PDA

View Full Version : Elections Here it Comes...


KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 08:26 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u1Mazjm_A5k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u1Mazjm_A5k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Obama + Reid + Pelosi = massive tax increases. No spin. Just watch the short video and draw your own conclusions.

KCJ
:arrow:

chiefforlife
10-21-2008, 08:40 AM
Obama has been saying all along he wants to raise tax on the top 5%. Are you saying you were unaware of this?

jAZ
10-21-2008, 08:43 AM
MASSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!5114581

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 08:45 AM
Obama has been saying all along he wants to raise tax on the top 5%. Are you saying you were unaware of this?

Did you actually watch the 1 minute video? Taxing the so-called rich always backfires on the people is it supposed to help. These 'rich people' own industries, provide jobs, grow the economy and provide health insurance to employees. Go ahead, harness the producers on behalf of consumers. The result? Inflation, high unemployment, rising interest rates, and industries moving overseas to avoid confiscatory tax rates.

chiefforlife
10-21-2008, 08:49 AM
Did you actually watch the 1 minute video? Taxing the so-called rich always backfires on the people is it supposed to help. These 'rich people' own industries, provide jobs, grow the economy and provide health insurance to employees. Go ahead, harness the producers on behalf of consumers. The result? Inflation, high unemployment, rising interest rates, and industries moving overseas to avoid confiscatory tax rates.

Yes, I did watch the 1 minute video. I have also watched the last 16-18 months of the Presidential campaign. Nothing new here.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 08:52 AM
Yes, I did watch the 1 minute video. I have also watched the last 16-18 months of the Presidential campaign. Nothing new here.

Translation: "I'm OK with dems running the Congress and the Whitehouse. I'm OK with Barney Frank leading the charge to raise taxes, spend to increase the deficit, and lurch towards a government takeover of the US economy."

tiptap
10-21-2008, 09:17 AM
Yes I am. And I disagree with pronouncement in #4. I don't find that raising taxes is necessarily counter productive. I do think such things are fluid.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 09:31 AM
Frank says we must act on the principle of Keynesian economics. What is that?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/btRWU_Q50QA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/btRWU_Q50QA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

RJ
10-21-2008, 09:33 AM
Did you actually watch the 1 minute video? Taxing the so-called rich always backfires on the people is it supposed to help. These 'rich people' own industries, provide jobs, grow the economy and provide health insurance to employees. Go ahead, harness the producers on behalf of consumers. The result? Inflation, high unemployment, rising interest rates, and industries moving overseas to avoid confiscatory tax rates.


Can you give us some recent examples?

BigChiefFan
10-21-2008, 09:34 AM
Johnny and his compassion for his fellow man, as long as they are Republicans. Great Christian values.

Cosmos
10-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Translation: "I'm OK with dems running the Congress and the Whitehouse. I'm OK with Barney Frank leading the charge to raise taxes, spend to increase the deficit, and lurch towards a government takeover of the US economy."

But you're happy with what the Reps have done with this country, with this economy, with this made up war, with the erosion of personal freedoms, with the most ignorant clueless leader of the free word... that you have to bitch about the possibility of real changes coming... because why.

It's not easy to be as careless and ignorant as Bush, but it doesn't stop some from trying.

jidar
10-21-2008, 09:44 AM
HOLY SHIT BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!!!

OBAMA IS GOING TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH.

HE WAS WORKING ON THE MYSTERY AND CRACKED THE CASE SCOOBY.
KCJOHNNY IS TRULY THE CRONKITE OF OUR GENERATION FOR BREAKING OPEN THIS MASSIVE STORY.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 09:44 AM
Johnny and his compassion for his fellow man, as long as they are Republicans. Great Christian values.

Please indentify in the Christian tradition where government and not private groups are responsible for the needs of the poor for anything other than justice in the courts (not that anyone in America is even poor based on the world scale of poverty).

I'll wait here for your response.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 09:45 AM
But you're happy with what the Reps have done with this country, with this economy, with this made up war, with the erosion of personal freedoms, with the most ignorant clueless leader of the free word... that you have to bitch about the possibility of real changes coming... because why.

