windows and chopping holes in the roof, one would think the house was on fire. But it doesn't have to be.
Activity alone is not proof. Just because the government has gone nuclear does not mean that it was necessary.
Capitalism is not broken. Laissez-faire is still the best, self-correcting system of economic organization. Allowing the market system to deal with the problems of the last few years would have been much better than having the government do it.

In fact, it's almost as if the government has committed arson, disabled the internal sprinkler system and is now claiming that the building owners are liable for the amount it costs to put out the fire."
- famous guy article.


Basically, the WH has not handled the economy well. And now they are looking to point fingers.

Unenemployment, debt, 4 years of trillion $ defecits.....everyone is noticing.

Congress, control spending.....it's a start.
 
2012-07-10 09:50:09 AM  

GeneralJim: paygun: On the other hand, I see a lot of the same on another forum I visit that leans right. Oh my god the Obammer is going to outlaw the bible! It's retarded.

The only thing I can come up with it that this manufactured drama imparts meaning to a pretty empty life.
Here's another one. I know this is true in at least ONE case. I used to live in East Lansing, MI. One of my acquaintances worked for a WAY left Democrat, Mark Grebner. Grebner has a sense of humor, and actually cared about doing the job, which makes him unusual. Anyway, his worker, who was even FURTHER leftist, would call radio stations during call-in shows, and say some line of utter crap, starting it out "Hi, Bob, long-time listener, first time caller. I've been a Republican all my life, and I think we should just ship any of them negroes back to Africa if they don't like it here. Hell, we'll even pay for it. Well worth it to have one less of 'em."

I normally don't listen to call-in programs, and I was shocked to recognize his voice, with a phony name. I confronted him with it, and he said it was common practice to do that. I don't know HOW common, but there may be only a few of those uber-redneck types out there, and a whole gaggle of impostors, pretending to be Republicans, and then airing their secret racist screed. Heck, look upthread. It's almost always a leftist who brings up race first.


These false flag DNC operatives have been so insidious is to actually infiltrate the leadership of the tea partier movement and make them look like a bunch of racist idiots. The true compassionate and tolerant tea partiers need to take back this movement from these agents provacateurs.
 
2012-07-10 09:51:17 AM  

GeneralJim: Calmamity: Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.
That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.


Mitch McConnell & Rush Limbaugh count?
 
2012-07-10 09:55:20 AM  

GeneralJim: Calmamity: Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.
That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.


The single most important thing"for Republicans is to make Obama a one-term president, spoken by Mitch McConnell.

General Jim, I've come to the conclusion that you're an asshole, and a particularly arrogant one at that. Calamity spoke the truth, and you jumped down his throat.

I cannot allow a piece of shiat like you to treat others with no respect and get away with it.
 
2012-07-10 10:02:00 AM  
I think Chuck D said it best when he said.......beware of the hand when its coming from the left, I ain't tripping, just watch your step.


/can't truss it
 
2012-07-10 10:03:04 AM  

netcentric: The article seems to just reflect on (2009) a year of spending money at record rates. Followed by 2010, where America saw the grand spending plan as a lemon.... We got rhetoric, not jobs.

"If fire trucks came roaring up to your house, and the firemen started spraying water, breaking out windows and chopping holes in the roof, one would think the house was on fire. But it doesn't have to be.
Activity alone is not proof. Just because the government has gone nuclear does not mean that it was necessary.
Capitalism is not broken. Laissez-faire is still the best, self-correcting system of economic organization. Allowing the market system to deal with the problems of the last few years would have been much better than having the government do it.

In fact, it's almost as if the government has committed arson, disabled the internal sprinkler system and is now claiming that the building owners are liable for the amount it costs to put out the fire." - famous guy article.


Basically, the WH has not handled the economy well. And now they are looking to point fingers.

Unenemployment, debt, 4 years of trillion $ defecits.....everyone is noticing.

Congress, control spending.....it's a start.


Problem is is that the WH does not have the power to actually implement real change to the economic situation. Blaming the President is only a scapegoat. The fact that Presidential candidates focus on trying to create jobs is just a bunch of shiat spewed from their mouths.

We have been accustomed to believing that the President has a big button on his desk thats labeled "Create Jobs". This is an extremely outlandish viewpoint that should be shot down at every available chance.
 
2012-07-10 10:05:47 AM  

GeneralJim: we did NOT know about the Sun's MAGNETIC activity being an amplifier of insolation.



"The nation that controls magnetism will control the universe"

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-10 10:09:04 AM  

AmorousRedDragon: Why isn't the red line included in the chart legend?


