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.

(Investors Business Daily)   The income gap between poor and rich in the United States has grown more dramatically under President Obama than Bush or Clinton. This guy is a lousy socialist   (news.investors.com) divider line 117
    More: Interesting, President Obama, United States, income inequality, Emmanuel Saez, wealth redistribution, socialists  
•       •       •

1100 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-31 11:37:19 AM
7 votes:
You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."
2013-07-31 11:16:59 AM
7 votes:
It's almost as if a decades-long trend didn't stop when Obama came to office.

I bet his push to raise the minimum wage is just some underhanded trick to make the rich richer.
2013-07-31 12:56:01 PM
6 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Raise the minimum wage, heavily enforced regulations on using unregistered immigrants including fines and prosecution that would make it unfeasible, severely punish companies that hours-shave to avoid giving benefits to employees, and directly incentivize using labor on creating jobs instead of blindly offering economic incentives to shift wealth around and build it up without hiring people.

Make it worthwhile to hire new workers at middle-class rates, and make it untenable to cheat or abuse workers with shiat wages, no benefits, and unreasonable demands.
2013-07-31 11:39:01 AM
6 votes:
It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.
2013-07-31 01:01:18 PM
4 votes:
Let's stop pretending we can compare today's Democrats and Republicans with those of the past.
2013-07-31 11:16:54 AM
4 votes:
So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?
2013-07-31 01:03:04 PM
3 votes:

Aristocles: Republicans were the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


No.  They weren't.

President Johnson was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, while many northern Republicans voted for it, EVERY SINGLE southern Republican voted against it.
2013-07-31 01:02:08 PM
3 votes:

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.


Earth's oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it too.

"Willing to accept their role" has no meaning here.  Capitalism is completely unavoidable, which means it isn't opt-in.  What is an option is to change the nature of capitalism as it's practiced here, an action that is opt-in and which capitalism's primary beneficiaries will fight to the (literally) bloody end to resist.

/Not sure what to think of someone who would so casually wave away the free will of most people on the planet in favor of accepting a role in a system they didn't design, don't thrive under, and have no say in.  Capitalism is not supposed to be a religion; it's just an economic system.
2013-07-31 01:01:45 PM
3 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.
2013-07-31 01:01:16 PM
3 votes:

Just to put the retarded "Democrats were the party of Jim Crow" nonsense to a rest.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals



Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69-31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71-29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73-27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70-30%).

By party

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80-20%)

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)


So you found the one Democrat that was against the Civil Rights Act. Good jerb.
2013-07-31 12:59:09 PM
3 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Why do you think that's an important aspect of the question? That Obama has made income inequality worse, I mean.

If President Obama was a liberal or had promoted liberal policies, you might have a point.  But, aside from a mildly liberal approach to gay rights, the president's policies have been consistently moderately conservative.
2013-07-31 12:55:24 PM
3 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.


You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

No you're right, all the strongholds the Democrats had in the South turn into Republican strongholds roughly around the same time the Civil Rights Act was passed was just a coincidence.
2013-07-31 12:52:22 PM
3 votes:

pdee: To all who are calling for higher taxes on the rich do you realize that will do nothing in regards to income inequity?

If the CEO make 10 million and the janitor make 16k it does not matter what rate you tax the CEO he still makes 10 million.


Furnishing a healthy society (good roads & bridges, clean water, reliable energy grid, affordable food & housing, great education at all levels, strong and uncorrupt military and police protection, and on and on) doesn't come cheap for a country of our size. We need money for those things, and the rich have it--more than their fair share, which is kind of the main problem of wealth disparity.  Since they rely much more (overall) on all of the above things to run their businesses, transport their goods, protect their stuff at home & abroad, they should pay much more back into the pot.  The point of raising taxes on the rich isn't to increase wages for the poor, but to decrease the disproportionate share of the tax burden that the poor have shouldered since the Reagan Revolution.  It's not the only thing that needs to be done, but it's one of the first things that needs to be done.
2013-07-31 12:03:27 PM
3 votes:
How conservatives view the political spectrum:
www.americanthinker.com

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
abearsrant.com
2013-07-31 11:40:01 AM
3 votes:

DarwiOdrade: So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?


Best Republican president since Eisenhower.
2013-07-31 11:39:01 AM
3 votes:
Weird, I was led to believe he was the lib'rullest lib'rul to ever lib'rul a lib'rul. It's as if it were never true, and the people saying that were being disingenuous in the hopes that I'd be naïve enough to follow their line of thinking afterward, with no questions asked.
2013-07-31 11:37:28 AM
3 votes:
We should kill them all and take their things.
2013-07-31 03:18:08 PM
2 votes:

DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:

abearsrant.com

Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"???  I wish.
2013-07-31 02:03:15 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: So you still have no plan or methods to change the income inequality. Okay.


An unfair system generates unequal outcomes, income being one among many.  Leveling the field not only increases the position of the middle and lower classes, it puts an end to the ill-gotten gains of the upper classes.  Inequality happens when the few at the top prosper on the backs of the people beneath them and hoard the benefits for themselves.  Stopping banksters from making criminal profits at the expense of the economy as a whole closes the gap both from the top and from the bottom.

I don't know why I keep expecting actual responses from trolls.
2013-07-31 02:00:51 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: since it has gotten worse under Obama.


and it will continue to get worse regardless of who is President, or did you think this is something new & that President Obama created the income gap?
2013-07-31 01:50:21 PM
2 votes:

The Drawing Board: Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?