It's not easy to be as careless and ignorant as Bush, but it doesn't stop some from trying.

It's scary that people as misinformed as Mr. Cosmos can vote.

Ultra Peanut
10-21-2008, 09:46 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2g1fr5vk72M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2g1fr5vk72M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

jidar
10-21-2008, 10:01 AM
Can you give us some recent examples?

No but we can give lots of example of supply side economics not working as intended.

We should go right to the top. Remember Reaganomics? (Yep, going after the Conservative Messiah himself, Ronald Reagan.)

People forget this, but Reagan when he was taking office had no intention of running massive budget deficits throughout two terms.
One of the core arguments in favor of Reaganomics was the idea that the "trickle down" effect of tax cuts should stimulate the economy enough through job creation to see an increase in tax revenues that would make up for the tax cuts. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and the results were massive deficits and him leaving office with a huge national debt increase.

The fact is, if their theories had been right then they should have seen those increases in tax receipts, when they didn't it was proof that the 'trickle down' to the lower classes was in fact, not happening. Instead rich people invested all of the extra money into the market, a market that already had more investment than it needed so they invented new investment vehicles. Investment vehicles that lead to the savings & loan crisis in the late 80s which in turn caused the recession of 90-91. All of that saved wealth went poof when the investments tanked. Sound familiar?

The failure of supply side economics during the Reagan-Bush years is largely why it's not taken seriously as a philosophy by economists these days. At least the ones outside of politics don't take it seriously anyway.

jidar
10-21-2008, 10:13 AM
I feel like I should qualify this by adding that at the time Reagan was right about one thing, the rich were taxed too much when he took office, and freeing some of that up did probably help the economy even if their plan didn't go as they expected.

Now when GWB took office it was a different story, the rich were not taxed too much, in fact it still wasn't too much higher than it had been during the Reagan years. That didn't stop him from cutting their taxes to the point ludicrousness though, which is why they need to come back up. If Reagan saw how little taxes the wealthy have been paying under Bush even he would think it was scandalous.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 10:31 AM
No but we can give lots of example of supply side economics not working as intended.

We should go right to the top. Remember Reaganomics? (Yep, going after the Conservative Messiah himself, Ronald Reagan.)

People forget this, but Reagan when he was taking office had no intention of running massive budget deficits throughout two terms.
One of the core arguments in favor of Reaganomics was the idea that the "trickle down" effect of tax cuts should stimulate the economy enough through job creation to see an increase in tax revenues that would make up for the tax cuts. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and the results were massive deficits and him leaving office with a huge national debt increase.
That's a wrong "why!" It was increased spending. His budget proposals were bigger than the Dem congress even.

The fact is, if their theories had been right then they should have seen those increases in tax receipts, when they didn't it was proof that the 'trickle down' to the lower classes was in fact, not happening.
Fact is revenue did increase from the tax cuts.

The dirty little secret is that those tax cuts were reversed a year later with the largest tax increase in the history of the Republic at that time. The left hides this fact. What helped the Reagan economy was Volcker slammed on the brakes and inflation came down more rapidly than expected. Ronald Reagan actually cut little from the Federal Register too. Maybe two pages. Nothing noticeable. He did speed up Carter's deregulation which ended the energy crisis and that helped the economy too. Taming inflation is key.

So it's a fallacy to say the Reagan taxcuts didn't increase revenue if the govt also increases spending while other things are happening.

The failure of supply side economics during the Reagan-Bush years is largely why it's not taken seriously as a philosophy by economists these days. At least the ones outside of politics don't take it seriously anyway.
That's a sweeping generality. It's the left and small govt economists that mock SS—for different reasons. However the small govt economists will ALL tell you that any and all tax cuts, particularly income tax, is beneficial to an economy.

It's flat out common sense that taking revenue from the private sector leaves them with less to grow. Simple math. It's common sense that taking from the sector which produces something and giving it to a sector that doesn't really produce anything, prevents that private sector/enterprise from growing. Oh but they'll give you a small business loan. Nice make more dependent on govt which controls whatever it funds. Serfdom.