For the same reason they don't want to show the contraction starting in 2008.
 
2012-07-10 10:24:33 AM  

spmkk: Shvetz: "Injecting the cash into the bottom of the economy makes it go around and around multiple times. Injecting it into the top (Bush tax cuts) ensures that more than half is just sitting in somebody's account, not being spent or invested."


Uh...right - because if there's one thing the wealthy tend to do with their money, it's keep it under a mattress without investing it.

As to your chart, could you please explain -- step by step -- the mechanism through which you believe that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, or how you believe economic stimulus is created by incentivizing people to be less persistent in their job search?


Ok. People who are unemployed can't save money. Every dollar that comes in has to be spent on food, clothing, rent, etc. This creates jobs at a local level. Those jobs pay income taxes, and provide people with the means to create even more demand/jobs. It's all about putting that dollar where it will get spent multiple times in the American economy.

The whole "welfare queen" nonsense of people not wanting to work is absurd. When jobs are available, these people magically want to start working them.
 
2012-07-10 10:31:36 AM  

Shvetz: The whole "welfare queen" nonsense of people not wanting to work is absurd. When jobs are available, these people magically want to start working them.


Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.
 
2012-07-10 10:31:39 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Bucky Katt: I see that Green Font Boy has been busy.

There haven't been any global warming threads for him to troll.


I can fix that. Off to the Submittermobile!!!
 
2012-07-10 10:46:26 AM  

Giltric: Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.


Whoa... what? You dragged people to court because they wouldn't come back to work for you after you laid them off? ... Is this even possible?
 
2012-07-10 10:47:15 AM  

spmkk: Shvetz: "Injecting the cash into the bottom of the economy makes it go around and around multiple times. Injecting it into the top (Bush tax cuts) ensures that more than half is just sitting in somebody's account, not being spent or invested."


Uh...right - because if there's one thing the wealthy tend to do with their money, it's keep it under a mattress without investing it.

As to your chart, could you please explain -- step by step -- the mechanism through which you believe that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, or how you believe economic stimulus is created by incentivizing people to be less persistent in their job search?


Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that we're considering creating/saving jobs as the same thing, unemployment benefits do tend to help create jobs in ways stimulus spending does not. Even a small portion of the stimulus spending is ok if its on projects one would have done anyway but are moving forward a little. Generally speaking, stimulus spending is a mistake. But I'm a classical economist, not a Keynesian, so ymmv.

This is different from welfare benefits because to qualify you have to been employed and not fired and not quit. So it's someone who has proven to society's satisfaction that they are willing and able workers. Unemployment benefits help prevent them from falling out of the productive pool of labor. So long as economically there's a reason for their extended unemployment, such as the lack of a recovery we're currently experiencing, we should continue to help them out.

/I don't take a hard-line "this is stupid" approach with Obama's economic team - those people are very, very smart. But the problem is complex and teasing the variables out is very hard, so I have to grant the possibility that some of their beliefs are right and some of mine are wrong.
 
2012-07-10 10:49:58 AM  

Giltric: Shvetz: The whole "welfare queen" nonsense of people not wanting to work is absurd. When jobs are available, these people magically want to start working them.

Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.


Because they were just sitting around waiting for you to call?

Last time I lost a job, they called me back later for a temp gig. Sorry. I had a job I liked better by then, and it was full-time.

/Not even sure how you can call people you don't have working (i.e wanted to 'come back to work') as employees anyway. Most would describe those as 'former employees'
 
2012-07-10 11:09:18 AM  

Magruda: relcec: it might make more sense if you had to at least get to back the gdp you started with. I don't know.

By that logic GDP and ressession/depression mean squat to the average Joe. What appears to have stimulated job growth according to you was the new deal.


now you are just being a combative idiot.
gdp and ressession/depression being dependent on 3 quarters of contraction or one quarter of growth already means it means squat to the average joe.
 
2012-07-10 11:42:00 AM  

James F. Campbell: Giltric: Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.

Whoa... what? You dragged people to court because they wouldn't come back to work for you after you laid them off? ... Is this even possible?


I'm surprised he would even want to, or that his insurance would even allow it. A lot of people take being laid off very personally and would damage your business given the chance, so most people would want to avoid the risk.

I am interested, however, in what administrative hearings he's talking about.
 
2012-07-10 11:54:09 AM  

Giltric: Shvetz: The whole "welfare queen" nonsense of people not wanting to work is absurd. When jobs are available, these people magically want to start working them.

Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.


When jobs are available, unemployment drops. It's not a mystery. People want to work. For whatever reason, your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold true for the rest of society.
 
2012-07-10 12:03:52 PM  

gilgigamesh: EnviroDude: foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term

If you repeat the lie enough times, it makes it true!


They seemed to have used it to get Obamacare through without a single republican vote.
 
2012-07-10 12:04:23 PM  

James F. Campbell: Giltric: Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.

Whoa... what? You dragged people to court because they wouldn't come back to work for you after you laid them off? ... Is this even possible?


Yes when you are collecting unemployment and you are offered your job back and you refuse because you are collecting a check for doing nothing then the state usually has a problem with it..
 
2012-07-10 12:04:47 PM  

mrshowrules: GeneralJim: Calmamity: Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.
That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.

Mitch McConnell & Rush Limbaugh count?


Rush Limbaugh? Is he in the senate or the house?
 
2012-07-10 12:05:04 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Shvetz: The whole "welfare queen" nonsense of people not wanting to work is absurd. When jobs are available, these people magically want to start working them.

Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.

Because they were just sitting around waiting for you to call?

Last time I lost a job, they called me back later for a temp gig. Sorry. I had a job I liked better by then, and it was full-time.

/Not even sure how you can call people you don't have working (i.e wanted to 'come back to work') as employees anyway. Most would describe those as 'former employees'


Then you have no idea how unemployment works.
 
2012-07-10 12:06:03 PM  

James F. Campbell: Giltric: Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.

Whoa... what? You dragged people to court because they wouldn't come back to work for you after you laid them off? ... Is this even possible?


It isnt even really court. It is usually done over the phone.
 
2012-07-10 12:13:24 PM  

I alone am best: mrshowrules: GeneralJim: Calmamity: Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.
That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.

Mitch McConnell & Rush Limbaugh count?

Rush Limbaugh? Is he in the senate or the house?


He's a GOP "national figure". Are you shifting the goal posts?
 
2012-07-10 12:20:08 PM  

mrshowrules: I alone am best: mrshowrules: GeneralJim: Calmamity: Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.
That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.

Mitch McConnell & Rush Limbaugh count?

Rush Limbaugh? Is he in the senate or the house?

He's a GOP "national figure". Are you shifting the goal posts?


I am not shifting goalposts. I didn't notice the "national figure" part of the original quote, I apologize. I will still contend that Rush is not an elected representative and thus cannot vote on any legislation.
 
2012-07-10 12:27:12 PM  

Shvetz: Giltric: Shvetz: The whole "welfare queen" nonsense of people not wanting to work is absurd. When jobs are available, these people magically want to start working them.

Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.

When jobs are available, unemployment drops. It's not a mystery. People want to work. For whatever reason, your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold true for the rest of society.


No....when unemployment runs out people start magically finding jobs. Norway proved this when they reduced their unemployment benefits. It;s probably human nature to sit around while the state and your previous employer is paying your unemployment benefits...and between 60 and 80 percent of your COBRA payment if you elected to go with COBRA.
 
2012-07-10 12:31:53 PM  

relcec: Magruda: relcec: it might make more sense if you had to at least get to back the gdp you started with. I don't know.

By that logic GDP and ressession/depression mean squat to the average Joe. What appears to have stimulated job growth according to you was the new deal.

now you are just being a combative idiot.
gdp and ressession/depression being dependent on 3 quarters of contraction or one quarter of growth already means it means squat to the average joe.


Regardless, the depression ended in 1939 so your arguement is invalid.
 
2012-07-10 12:41:37 PM  

spmkk: And...apparently it needs to be said *yet again*, because the entirety of 20th-century history didn't communicate it to you clearly enough -- the solution to the the poor not having enough ISN'T for the rich to have less.


The entirety of the 20th century has shown us is that the most prosperous periods of our economy just happened to occur at the times when a large and stable middle class existed. They are the drivers and job creators of this or any capitalist (or variation thereof) economy, since they are in the unique position of having just enough money not to have to spend it all on food, clothing and shelter.

Diamond-shaped economies (like the diamond on a playing card) are most stable and prosperous, with much more of the overall resources contained within its middle section, and relatively few people at the rich and poor ends. That's freshman economics.

What today's economy has gradually become is more of a bottom-heavy dumbbell shape, with many more people sliding from the middle toward the lower end while the resources move to the top in the hands of a relative few. This has been shown to be very unstable, and in the past has caused anarchy and revolution - even in the 20th century.