Yeah, I just blocked him myself.

Pretty funny that the guy in the article is complaining about Obama not recovering the economy fast enough... from what, exactly? Oh, right, nevermind how the economy got tanked in the first place by deregulation and unfunded wars, just blame Obama for not "recovering" fast enough.

Brilliant!
2013-07-31 01:36:18 PM
2 votes:

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.
2013-07-31 01:34:12 PM
2 votes:
tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Change the import tariff system on goods manufactured overseas by American based companies. Make it cost more to bring in Made In China goods than it would be to manufacture them here, and adjust the tax structure to give the breaks to those companies that produce here.

Change the tax structure from the front loading system we have now (where through tax incentives we're essentially paying people before they do the work) and make them retroactive based upon performance. Allow for incentives for expansions and start ups for the first year only and make them relative to the number of US based workers you have. Make allowances for R&D as long as it's done in the US using American workers.

What stupid Conservatives have been buffaloed into forgetting is that economies grow from the middle out, not the top down. When working people have money to spend, and the security to spend it, it works. When business cuts jobs to save a few bucks, they're eliminating the pool of potential customers. Making the goods cheaper does not solve the problem. The manufacturing environment that sustained the middle class has been decimated so that the few at the top can benefit to the detriment of what was once the middle class. It didn't happen by accident, either. It was politically orchestrated, and both sides played their roles.

22 million jobs have gone in just a generation. They've been replaced by low wage McJobs while wealth inequality continues to increase. Conservative fellators of the rich would be better off reading about the French Revolution than Atlas Shrugged, because the former actually happened (and could happen again) while the other is a dystopian fairy tale.
2013-07-31 01:32:58 PM
2 votes:
I found the GOP game plan in this secret e-mail

Hey fellow GOP leaders here is what we will do.

Step 1) block EVERYTHING, choke the government off, filibuster all.

Step 2) Blame President for things he has tried to do that WE BLOCKED (closing Gitmo, widening income gap, women on his cabinet, returning drone strike powers, )

Step 3) Stand on the smoldering ash of what was America's economy and catch the rapture comet.
2013-07-31 01:28:04 PM
2 votes:
Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?
2013-07-31 01:26:03 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is it right to criticize Romney for paying his taxes? If you don't like what he paid then the anger should be directed at the government, not Romney.


True. But the thing that got me is that even though the tax code already favors him, Romney was upset that it didn't favor him enough.
2013-07-31 01:14:48 PM
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.



They know this but asking them to quit the charade and try on some intellectual honesty for a change is an exercise in futility.
2013-07-31 01:11:10 PM
2 votes:
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT DIVIDED POLITICS NORTH v SOUTH
NOT DEMOCRAT v REPUBLICAN

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.



Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?
2013-07-31 01:10:24 PM
2 votes:

Mrbogey: zappaisfrank: He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.

Funny, considering socialists use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" inaccurately to describe themselves.


This coming from someone who continues to have the mistaken belief that 'socialist = communist'.  You might want to open an economic theory book sometime and realize the terms aren't interchangeable.

Hell, the former Soviets sure as hell weren't communists OR socialists.  They were more authoritarian capitalists than anything.
2013-07-31 01:09:51 PM
2 votes:

Outrageous Muff: Dusk-You-n-Me: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there

Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.

Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.


If progressives are so inept at implementing their agenda, why are you guys so pants-pissing afraid of them?
2013-07-31 01:09:08 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: The people who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, including a former candidate for President  in TWO Democratic conventions was a Republican?  Really?


From Wiki:  The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the proposals and actions of the Congress."

If I remember correctly, Thurmond became a Republican shortly thereafter.  Hmmm, let me check on that.

Oh, yes.  Here it is (also from Wiki):  Thurmond represented South Carolina in the from 1954 until 2003, at first as a and, after 1964, as a. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism and opposition to the Civil Rights bill of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater.

Now, if what you claim is true, why would a Democrat opposed to the Civil Rights Act become a Republican because of the Civil Rights Act?  Try to come up with something logical.
2013-07-31 01:05:33 PM
2 votes:

Aristocles: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

This is true, however, Capitalism will make everyone more prosperous. There's really no need to peek into someone else's bank account.


apparently, prosperity in America means owning a refrigerator.


TFerWannaBe: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

No. Capitalism does not make any guarantees about anyone's success. It *can* work for everyone, but doesn't necessarily, no matter how hard they work at it.


nope, no promises at all.  there are some perks to being born into wealth in a Capitalist society, just like the royalty of old.  And it is depressing to see someone who is a hard motivated worker (who may lack higher education) get held back by wage caps & the ideas that;

Employee: "ya know, i work hard for this company, i've seen our profits raise year after year and feel i deserve a raise."

Employer: "this is what you are worth. don't like it? you can start over somewhere else, i appreciate your hard work and devotion to making me money but i'm not here to make you money"
2013-07-31 12:59:38 PM
2 votes:

Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.


Everything works until it doesn't.

This is not just about wealth hoarding, it's about influence and opportunity hoarding.

Capitalism never said oligarchic plutocracy was one of its goals.

But it did strongly imply it.
2013-07-31 12:58:25 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Although the Democrats were the driving force for the Jim Crow laws I never expected nor wanted that Obama would continue with that Democratic tradition.

You mean the Democrats that became Republicans in the 1960's?