What needs to be debunked is Keynesianism because it discourages savings and accumulation of capital by encouraging people to be spend thrifts, credit addicts and only consumers. So stimulate to spend, spend spend. That destroys wealth and makes more dependent on govt. This is why we're in the type of economy we're in now. It doesn't work. Real wealth occurs by accumulating capital that can be invested eventually. But that would make the people too strong—something govt fears. A strong, prosperous private sector that is free from excessive govt controls via tax and spend policies and a central bank.

jidar
10-21-2008, 12:54 PM
That's a sweeping generality.

Well yes, and I said it was. Generally speaking economists don't see supply-side as having a lot of merit. Obviously reducing the richest americans tax burden from 60% of income to something more manageable like 27% is good for everyone though.


It's the left and small govt economists that mock SS—for different reasons. However the small govt economists will ALL tell you that any and all tax cuts, particularly income tax, is beneficial to an economy.

So if you follow that line of reasoning, with zero taxes an economy would be perfect? With no roads, no banking institution, no military to protect the market. That is just the extreme, there are lots of things that improve the overall health of the economy that aren't provided or likely to be provided, by private enterprise.


It's flat out common sense that taking revenue from the private sector leaves them with less to grow. Simple math. It's common sense that taking from the sector which produces something and giving it to a sector that doesn't really produce anything, prevents that private sector/enterprise from growing.

I didn't see where anyone made the argument that taking money from business and giving it to people who produce nothing helps the economy.


What needs to be debunked is Keynesianism because it discourages savings and accumulation of capital by encouraging people to be spend thrifts, credit addicts and only consumers. So stimulate to spend, spend spend. That destroys wealth and makes more dependent on govt. This is why we're in the type of economy we're in now. It doesn't work. Real wealth occurs by accumulating capital that can be invested eventually. But that would make the people too strong—something govt fears. A strong, prosperous private sector that is free from excessive govt controls via tax and spend policies and a central bank.

This is an entirely different argument, but in academia Keynesian isn't as big of a joke as Supply-side, that's true.

You're also making the mistake of thinking of government in the term of "us vs them". We are the government. The fact that government doesn't want wild west economics is reflective of the fact that the people don't want it. In this case most of us are willing to give up some degree of free market principles and even some growth in exchange for stability and strong government. Nobody was more free than a pioneer in the Wild West, but at the end of the day they would all rather have some kind of law and order. Also, settle down, the Illuminati is not out to get you.

Your post sounds like another deregulation rant, which I suppose is what it is. Listen, there is more to life than money and the economy, it's just one aspect of our lives and it's purpose is to facilitate trade. As far as functional economies go, it all starts with currency and banking and you can't have either without some type of regulation. From there it's all just a matter of degree.

bkkcoh
10-21-2008, 12:56 PM
If he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, how is he not raising taxes on everyone. Do you honestly think that he is going to be able to pass tax cuts in a democratically controlled house and senate?

penguinz
10-21-2008, 01:15 PM
spend to increase the deficit, and lurch towards a government takeover of the US economy."Your republican president has already done this and your candidate voted with him.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-21-2008, 01:45 PM
Did you actually watch the 1 minute video? Taxing the so-called rich always backfires on the people is it supposed to help. These 'rich people' own industries, provide jobs, grow the economy and provide health insurance to employees. Go ahead, harness the producers on behalf of consumers. The result? Inflation, high unemployment, rising interest rates, and industries moving overseas to avoid confiscatory tax rates.

I would like you to reconcile this:

Clinton raised taxes on the top bracket, where did the economy go?

Meanwhile, since the Reagan admin, the top level taxation rate has dropped from 70% to 33%. Concurrently, payroll taxes, which is a greater tax burden on 80% of the population than income taxes, have been raised seven times, including several times during Republican administrations.

Also, our debt has increased tenfold.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 02:39 PM
Clinton economy was another artificial economy due to Fed Reserve policy of increasing the money supply resulting in the dot com boom/bust cycle. Clinton did have the advantage of technology lowering the costs of goods which helped to keep prices otherwise it would have been a more inflationary economy. No one ever mentions the Fed. The taxes hardly matter when we have a Fed printing money so govt can keep spending and borrowing.

whoman69
10-21-2008, 02:41 PM
If he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, how is he not raising taxes on everyone. Do you honestly think that he is going to be able to pass tax cuts in a democratically controlled house and senate?