One other question - why do you defend the rich so vehemently? Do you actually think you'll be one someday? Do you think that people like the ones who lined up twenty deep to suck Mittens Rmoney's political cock in the Hamptons on Sunday give a rat's ass on a rolling cheerio about you or me? These are people with $50,000 per person burning holes in their pockets so badly that they just had to give it to a presidential candidate in person, flying their corporate jets and having their chauffeurs drive sometimes hundreds of miles to do so...

And you defend them... why? Seems like these people have plenty of resources to defend themselves, or are simply rich enough not to give a f*ck about us proles anyway. Why else would Rmoney's little soiree need police protection with SWAT teams and dogs?
 
2012-07-10 12:48:29 PM  

rewind2846: These are people with $50,000 per person burning holes in their pockets so badly that they just had to give it to a presidential candidate in person, flying their corporate jets and having their chauffeurs drive sometimes hundreds of miles to do so...


And that 50k goes to print bumper stickers and little signs that people put on their lawns showing support, it also creates jobs at the printer who also creates job at the paper and ink suppliers as well as the delivery drivers of said ink and paper. Did the chauffeur and pilot create a demand for their services by being pilots and drivers or did the wealthy create a demand for the drivers and pilots services by needing to fly and drive all over the country supporting Romney.

Why does the 50k just to meet someone only apply to the republican running against Obama....don;t the democrats have the same dynamic happening with people spending money to meet Obama?
 
2012-07-10 01:30:33 PM  

Giltric: rewind2846: These are people with $50,000 per person burning holes in their pockets so badly that they just had to give it to a presidential candidate in person, flying their corporate jets and having their chauffeurs drive sometimes hundreds of miles to do so...

And that 50k goes to print bumper stickers and little signs that people put on their lawns showing support, it also creates jobs at the printer who also creates job at the paper and ink suppliers as well as the delivery drivers of said ink and paper.


I work in printing. This is not "creating jobs" because the companies that do this see it as just another print run, and nothing special. Same with the paper and ink suppliers. No massive ramp up because Rmoney wants to print some posters. FAIL #1

Did the chauffeur and pilot create a demand for their services by being pilots and drivers or did the wealthy create a demand for the drivers and pilots services by needing to fly and drive all over the country supporting Romney.

I have no idea WTF this is, so I'll skip it.

Why does the 50k just to meet someone only apply to the republican running against Obama....don;t the democrats have the same dynamic happening with people spending money to meet Obama?

An equally valid question is: why are only rich people invited to these fundraisers, when the people that should be invited are the supposed "regular folks" that Rmoney allegedly supports? Why were there no press allowed inside? Why were these people afraid of the public knowing their identities (except for the Koch brothers, of course)?

As of June, 54% of the president's donations to his re-election campaign were $200 or less from regular people, while 54% of Rmoney's donations were at the $2,500 level, and that rule was skirted by having $50,000 a plate "dinners" like this one. Link

Those same dinners can be had with the president for as little as $5.00 Link or even $3.00 Link. There will be wealthy donors there as well, but the press is invited. We will know who they are because they aren't cowards.

The same as the republicans? Hardly.

btw, the maximum donation allowed by law is actually $35,800. How did Rmoney game the system to get more?
 
2012-07-10 01:41:27 PM  

rewind2846: btw, the maximum donation allowed by law is actually $35,800. How did Rmoney game the system to get more?


The dinner Clooney held for Obama was 40k a plate how did Obama game the system when max allowable is 35,800?

It's nice that there are so many people watching out for shenanigans....but it seems they only look in one direction.

The one thing I noticed about the small donations to Obama is that they leave little as far as a paper trail...especially when you donate under the name of Doo-Dad Pro or Good Will. Hell some of those 200 dollar donations could come from foreign nationals.....who are banned from donating to our candidates.
 
2012-07-10 02:00:52 PM  

Giltric: rewind2846: btw, the maximum donation allowed by law is actually $35,800. How did Rmoney game the system to get more?

The dinner Clooney held for Obama was 40k a plate how did Obama game the system when max allowable is 35,800?

It's nice that there are so many people watching out for shenanigans....but it seems they only look in one direction.

The one thing I noticed about the small donations to Obama is that they leave little as far as a paper trail...especially when you donate under the name of Doo-Dad Pro or Good Will. Hell some of those 200 dollar donations could come from foreign nationals.....who are banned from donating to our candidates.


Ah, now I see. You're an idiot. Small business owners of America, everyone!
 