The KKK guy the Democrats elected and kept in office was a Republican?  No, you are wrong again.


So why did the South turn from a Democrat stronghold into a Republican stronghold in the 1960's then?
2013-07-31 12:57:27 PM
2 votes:
Directly incentivize using capital on creating jobs, not labor. Provide benefits, subsidies, credits, etc. tied directly to people employed under full-time conditions.
2013-07-31 12:40:48 PM
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.


Elizabeth Warren
2013-07-31 12:36:33 PM
2 votes:

Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.


We should.  Let's start with Rupert Murdock and the Kochs.
2013-07-31 12:35:47 PM
2 votes:
Its almost as if the power to make law is vested in another branch of government.  A branch that has shown its inability and unwillingness to actually do anything . . .
2013-07-31 12:35:36 PM
2 votes:
Note for anybody with math (maths for british farkers), DUH
For all those who missed/slept through/never understood calculus:
If the increase in peoples income is proportional (or an increasing proportion for the wealthy), you get an exponential function.  This isn't in question, it is how the exponential function is literally defined (actually a strict proportion, in reality the rich get higher increases so a function steeper than an exponential).

Basically, barring a sufficient political revolution that sees the US going back to progressive taxes or real wages for wage slaves, all the money will eventually concentrate in just a few families (.01% works out to roughly 100 families).  The first 10 years of Reagan "conservatism" made the 10%, the next will make the 1% extremely rich, the next 10 years will make the .1% own nearly all the country and so on..).  Also note that exponential functions mean that of the 1%'s famous wealth, the .01% already own the same ratio of all that wealth that the 1% have of the total US wealth.  Its just going to skew even harder to the right, so while the "1%" will have even more of the wealth, if you aren't the "1% of the 1%" you won't see much of it.

/never mind what Marx had to say, check out what Adam Smith had to say about crony capitalism.
2013-07-31 12:34:53 PM
2 votes:

Aristocles: coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10

Outstanding rebuttal.


Look, Skippy, you've way over-played this troll account.  I suggest letting this account sit unused for a few years, then maybe try again.

Cheers.
2013-07-31 12:33:33 PM
2 votes:
Also, in a more serious sense - the government has grand control over my civil liberties/rights. Obama, through universal healthcare and support of gay marriage, has pushed us farther in the direction of a decent society. I do believe, even if his healthcare plan flops, people will look on him in 60 years and say that he laid the foundation for some progressive movement.

Assuming we don't all turn to cannibalism and rioting in the meantime.

I would love to see some more fiscal conservancy and economic controls put into place, but neither party actually does that, and the only party that talk about it, also wants to set gays on fire and roast s'mores over their carcasses. Thanks, but I'll take Obama's America over the other options.
2013-07-31 12:18:16 PM
2 votes:
Romney would have doubled that.
2013-07-31 12:13:20 PM
2 votes:

coeyagi: Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.

0.0000000000000000000000001/10


You are far too generous
2013-07-31 12:04:10 PM
2 votes:
That's because the U.S. has been moving towards fascism and not socialism
2013-07-31 11:53:32 AM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Thanks Obama

This is not the change we were hoping for.


Nope, the change you were hoping for was a return to Jim Crow and lynchings.
2013-07-31 11:49:09 AM
2 votes:

I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.


I'm hoping for someone to his left.
2013-07-31 11:47:31 AM
2 votes:

AngryDragon: Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.

So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!


Wait....


I wish people, Obama included, would realize that this song and dance about "lowering corporate tax rates to create jobs" is the same basic principle as paying a contractor BEFORE they actually do the work. Only stupid people do that.

Wait...
2013-07-31 11:41:31 AM
2 votes:
It's a big ship that takes time to turn. It's going to take more than a small increase in the upper tax rate to bring her around.
2013-07-31 11:54:19 PM
1 votes:

nocturnal001: Out of curiosity, were you guys in the group that swore up and down that GW wasn't really a conservative but rather a liberal?


His economic policies were your run of the mill statist, which most presidents since Ike have been to begin with.  Using big government to promote conservative ideas doens't make one a conservative.

Fart_Machine: Oh look another moron who doesn't know what a progressive is.  Even for you that comment was stupid


I know exactly what a progressive is.   All we hear about is how the Constitution is a document of "Negative liberties" how taxes arent high enough, Obamacare is a restrained, moderate solution to healthcare reform and there isn't enough spending on works projects.  Those are clearly policies of radically conservative administrations.  you're right.  I think that was Goldwater's platform in '64 wasn't it?

If you simply didn't know, you might have an excuse but the fact that you've probable been exposed to what progressivism is and cant draw the parallel is perhaps the saddest thing of all.  it isn't just that you dont know but that you're so affirmed in how right you think you are.
2013-07-31 11:06:53 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Obama is a progressive?

oh look. Another moron who doesn't think Obama is actually a democrat, but a moderate republican.


Oh look another moron who doesn't know what a progressive is.  Even for you that comment was stupid.
2013-07-31 08:14:42 PM
1 votes:
The My Little Pony Killer
You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."

cdn.breitbart.com
Bad cop

images.politico.com
Good cop
2013-07-31 05:01:03 PM
1 votes:

Yellow Beard: Geotpf: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

The health care law that passed was the absolutely strongest that could have passed Congress at the time (keep in mind that the Democrats only had complete control of Congress for a period of a few months, between the time Franken was finally sworn in and when Kennedy died, and only by one vote).