Obama is only allowing the tax cuts to expire on the top 5% of wage earners.

tooge
10-21-2008, 02:50 PM
I'm not a real politics buff, more of a common sense buff I guess. Who in the hell is the retard in the first video? He sounds like Elmer Fudd. This tard is on TV?

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 03:04 PM
This is an entirely different argument, but in academia Keynesian isn't as big of a joke as Supply-side, that's true.
That's just the consensus. It's group idiocy is all. It should be considered a big joke...and that may yet happen. It's not sustainable.

You're also making the mistake of thinking of government in the term of "us vs them". We are the government.
People are not necessarily their govt. There is no collective thought agreement. We all disagree some more so than others. Another reason govt should stay small. We are hardly a govt by the people for the people anymore anyway though. We are also divided. So at this point in our history it is "us vs them."

The fact that government doesn't want wild west economics is reflective of the fact that the people don't want it.
There's no such thing as wild west economics...since the word derives from the mistress of the household managing her home which involved choices, exchanges, disbursements and income regarding those choices and creation or maintenance of wealth. Act stupid life will punish one's bad decisions. It's that simple. Calling it "wild" is pure opinion with no basis in fact. Our govt wasn't much involved in economics in the first half of our existence. Govt cannot create wealth. The courts defended capitalism and freedom of contract. Govt's role was left to greasing the wheels which was coining money, protecting contracts and regulation of interstate commerce.

In this case most of us are willing to give up some degree of free market principles and even some growth in exchange for stability and strong government.
Except too much govt intervention has created less stability because the balance is out of whack.

Nobody was more free than a pioneer in the Wild West, but at the end of the day they would all rather have some kind of law and order.
No one recommended an absence of law and order. You're using 2 valued logic by arguing extreme and absurd scenarios like the wild west. The west wasn't a wild anarchic free-for-all as your Hollywood-ized view thinks it was. There was grassroots social innovation, a place where the people strove to invent co-operative arrangements they could trust from free negotiation between individuals and respect for property rights. It was not imposed by a huge Federal govt from above.

Also, settle down, the Illuminati is not out to get you.
You forfeit your argument here with the ad hominem since you can't stick to the economic merits or lack of on my argument. I win.TYVM

Your post sounds like another deregulation rant, which I suppose is what it is.
Another derogatory remark and forfeit that doesn't even rebut what I said about a specific deregulation that did away with price controls ( an intervention in markets going beyond regulation] which worked and brought prices down and helped the economy recover. Something even a D president began. It worked there is no arguing with that. So I win hands down here again.

Listen, there is more to life than money and the economy, it's just one aspect of our lives and it's purpose is to facilitate trade.
I'm not making a lifestyle argument nor a philosophical one about what the meaning of life is for anyone. That's each individual's value system to work out on their own. Spare me the lecture you sound like a minister preaching how one should live.

As far as functional economies go, it all starts with currency and banking and you can't have either without some type of regulation. From there it's all just a matter of degree.
Banking can be free. But what does that mean? Does it mean no rules? No. You're just not familiar with the whole argument on it. We all prefer what we're familiar with, know and have had. It wasn't always that way and it worked well. I believe I also used the term "excessive " regulation not none. Again you're relying on two-valued logic. Think in terms of a spectrum here too. There is also a difference between intervening in an economy to make it work to suit one's political agenda than some regs that maintain a safe and honest marketplace whereby all know the rules. No small govt type advocates that extreme. We only sound that way to those unaware of how far we come. You can't have freedom with zero rules. You also can't have freedom with too many. The latter is what we have today and are getting more of.

Calcountry
10-21-2008, 03:08 PM
HOLY SHIT BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!!!

OBAMA IS GOING TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH.

HE WAS WORKING ON THE MYSTERY AND CRACKED THE CASE SCOOBY.
KCJOHNNY IS TRULY THE CRONKITE OF OUR GENERATION FOR BREAKING OPEN THIS MASSIVE STORY.You need to quit hanging out with Ultra penis.