2012-07-10 02:05:08 PM  

Giltric: rewind2846: btw, the maximum donation allowed by law is actually $35,800. How did Rmoney game the system to get more?

The dinner Clooney held for Obama was 40k a plate how did Obama game the system when max allowable is 35,800?

It's nice that there are so many people watching out for shenanigans....but it seems they only look in one direction.

The one thing I noticed about the small donations to Obama is that they leave little as far as a paper trail...especially when you donate under the name of Doo-Dad Pro or Good Will. Hell some of those 200 dollar donations could come from foreign nationals.....who are banned from donating to our candidates.


Citizens United = Moot point
 
2012-07-10 04:38:28 PM  

James F. Campbell: Giltric: rewind2846: btw, the maximum donation allowed by law is actually $35,800. How did Rmoney game the system to get more?

The dinner Clooney held for Obama was 40k a plate how did Obama game the system when max allowable is 35,800?

It's nice that there are so many people watching out for shenanigans....but it seems they only look in one direction.

The one thing I noticed about the small donations to Obama is that they leave little as far as a paper trail...especially when you donate under the name of Doo-Dad Pro or Good Will. Hell some of those 200 dollar donations could come from foreign nationals.....who are banned from donating to our candidates.

Ah, now I see. You're an idiot. Small business owners of America, everyone!


1/10

You should have opened with "Racist!"

"You flame with the wit you have, not the wit you wished you had"......D. Rumsfeld
 
2012-07-10 05:14:54 PM  

I alone am best: They seemed to have used it to get Obamacare through without a single republican vote


Yeah, after bowing to Lieberman to leave out something Lieberman had been campaigning with for more than a year. Not a typo, he torpedoed his own idea. He insisted that the bill not include Medicare buy-in as a sort of public option. It was an idea that was one of his signature ideas pushed in his campaign literature. Why did he declare it verboten? Apparently because because Anthony Wiener liked the idea as a stepping stone to a real healthcare plan.

THIS is what you call a supermajority. Guys who shoot down their own personal ideas just to spite one (and probably many) Democratic party members.
 
2012-07-10 05:28:04 PM  

EnviroDude: its the daily kooks. they never lie about republicans or the failures of the democrats.


foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation


Obama all but opened his asscheeks to compromise with your party, and you should be ashamed of yourself for ignoring that act. Was it naive as hell? Yes--and that's why you should be ashamed, you douchebag. He did something that was a hallmark of belief in a perfect world.

That sort of thing might be idiotic, but anyone calling themselves a human being should be wholeheartedly ashamed to spit on it the way Republicans did.
 
2012-07-10 05:39:30 PM  

gblive: Look at those big austerity drops of 629.8B in 2008/09 to 670.1B in 2009/10 to 687.9B in 2010/11



Can you be any more intellectually dishonest?

You realize austerity was only started a year ago?

But why are you posting fiscal year 2010?
 
2012-07-10 05:40:58 PM  

Giltric: Having been through multiple administrative hearings against multiple employees who refused to come back to work when things picked up again I say bullshiat.



I too would rather go to jail than work with you. That probably says something about you, bro.
 
2012-07-10 06:08:51 PM  

AmorousRedDragon: "I think the 20th century (especially around 1929 onward) has taught us that taking from the rich and giving to the poor can quite possibly be the best thing you can do for a struggling economy."



Know how I know you don't (yet) live under a regime that believes that? You know what a middle class is, and have seen one with your own eyes.
 
2012-07-10 07:03:13 PM  

rewind2846: "spmkk: And...apparently it needs to be said *yet again*, because the entirety of 20th-century history didn't communicate it to you clearly enough -- the solution to the the poor not having enough ISN'T for the rich to have less.

The entirety of the 20th century has shown us is that the most prosperous periods of our economy just happened to occur at the times when a large and stable middle class existed."



No disagreement there. Can you point to a single time in history, outside of maybe the Industrial French Revolution, when separating the rich from their wealth (and/or life) was followed by the rise of "a large and stable middle class"?


rewind2846: "One other question - why do you defend the rich so vehemently?"


Because I understand that "the rich" having money isn't the problem. Because my main goal is not to lower someone else, but to elevate myself. Because I've lived in a place where upward mobility and higher socioeconomic levels to strive for actually don't exist, and I would very much like to continue living in a place where they do. Because unlike the brave defenders of justice calling for blood at the OWS protests, I understand that winning the battle they think they're fighting won't make things better, and that scapegoating creates much misery with few solutions. Because believing that the way to bring yourself up is to bring those above you down is a cheap cop-out. And because centuries of history have shown us that it doesn't work. Because framing the conversation as an us-versus-them class war is deeply destructive, and creates no avenue for progress.