Right now, the Republicans control the House, so they can and are blocking any further legislation, and are actively hurting the poor and employment levels by cutting government spending via the sequester and other means.

That is, blame Congress, which writes and passes laws, not the President, who only can sign (or veto) them and implement them after they have been passed.  American Constitution Law 101.

So we can blame congress for all of Bush's gigantic blunders too?


One of the few things a President can do without direct approval from Congress is to bomb another country, and the invasion of Iraq was easily the biggest blunder that Bush made.  And, yes, we can blame Congress on a more minor level for passing a bill that said they approved, but said bill was mostly optional, frankly.  I frankly believe that the fact that Clinton and Kerry both voted for said bill is the reason why neither ever became President.

Passing a budget or any other law is different; the first stop is Congress and if they don't approve the law isn't going anywhere.
2013-07-31 04:04:12 PM
1 votes:

zappaisfrank: Actually, no. Unemployed is unemployed. In both scenarios, the objective is profit. It doesn't matter if it was eighty years ago or ten years ago. The difference I see is that Ford then, as today, still employs workers on American soil. The Bain type groups took the money and left devastated communities in their wake without a care. Again, we see that Ford's motives, while profit based, also considered the wider ranging effects on their potential customers, AKA the American working class. Bain, not so much.


The point is Bain type groups couldn't have existed as they exist now at that time.  We were pretty much the only manufacturing dynamo left as a result of two world wars.  Now that industry has steadily improved from the end of the second world war, capitalism is looking else where for it's manufacturing needs as America isn't the only place that can do it any more.

Further, it has been easier to improve off shoring of jobs and capital as technology has improved.  It's a completely different world than it was at that point.  Had Ford had the technology to produce his products cheaper and not in America he would have in a second.  With the advent of NAFTA it's not a guarantee that all Ford parts are made in the USA any more.
2013-07-31 04:02:18 PM
1 votes:

DarwiOdrade: How conservatives view the political spectrum:
[www.americanthinker.com image 450x298]

How everyone else views the political spectrum:
[abearsrant.com image 500x407]


Please tell me the first one is just a joke and not conservative "thought".

The second one is spot on, mostly due to GOP messaging that Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed, even though reality has them center right at the moment.
2013-07-31 03:36:24 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Jairzinho: Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"??? I wish.

I'd actually put the Democratic party on the right-center side of the spectrum.


Agreed. I'm only mid-left and I can't even see the Democrats from where I'm standing, they're so far right.

img.fark.net

And for comparison:

www.politicalcompass.org
2013-07-31 03:26:01 PM
1 votes:
FarkedOver:
Conditions were horrendous and people stayed on the job because they NEEDED the job as this was happening during the Great Depression.

You mean kinda like now, where the pro-business right has gained so much political and economic advantage that they basically hold the American economy hostage? Like that?

He was an iron fisted pro-business, anti-semite, ant-labor zealot who did more harm than good for labor. He did do wonders for capitalism, as you have suggested.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth of my statements. Ford was not so much anti-labor as he was anti-union  which would put him perfectly in line with today's pro-business right. Unions are a scourge to be crushed and swept away as far as the right is concerned, so you would think they would hold him as a standard bearer for that reason. They've managed to sweep away the gains that people fought bloody battles to achieve to benefit their titans of industry just like their Ayn Rand books say they should do. I never defended Ford personally, only the capitalistic concept of a economically viable working class.
2013-07-31 03:21:44 PM
1 votes:

Jairzinho: Democratic party is located at the "Solid Left"??? I wish.


I'd actually put the Democratic party on the right-center side of the spectrum.
2013-07-31 03:04:22 PM
1 votes:

zappaisfrank: More distractions.

You cannot escape the fact that paying people a good wage not only makes you successful, it makes everyone in the chain successful. Auto workers spend their money elsewhere, which makes the people elsewhere successful enough to buy a car also. The people drive their cars elsewhere and spend their money there, and on and on and on You can blather about Ford's personal idiosyncrasies all day but you cannot deny the fact that the base theory is sound with a proven record of success. Yes, it was profit driven but it worked and everyone benefited, even those who didn't work directly for the auto industry.


Idiosyncrasies and distractions!? Really? He was the farking Rumpelstiltskin of job creators with all that shiat stipulations he had in order to be "eligible" for the bonus.

Not everyone benefited.  The decision to create the $5 a day bonus was due to the fact of the 400% turnover rate at the Ford plants. Further, ten thousand unemployed stood freezing in the snow outside the gates begging for a job.  What did Ford do? Turned the fire hoses on them.

Then by 1927 Ford was done producing the model T.  So he closed down the Dearborn, MI plant leaving 60,000 workers jobless.  3,000 of those old employees marched to the new factory in 1932 in River Rouge demanding a job.  What did St. Ford do used the police and goons to open fire on them killing 4 and wounding countless others.  Workers on the job at Ford plants rarely talked even on breaks out of fear that they might talk to a management spy and lose their job.

Conditions were horrendous and people stayed on the job because they NEEDED the job as this was happening during the Great Depression.

He was an iron fisted pro-business, anti-semite, ant-labor zealot who did more harm than good for labor. He did do wonders for capitalism, as you have suggested.
2013-07-31 02:47:20 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.

Sure, he was a shiat bag.  But the notion that Ford "raised wages" is kind of a myth. What's more of a myth is that he did it out of some benevolent obligation to the plight of workers.