Bowser
10-21-2008, 03:10 PM
HOLY SHIT BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!!!

OBAMA IS GOING TO INCREASE TAXES ON THE RICH.

HE WAS WORKING ON THE MYSTERY AND CRACKED THE CASE SCOOBY.
KCJOHNNY IS TRULY THE CRONKITE OF OUR GENERATION FOR BREAKING OPEN THIS MASSIVE STORY.

You need to quit hanging out with Ultra penis.


OOOOOO BITCH YOU GOT JACKED BITCH

Bowser
10-21-2008, 03:11 PM
It's a good thing our economy is stable and deep right now so tax raises won't be necessary.

jidar
10-21-2008, 03:14 PM
OOOOOO BITCH YOU GOT JACKED BITCH

oh snap

triple
10-21-2008, 03:34 PM
It's a good thing our economy is stable and deep right now so tax raises won't be necessary.

It's a good thing they are going to kick the economy when it's down by reaching in its wallet for more money even though it's already strapped

Thig Lyfe
10-21-2008, 03:40 PM
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!!!

http://www.drinkatwork.com/segway.jpg

Bowser
10-21-2008, 03:42 PM
It's a good thing they are going to kick the economy when it's down by reaching in its wallet for more money even though it's already strapped

What's a good suggestion? Leave it alone and hope the dollar improves internationally? I'm thinking even McCain would have to raise taxes.

Jilly
10-21-2008, 03:53 PM
Please indentify in the Christian tradition where government and not private groups are responsible for the needs of the poor for anything other than justice in the courts (not that anyone in America is even poor based on the world scale of poverty).

I'll wait here for your response.

ummmm.... do you believe in all honesty that gov't and religion were completely separate in the christian tradition? And if you were to follow christianity closely wouldn't you agree that its tradition would be to put all the resources of a community in one storehouse to be distributed evenly? and since your argument is to allow private places to be responsible to the needs of the poor, do you feel as if that is working effectively especially in the christian tradition, that the resources of your private institution are being distributed evenly? And if you do how would you account for the million dollar church buildings while someone in your own community is starving?

Dave Lane
10-21-2008, 04:41 PM
Translation: "I'm OK with dems running the Congress and the Whitehouse. I'm OK with Barney Frank leading the charge to raise taxes, spend to increase the deficit, and lurch towards a government takeover of the US economy."

Other translation: KCJ hasn't the foggiest clue what in the world he is talking about. Maybe he should stick with his real job of selling a superstition.

Dave

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-21-2008, 04:44 PM
Clinton economy was another artificial economy due to Fed Reserve policy of increasing the money supply resulting in the dot com boom/bust cycle. Clinton did have the advantage of technology lowering the costs of goods which helped to keep prices otherwise it would have been a more inflationary economy. No one ever mentions the Fed. The taxes hardly matter when we have a Fed printing money so govt can keep spending and borrowing.

Spending and borrowing, and yet we were balancing the budget. So, did the Fed just keep printing money with a projected surplus in the trillions because they enjoyed the smell of freshly-printed paper, or do you actually have a point that isn't grounded in wholesale prevarications?

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 07:04 PM
They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion -- that the state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man."



These are the words of William Graham Sumner, brilliantly analyzed and applied to 21st century America by Amity Schlaes in her recent book, The Forgotten Man (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/2567607:3014304866:m:1:120910977:13146A9CBBACEA3F1473FC4A644BF653).

Adept Havelock
10-21-2008, 07:17 PM
Other translation: KCJ hasn't the foggiest clue what in the world he is talking about. Maybe he should stick with his real job of selling a superstition.

Dave

No.

His real job is defending the US, for which I thank him, regardless of my other feelings towards the man. :shrug:

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 08:27 PM
No.

His real job is defending the US, for which I thank him, regardless of my other feelings towards the man. :shrug:

While we disagree on most everything, I thank you for that support.
USA!
KCJ
:arrow:

ChiefsLV
10-21-2008, 08:57 PM
Did you actually watch the 1 minute video? Taxing the so-called rich always backfires on the people is it supposed to help. These 'rich people' own industries, provide jobs, grow the economy and provide health insurance to employees. Go ahead, harness the producers on behalf of consumers. The result? Inflation, high unemployment, rising interest rates, and industries moving overseas to avoid confiscatory tax rates.