Also because the definition that people like you assign to "rich" is a moving target, and generally encompasses much more than the power-hungry psychopaths to include a lot of people who worked extremely hard and made many sacrifices to earn their wealth, and are better community members for it.


rewind2846: "Why else would Rmoney's little soiree need police protection with SWAT teams and dogs?"


Because unfortunately a lot of people think like you do, believing that those higher than them are the main impediment to their moving up and must be eliminated.
 
2012-07-10 07:22:17 PM  

spmkk: No disagreement there. Can you point to a single time in history, outside of maybe the Industrial French Revolution, when separating the rich from their wealth (and/or life) was followed by the rise of "a large and stable middle class"?



Yes, the 1950's was the largest decade for middle class growth, and the top tax rates were above 60 percent.


spmkk: Because my main goal is not to lower someone else, but to elevate myself.



That's statistically impossible when the wealthy continue to increase their share of the pie

spmkk: Because framing the conversation as an us-versus-them class war is deeply destructive, and creates no avenue for progress.



You don't have to frame anything, you can just look at what outsourcing, deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, has done for 80% of America

spmkk: Also because the definition that people like you assign to "rich" is a moving target, and generally encompasses much more than the power-hungry psychopaths to include a lot of people who worked extremely hard and made many sacrifices to earn their wealth, and are better community members for it.


Feel good appeal for emotion based on nothing, check


spmkk: Because unfortunately a lot of people think like you do, believing that those higher than them are the main impediment to their moving up and must be eliminated.


Eliminated? Wha?
 
2012-07-10 08:27:46 PM  

intelligent comment below: Yes, the 1950's was the largest decade for middle class growth, and the top tax rates were above 60 percent.


Can you list the deductions available at the time?
 
2012-07-10 08:47:27 PM  

GeneralJim: djkutch: The benefits were 40% of the stimulus were tax cuts. Show us how that has stimulated the economy.
I can't. None of it seems to have done ANYTHING visible in any area of study -- well, outside of a big jump in the national debt, of course. THAT shows up.


Careful. You might connect the dots.
 
2012-07-10 08:51:45 PM  

mainstreet62: GeneralJim: Calmamity: Because they have admitted numerous times that all they care about is getting a Republican elected in November, country be damned.
That's a particularly ugly lie. Show one quote from any national figure saying that, or STFU -- and an apology would be in order too, you lying sack.

The single most important thing"for Republicans is to make Obama a one-term president, spoken by Mitch McConnell.

General Jim, I've come to the conclusion that you're an asshole, and a particularly arrogant one at that. Calamity spoke the truth, and you jumped down his throat.

I cannot allow a piece of shiat like you to treat others with no respect and get away with it.




Now show me where McConnell believed that the policies he wasn't supporting would have actually worked.

It's no secret that Republicans think Obama's policies are disastrous for the economy and the sooner we can get beyond them the better.
 
2012-07-10 08:53:54 PM  

intelligent comment below: spmkk: No disagreement there. Can you point to a single time in history, outside of maybe the Industrial French Revolution, when separating the rich from their wealth (and/or life) was followed by the rise of "a large and stable middle class"?


Yes, the 1950's was the largest decade for middle class growth, and the top tax rates were above 60 percent.


Yeah, now all we need to do is reduce Europe to rubble to spur a building boom and hamstring all competitors!
 
2012-07-10 08:59:28 PM  

RolandGunner: intelligent comment below: spmkk: No disagreement there. Can you point to a single time in history, outside of maybe the Industrial French Revolution, when separating the rich from their wealth (and/or life) was followed by the rise of "a large and stable middle class"?


Yes, the 1950's was the largest decade for middle class growth, and the top tax rates were above 60 percent.

Yeah, now all we need to do is reduce Europe to rubble to spur a building boom and hamstring all competitors!


Or, work on our own infrastructure. I'm not saying we have build a socialist interstate highway system or anything, but maybe we could spend some money on bridges or roads and stuff. You know, like Gov. Christie was just saying.
 
2012-07-11 12:02:01 AM  

intelligent comment below: "spmkk: Because my main goal is not to lower someone else, but to elevate myself.


That's statistically impossible when the wealthy continue to increase their share of the pie"



Yes - because the pie is a fixed size. That's totally how the economy works!
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report