Ford had his goons actually go to people's houses and make sure they were being "Americanized".  This was a stipulation of the "raised wage".  They made sure you spoke english, didn't gamble or drink and made sure you avoided union organizations.  Oh and women weren't eligible unless they were single and the sole caretaker of a family, and men were not eligible if their wives worked outside of the home.

Now why did Ford create this $5 dollar a day bonus (not raise)?  To increase production and lower the price of his product and retain his current workers to avoid turnover.  The fact that they would buy his product was an added bonus.  He did not make his decision based on the betterment of workers but on his own profit margin.  And even when he did give the 5 dollar a day bonus he was still a coont about it by having his goons check in on his employees and make sure they were good Americans.


More distractions.

You cannot escape the fact that paying people a good wage not only makes you successful, it makes everyone in the chain successful. Auto workers spend their money elsewhere, which makes the people elsewhere successful enough to buy a car also. The people drive their cars elsewhere and spend their money there, and on and on and on  You can blather about Ford's personal idiosyncrasies all day but you cannot deny the fact that the base theory is sound with a proven record of success. Yes, it was profit driven but it worked and everyone benefited, even those who didn't work directly for the auto industry.
2013-07-31 02:45:59 PM
1 votes:
Time for a troll purge here on Fark, I think. Of course, if fark just provided the IP addresses for users in their profiles, we'd police it ourselves.
2013-07-31 02:38:57 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: Why would capitalists back a dictator/fascist?


You might want to dig up Reagan and Thatcher and ask why they supported Pinochet.

And you gotta love this Kissinger quote - "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

I guess a dictator is better than people actually voting and determining their own destiny.

/Why hasn't Kissinger been tried as a war criminal yet?
2013-07-31 02:36:25 PM
1 votes:

zappaisfrank: FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: It sounds as though you advocate the exploitation rather than the empowerment of working class people. How fascist of you

By recognizing what the capitalist system does, this does not make me fascist.  Fascism is but a capitalist reaction to the proletariat asserting themselves and advocating change.

You sir, I would call the fascist and not I.  I say this because of your admiration and for promoting the works and legacy of noted fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

Henry Ford's politics are a distraction that cannot undermine the soundness of the economic theory. Nice try, though.


Sure, he was a shiat bag.  But the notion that Ford "raised wages" is kind of a myth. What's more of a myth is that he did it out of some benevolent obligation to the plight of workers.

Ford had his goons actually go to people's houses and make sure they were being "Americanized".  This was a stipulation of the "raised wage".  They made sure you spoke english, didn't gamble or drink and made sure you avoided union organizations.  Oh and women weren't eligible unless they were single and the sole caretaker of a family, and men were not eligible if their wives worked outside of the home.

Now why did Ford create this $5 dollar a day bonus (not raise)?  To increase production and lower the price of his product and retain his current workers to avoid turnover.  The fact that they would buy his product was an added bonus.  He did not make his decision based on the betterment of workers but on his own profit margin.  And even when he did give the 5 dollar a day bonus he was still a coont about it by having his goons check in on his employees and make sure they were good Americans.
2013-07-31 02:34:24 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

Well, that one guy sure sets the standard for everyone.  I never said it applied 100%.  Nothing ever does in politics.

Southern racists in general went to the GOP after the CRA.

Nixon counted on it (you dolt)


heh

It's what's known as the Southern Strategy.  Of course, the South started bleeding Dems (switching to Republicans, slowly) long before 1948 thanks to the Democratic Party adding civil rights as a plank to its platform...after a very long period of supporting slavery and (later) segregation.

As has been mentioned many times here, yesterday's Democratic Party is not today's Democratic Party.  Much the same can be said for the GOP.  I'm not sure how EITHER party is much like what it used to be in the 1800s/1900s...
2013-07-31 02:18:21 PM
1 votes:
The impoverishment and attrition of the American middle class was launched under Reagan, and according to his philosophies - why wouldn't a Reagan Republican like Obama continue that? Remember - the fact that the current Republican Party consists of Talibans and Nazis doesn't make Obama a Liberal, or a real Democrat by some sort of relativistic magical alchemy.
The reality is that this country is politically f**ked out of all perspective, and needs to move about a mile to the left to even acheive a moderate policy. The rest of the civilized world thinks our political spectrum is completely insane - and they are right.

"I want to see this country's wealth in fewer, righter, tighter hands"
George Bush the Elder-1988 - a promise kept!
2013-07-31 02:13:38 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Isitoveryet: tenpoundsofcheese: since it has gotten worse under Obama.

and it will continue to get worse regardless of who is President, or did you think this is something new & that President Obama created the income gap?

No.  It got really bad under Clinton.  People didn't mind as much then since the economy was doing well with lower unemployment.   People focused more then on what they had rather than whine that someone else has more (hello entitled OWS crowd).  As unemployment, underemployment and people quitting the workforce, this entitled generation has totally shifted away from job creation and wage improvement to "he has more, that ain't fair).


everything you mention is a reactionary response, a reaction to the economy. You make it sound like people made a concerted decision to be where our economy put them & that has got to be the most appalling idea you have put forth. I know some people like to blame the poor people of our country while neglecting the lawmakers policy makers & the social elite who actually write legislation & enact laws (usually to benefit themselves).
entitled generation? to whom are you referring?
2013-07-31 02:09:41 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: zappaisfrank: A smart businessman knows that if people can't afford to buy his product, he's not going to be very successful, now is he?

A smart businessman/woman knows if everyone is getting to be as rich (or richer) as he/she is, he or she isn't going to have a reserve army of labor to pick from in order to operate their business and therefore would go out of business.

A smart business person understands they rely (leech) off of labor in order to profit.


A smart business person knows you can fleece a sheep many times, but only kill and eat it once.  One can rely on labor without oppressing them.  While any capitalist should want a bigger slice of the pie, it doesn't have to be a zero sum game if you make the pie bigger.

/mmm
/shepherd's pie
2013-07-31 02:09:13 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Raise the minimum wage, heavily enforced regulations on using unregistered immigrants including fines and prosecution that would make it unfeasible, severely punish companies that hours-shave to avoid giving benefits to employees, and directly incentivize using labor on creating jobs instead of blindly offering economic incentives to shift wealth around and build it up without hiring people.

Make it worthwhile to hire new workers at middle-class rates, and make it untenable to cheat or abuse workers with shiat wages, no benefits, and unreasonable demands.


Before I say what I'm thinking about raising the minimum wage, let me add a disclaimer that I can see what I'm about to suggest being abused in some shape or form.  And that suggestion is:  a tiered waiver program for small businesses who would otherwise go out of business if they had to pay their employees more.  I.e., a sole proprietor who has a little used book shop that hires someone to man the register a couple days per week.  Or a local landscaping company.  Of course, the OTHER option would be to reduce business tax rates for these smaller businesses* (much like we have a progressive tax rate for income) AND a uniform, increased minimum wage.  Then, any business should be able to handle the increased minimum wage.

*which we may already have, and is probably dependent on what state you're in. IANATE.
2013-07-31 02:04:40 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it & Capitalism never said income equality was one of its goals.

Everything works until it doesn't.

This is not just about wealth hoarding, it's about influence and opportunity hoarding.


And that's the issue.

Inequality of outcomes (the income gap) isn't the problem - if someone has the talent and drive to make money, then so be it.

The problem is inequality of opportunity. A child born with the raw ability and drive to do something valuable shouldn't fail merely because he had the misfortune of being conceived by poor parents.

The US is slipping behind other countries in terms of economic mobility. That's a big problem, runs directly counter to our core values ("land of opportunity" and all that), and is in the long term very bad for the nation as a whole.
2013-07-31 01:59:42 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: Can you be specific?
I am curious as to how people think income inequality can be fixed since it has gotten worse under Obama.

Socialism, as in an actual socialist revolution, the aftermath being the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Cite one example of this being attempted that hasn't led to despotism, destitution and despair.
2013-07-31 01:59:35 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: tenpoundsofcheese: Can you be specific?
I am curious as to how people think income inequality can be fixed since it has gotten worse under Obama.

Socialism, as in an actual socialist revolution, the aftermath being the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Has that worked anywhere to fix income inequality?
Which country is the closest to that model?
2013-07-31 01:40:35 PM
1 votes:
A "Capitalist" is someone who wants to get rich.

A "True Capitalist" is someone wise enough to want EVERYONE to be rich.

Oh, and as far as the "Southern Strategy" goes, if it didn't work, then WHY is all of the former Confederacy solid red Republican?
2013-07-31 01:32:00 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Actual socialism.  Not what the GOP claims is "socialism".  That would be the best way to turn things around.
2013-07-31 01:31:28 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.


Well, that one guy sure sets the standard for everyone.  I never said it applied 100%.  Nothing ever does in politics.

Southern racists in general went to the GOP after the CRA.

Nixon counted on it (you dolt)
2013-07-31 01:29:36 PM
1 votes:

The Drawing Board: Why do you guys continue to feed a poster so up front about being here to bait and troll?


I wonder that too.  I guess some people just can't help it.

these assholes go away when you ignore them
2013-07-31 01:28:54 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake:

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORTED JIM CROW STOPPED BEING DEMS AFTER IT PASSED.

Putting things in caps does not make it true.
The person who led the filibuster, Senator Russell, remained a Democrat Senator until he retired in 1971.

So why did Northern Democrats support the Civil Rights Act more than Northern Republicans?

/no one seem to be able to answer this question


That's because it's irrelevant to anything being discussed in this thread.
2013-07-31 01:23:47 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Can we get back to bashing American Capitalism, please?


Sure.

The simple fact that we allowed rents to be conflated with capital, and then decided to give such money makers preferential treatment through the tax code, encouraging even more rent seekers to leech money out of the system, well, we farked ourselves.
2013-07-31 01:19:07 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: Dinki: Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.

And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?

Mr. Mrtraveler01 stated that his post was going to "put an end" to folks making the factual statement that the democrat party is the party of Jim Crow laws. I asked my question because he didn't follow up his claim with any pertinent information. Perhaps he was confused.


Democrats in the South supported Jim Crow laws. Democrats in the North support the Civil Rights Act.

What part of this is hard for you to comprehend?

"But...but...Byrd"...congratulations you found the one Democrat from the North that was against it (and he's from West Virginia), still there were 29 Northern Republicans in both Houses that voted against it too. Why do the 29 Republicans get a pass but the 1 Democrat doesn't?
2013-07-31 01:15:40 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too. His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.


Other than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , which ,ya know, kinda wouldn't exist without Obama. Or the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which, for all it's flaws,  also would never got signed by a republican president.
2013-07-31 01:12:40 PM
1 votes:

Dinki: Isitoveryet: Capitalism works for everyone who is willing to accept their role in it

Role in it? WTF does that even mean?


I mean Capitalism is like a Caste system, although the difference being there is a minimal opportunity for advancement.
2013-07-31 01:11:55 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


I'm sorry to have to let you go.  I gave you a week, hoping that you would find your voice and hit your stride, but you really suck at this.  Go study the work of Bloodninja, Willy on Wheels, or  David Mikkelson back in the old days, or Fark's own CDP.

Your efforts just don't measure up.  Come back with a new alt once you've learned how to troll properly.

[PLONK]
2013-07-31 01:09:42 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: You say "Obama" but all I can think is "Boehner's Congress."


To be fair, this isn't really a problem that Obama's made any effort to address.  He's take the initiative to deal with a few of the minor symptoms in a half-assed manner with things like HCR, but note that his justice department hasn't put a single person away for securities fraud over the blatant ratings falsifications that were the immediate reason for the crash in 2007/2008, or even pursued such charges against any kind of meaningful player.  That's something well within the power of the executive, to actually enforce existing laws.

He could lean harder on anti-trust and consumer protection, too.  His efforts to that extent have basically been what Bush did for national security-- rename some shiat and move some paper around to look like something was being done, without actually doing anything.

//The fact that his even pretending to give a fark makes him the better candidate on these issues still makes me despair a bit for our government.
2013-07-31 01:09:35 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: None of this has anything to do with the fact that the democrat party was the driving force behind Jim Crow laws.


And Jefferson owned slaves.. what is your point, other than an obvious need to keep repeating irrelevant talking points?
2013-07-31 01:06:57 PM
1 votes:
Here's a great video showing just how big the wealth/income gap is in the U.S., and even how it's changed in the last 30 years.

To break it down for those too lazy to watch a 5 minute video,

3 million people (the 1%) have 40% of the wealth.  That's $21 Trillion ($7,000,000 per person)
250 million people (80% of us) split up only 7%, or $4 Trillion ($16,000 per person).
The poorest 6% of americans don't even register as having any wealth.  That's almost 20 million people who aren't just poor, but have NOTHING of real value.
2013-07-31 01:02:56 PM
1 votes:

imontheinternet: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?

Re-enact Glass-Steagall, appoint a Fed Chair who doesn't believe in endless liquidity to pump the stock market, bring back the PWA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs and guarantee adequate funding for a set period (ideally 3-5 years), restructure the tax code by removing the vast majority of deductions while lowering the rates to a flatter but still progressive taxation scheme, start a special division of DHS with a mission to investigate and prosecute white collar criminals, create a federal usury law that caps credit card interest at a set number (maybe 15%), establish debt forgiveness programs for student loans based on public service

That's a start.


Watch him ignore them, then ask in the next thread "Okay, liberals, what is your solution?"
2013-07-31 01:02:28 PM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: And this surprised who, exactly?
Obama is no friend of the American people. But he loves his banker and hedge and Fed buddies.

If it's not illegal, it's OK.
Never forget that.


He's a bought and paid for tool, owned by the right wing intelligence agencies of the USA and Israel, like all of our leaders. What the fark do people really think they're using all of that surveillance for? J Edgar Hoover 101.
2013-07-31 01:00:21 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay liberals, since Obama has made income inequality worse, and since income inequality is so bad (vs. the tevel and definition of poverty), what is your solution?


Occupy Heavy Machinery:

If shiatheels like Rmoney and the rest of his elk are not paying their fair share, the OHM shows up with track hoes, dozers, etc. Rip up the street in front of their house so they have no pavement to drive on. Cut power lines, sewer, gas etc. Put up roadblocks at every bridge. No tax from you? NO BRIDGE FOR YOU! Want to fly off to Maui? Deny access to the airports. Need police? Too bad. House on fire? Too bad again. Make their lives as shiatty as possible to get across the point that NO, YOU DID NOT BUILD THAT, the collective works of society did. In the end, they could probably afford to build everything privately once we cut them off from the governments sweet teat. THEN they can biatch and moan all they want.
2013-07-31 12:59:13 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: AeAe: Elizabeth Warren

I'd be first in line to vote for her.


Absolutely.  I would volunteer for her campaign.
2013-07-31 12:58:34 PM
1 votes:
Isn't this one of the things that they spent the first 8 year of this century trying to convince us that the President had no direct control over, right alongside oil prices?

Or was I supposed to destroy those memos after a Democrat got into the WH?
2013-07-31 12:51:28 PM
1 votes:

AeAe: Elizabeth Warren


I'd be first in line to vote for her.
2013-07-31 12:47:22 PM
1 votes:
When are the Democrats finally going fix all the problems that Republicans don't care about?
2013-07-31 12:46:34 PM
1 votes:

AeAe: Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: We should elect him again.

I'm hoping for someone to his left.

Elizabeth Warren


Left of Obama? Hell, Bob Dole qualifies!
2013-07-31 12:41:23 PM
1 votes:

Triple Oak: AeAe: Obama's Reptiloid Master: We should kill them all and take their things.

We should.  Let's start with Rupert Murdock and the Kochs.

That is the worst band name I have ever heard.


Oh, and the Waltons.
2013-07-31 12:36:33 PM
1 votes:
Remember when talking about income inequality was class warfare?
2013-07-31 12:18:12 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: ObamaMoody's: Trickle up works!


www.foreffectivegov.org
2013-07-31 12:16:22 PM
1 votes:
In typical hamhanded Republican fashion, the term "progressive" has become yet another all-purpose pejorative, just like "Socialist", "Marxist" and "Communist".

Most base level Republicans have no idea what these terms actually mean, nor can they define them articulately without using Google. They're nothing more than "scary sounding words" they use to appear knowledgeable when in reality they might as well call Obama a "poopyhead" for all the thought behind the use of those terms.

He's black...we get it. Stop using words you cannot accurately define.
2013-07-31 12:14:55 PM
1 votes:
I'm shocked that capitalist policies help capitalists.  I'm absolutely shocked!
2013-07-31 12:08:31 PM
1 votes:

DarwiOdrade: How everyone else views the political spectrum:


I think you can tack on another blank space to the left of the Democrats.
2013-07-31 12:07:05 PM
1 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: I honestly think the GOP's throwing all sorts of shiat in Obama's presidency just so they can say in 2016 "Well, Dubya wasn't that bad!".


I guarantee you that in 2016, the GOP will argue that the Democratic nominee is "the most liberal candidate ever.  S/he is even less qualified and more evil than Obama."

This is what they're forced to do.  They've done it for every Democrat since Walter Mondale.  It has nothing to do with who the nominee is or what he or she actually believes.  It has to do with promoting fear.

It just won't do to tell people, "the Democrats picked someone who really isn't that bad.  I mean, c'mon, he's not nearly as bad as Obama."  That argument won't scare people into voting reflexively and thoughtlessly for the Republican nominee.
2013-07-31 12:03:41 PM
1 votes:

Parthenogenetic: You guys are wasting your breath trying to debate with people who are convinced that George W Bush wasn't a real conservative.


Bush was a coward who did whatever Cheney wanted.
2013-07-31 12:02:23 PM
1 votes:

ozone: DarwiOdrade: So you're saying Obama's a better Republican than most Republicans?

Best Republican president since Eisenhower.

CLINTON.

FTFY
2013-07-31 12:01:32 PM
1 votes:

EyeballKid: Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?

Only the progressivest progressive to ever progressive a progressive!


You guys are wasting your breath trying to debate with people who are convinced that George W Bush wasn't a real conservative.
2013-07-31 12:01:25 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.



Outstanding question-begging.
2013-07-31 12:00:55 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: It may or may not surprise you that some of Obama's fiercest critics are those to his left.


Yeah, real liberals. People that have the balls to both call themselves and promote liberal ideals. Progressives are nothing more than scared school children who no longer want to be called liberal because being a proud liberal became too hard.
2013-07-31 12:00:12 PM
1 votes:
I honestly think the GOP's throwing all sorts of shiat in Obama's presidency just so they can say in 2016 "Well, Dubya wasn't that bad!".
2013-07-31 11:57:14 AM
1 votes:

eraser8: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there...

What the hell are you talking about?

How the hell do progressives "have their guy in there"?


Appatently running as a centrist moderate is progressive. This is what the Tea Tards actually believe.
2013-07-31 11:56:01 AM
1 votes:

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


imageshack.us
2013-07-31 11:55:44 AM
1 votes:

Outrageous Muff: Right...he just used the progressives to get elected to office and took many of his staffers from their ranks. Either that or progressives are so stupid that they don't know when they are being lied too.


People to the left of Obama voting for Obama isn't really news. It may or may not surprise you that some of Obama's fiercest critics are those to his left.
2013-07-31 11:53:20 AM
1 votes:
Since IBD is reporting this, I assume the gap is closing, the United States has ceased to be a real place, and Sarah Palin is president of Alaskastan.
2013-07-31 11:51:16 AM
1 votes:

Aristocles: "income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.


0.0000000000000000000000001/10
2013-07-31 11:50:39 AM
1 votes:
"income gap"

The only people who give a shait about an "income gap" are haters and Farklibs. As long as the poor now are better off than they've been in the past, why complain? Answer: jealousy.
2013-07-31 11:49:17 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.

Obama is a progressive?


Progressively right-wing maybe.
2013-07-31 11:48:29 AM
1 votes:

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there


Or maybe Obama isn't a progressive.
2013-07-31 11:47:52 AM
1 votes:

Outrageous Muff: And this why the progressives fail at everything. They have their guy in there and they can't even produce healthcare legislation that is even progressive. Even the Green Party has gotten better results nationally.


Obama is a progressive?
2013-07-31 11:44:53 AM
1 votes:

AngryDragon: Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.

So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!



That's a start, but we also need to defund planned parenthood so more people can be jerb creators.
2013-07-31 11:42:49 AM
1 votes:

Zasteva: It's almost as if during the Great Recession all the Job Creators™ hoarded their money while laying off people left and right because of uncertainty.


So let's propose some type of "Grand Bargain" to liberate that idle capital to create jobs.  We'll start with, let's see, lower corporate tax rates!  So you have more idle capital to create jobs!


Wait....
2013-07-31 11:39:26 AM
1 votes:
And yet the poor in the United States still own smart phones and get free food/housing. The truly impoverished in the States are so far below the poverty line that they could reasonably be removed from these studies as statistical outliers.
2013-07-31 11:38:19 AM
1 votes:
And this surprised who, exactly?
Obama is no friend of the American people. But he loves his banker and hedge and Fed buddies.

If it's not illegal, it's OK.
Never forget that.
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report