It worked for Clinton. Obama said he's putting the Clinton taxes back in place. If I remember, Clinton created a lot of jobs. Of course, we can't believe Obama right, because he's anti-american, just like me.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 09:04 PM
It worked for Clinton. Obama said he's putting the Clinton taxes back in place. If I remember, Clinton created a lot of jobs. Of course, we can't believe Obama right, because he's anti-american, just like me.

All due respect, sir, but Presidents don't create jobs other than government jobs, which actually cost money, and do not generate any profits.

You will also remember that the Gingrich-led GOP majority Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich)was the real originator of many of the so-called successes of the Clinton administration's economic policy.

Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_United_States_Congress) included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cuts), welfare reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform), and a balanced budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget) amendment, as well as independent auditing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditing) of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Congress fulfilled Gingrich's Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract's issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, even though most legislation was held up in the Senate, vetoed by President Bill Clinton, or substantially altered in negotiations with Clinton. The Contract was criticized by the Sierra Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club) and by Mother Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine)) magazine as a Trojan horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse) tactic that, while deploying the rhetoric of reform, would have the real effect of allowing corporate polluters to profit at the expense of the environment;<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-15>[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-15)</SUP> it was referred to by opponents, including President Clinton, as the "Contract on America".<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-16>[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#cite_note-16)</SUP>
However, most parts of the Contract eventually became law in some fashion and represented a dramatic departure from the legislative goals and priorities of previous Congresses. See Implementation of the Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America#Implementation_of_the_Contract) for a detailed discussion of what was and was not enacted.

ChiefsLV
10-21-2008, 09:11 PM
All due respect, sir, but Presidents don't create jobs other than government jobs, which actually cost money, and do not generate any profits.



You know what I mean, ass. A significant number of jobs were created during the Clinton presidency. Hell that's what he ran on. Ah yes, credit goes to the Republicans for all of that though. So who takes the blame for the failing economy during the Bush Jr. presidency? Ah, the dems.

KCJohnny
10-21-2008, 09:33 PM
You know what I mean, ass. A significant number of jobs were created during the Clinton presidency. Hell that's what he ran on. Ah yes, credit goes to the Republicans for all of that though. So who takes the blame for the failing economy during the Bush Jr. presidency? Ah, the dems.

Mr. ChiefsLV, the preponderance of blame for the current economic problems our nation is experiencing can be traced to F&F, hence, a lion's share of culpability belongs to the democrats. See for yourself (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192744).

Taco John
10-21-2008, 11:20 PM
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/skc1976/demccrat1.jpg

whoman69
10-22-2008, 10:31 AM
Mr. ChiefsLV, the preponderance of blame for the current economic problems our nation is experiencing can be traced to F&F, hence, a lion's share of culpability belongs to the democrats. See for yourself (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192744).

There is a fair share to be put around. The same things you always site were signed by that Contract with America crowd you like to give all the credit to and could have been signed out when the Republicans controlled all three levels of government for six years. Nobody tried to say that all Reagan's successes were because of a Democratic congress that he had in his first term. Why should we believe that Clinton was just along for the Republican ride.

Dave Lane
10-22-2008, 10:45 AM
No.

His real job is defending the US, for which I thank him, regardless of my other feelings towards the man. :shrug:

OK I'll concede he's selling a superstition to our troops in defense of the country. Other than that he has no purpose.

Dave

KCJohnny
10-22-2008, 11:08 PM
OK I'll concede he's selling a superstition to our troops in defense of the country. Other than that he has no purpose.

Dave

Mr. Dave Lane:
Do you have any military service in your resume?

Logical
10-22-2008, 11:11 PM
Mr. Dave Lane:
Do you have any military service in your resume?Oh Gawd Damn, you knew dat was comin, ohhh, ya betcha.

WilliamTheIrish
10-22-2008, 11:12 PM
All due respect, sir, but Presidents don't create jobs.....

How come I listened to John McCain tell me all about how he knows "How to create jobs" during the 3rd debate?

RJ
10-22-2008, 11:12 PM
Mr. Dave Lane:
Do you have any military service in your resume?


KCJ, I gotta tell you, the more you wear your military service and your religion on your sleeve, the less respected it becomes to others here. Have some pride and some humility, you owe yourself that much.

Logical
10-22-2008, 11:15 PM
No.

His real job is defending the US, for which I thank him, regardless of my other feelings towards the man. :shrug:With almost any other poster (not including Tom) I would agree, but KCJ has lost that respect because he lords his service over everyone on the board as if it makes his knowledge somehow more valid. Sorry he does not deserve any more respect than he has received long ago.

alanm
10-22-2008, 11:29 PM
Translation: "I'm OK with dems running the Congress and the Whitehouse. I'm OK with Barney Frank leading the charge to raise taxes, spend to increase the deficit, and lurch towards a government takeover of the US economy."
The dems here will only open their eyes the day they get laid off at work because of of fiscal policies in the planning stages.
Save your breath John.

KCJohnny
10-23-2008, 05:29 AM
KCJ, I gotta tell you, the more you wear your military service and your religion on your sleeve, the less respected it becomes to others here. Have some pride and some humility, you owe yourself that much.

Excuse me? I did not address you. Dave Lane made a deroggatory remark about my service. I was responding to him. It is a fair question. And you must be intimidated by my religion and my service or you would not have brought it up.

In the Army we are being encouraged to tell our story because the media does such a poor job of it. My faith is for sharing and spreading. Feel free to put me on iggy.

Adept Havelock
10-23-2008, 07:46 AM
With almost any other poster (not including Tom) I would agree, but KCJ has lost that respect because he lords his service over everyone on the board as if it makes his knowledge somehow more valid. Sorry he does not deserve any more respect than he has received long ago.

I've said it before. In that case, I respect the uniform, but the man inside of it...not so much. :shrug:

jidar
10-23-2008, 09:38 AM
The dems here will only open their eyes the day they get laid off at work because of of fiscal policies in the planning stages.
Save your breath John.


The two biggest factories in my area closed down in the past year. I think at least around here people aren't going to blame the Democrats in the whitehouse for our economic troubles.

RJ
10-23-2008, 09:40 AM
Excuse me? I did not address you. Dave Lane made a deroggatory remark about my service. I was responding to him. It is a fair question. And you must be intimidated by my religion and my service or you would not have brought it up.

In the Army we are being encouraged to tell our story because the media does such a poor job of it. My faith is for sharing and spreading. Feel free to put me on iggy.


Heh, that's the first thing you've been right about in at least a month.

KCJohnny
10-23-2008, 10:00 AM
I've said it before. In that case, I respect the uniform, but the man inside of it...not so much. :shrug:

ROFL

The liberal oxymoron: "we respect the troops but hope they fail in their mission".

whoman69
10-23-2008, 10:05 AM
Excuse me? I did not address you. Dave Lane made a deroggatory remark about my service. I was responding to him. It is a fair question. And you must be intimidated by my religion and my service or you would not have brought it up.

In the Army we are being encouraged to tell our story because the media does such a poor job of it. My faith is for sharing and spreading. Feel free to put me on iggy.

He didn't make a derogatory remark about your service, he made a derogatory remark that because you wear the uniform then everything you say must be right. Its like John McCain going to the POW well everytime he gets a tough question.

The Army must have changed from when I was in if the Army is encouraging people to tell theirs story, but when I was in it was against regs to even go to a political rally even in civilian clothing.

Adept Havelock
10-23-2008, 12:37 PM
ROFL

The liberal oxymoron: "we respect the troops but hope they fail in their mission".

My contempt for you does not extend to the uniform you wear, nor have I ever hoped for failure in their mission.

However, I'm far from surprised you would put such vile words in my mouth. Hence, my contempt for the man...not the uniform.

He didn't make a derogatory remark about your service, he made a derogatory remark that because you wear the uniform then everything you say must be right.

Precisely. :thumb: