Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How cute, you think tax credit is a Republican platform??!!.
Of course it is.. for the purpose of creating jobs..
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
The city of San Francisco also gave tax credit to businesses..
And its cited as a successful liberal city, but somehow, you expect the exact same result when obama and other liberals propose taxing the **** outta businesses or legislating them to death..
I dont get it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
It doesn't get any more incoherent than linking fear of guns to economic prosperity in urban areas.
But I expect nothing more from you. So that's fine.
.
I'm not the one who linked fears of guns to economic prosperity, i linked them to crime, due to a lack of respect for fellow humans.
Please follow along.. Hell, YOUR the one who started rambling incoherently about guns
Of course it is.. for the purpose of creating jobs..
Both parties do it. Apparently this fact is beyond you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And its cited as a successful liberal city, but somehow, you expect the exact same result when obama and other liberals propose taxing the **** outta businesses or legislating them to death..
I dont get it..
Hmm.... this record profits, housing recovery, low unemployment, and stock market reaching new high must be a dream then.
Don't confuse local city policy with national policy. What works at the local level doesn't always work at the federal level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I'm not the one who linked fears of guns to economic prosperity, i linked them to crime, due to a lack of respect for fellow humans.
Please follow along.. Hell, YOUR the one who started rambling incoherently about guns
You're the one who tried to link gun fears with the economy, and I still don't get what your point is; assuming there is one.
.
Both parties do it. Apparently this fact is beyond you.
Democrats do it to spur some special interest, like green energy, but that kills jobs in other industries..
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Hmm.... this record profits, housing recovery, low unemployment, and stock market reaching new high must be a dream then.
Their record profits come as a result of harming others , if it was universal across the country, the GDP would be exploding, not growing at the slowest rate in history.. Thge stock market as well, come as a result of low interest rates in the savings/CDs and horrible bond market. Moving all of the money out of other industries into just the stock market does not indicate things are fabulous. In fact, stock markets climb when people get laid off and "record profits" because other costs are controlled, like outsourcing. high stock markets arent always to be celebrated, but you keep towing the democratic talking point that things are great cause the stock markets high while people who actually do know what we're talking about, laugh at you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Don't confuse local city policy with national policy. What works at the local level doesn't always work at the federal level..
Exactly correct.. But Obama and President Clinton, had exactly the opposite fiscal policy, but you still expect the exact same result.. How can that be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
You're the one who tried to link gun fears with the economy, and I still don't get what your point is; assuming there is one.
.
You're the one who entered guns into the discussion, but to pretend the two are unrelated is a moronic point of view as most gun violence occurs in areas with high welfare and little economic spending. Despite what the left wants everyone to believe, welfare, DOES NOT STIMULATE, if it did, welfare prone areas would be booming regions. Where you guys get your economic theories from, I'll never understand, where welfare stimulates and capitalism, comes as a result of theft.. but yet capitalistic areas, like New York City, boom, and you guys hold it up as a sign of success, while you bash the capitalism which takes place which allowed it, and then you go and celebrate the welfare as stimulating regions where it occurs.
its completely laughable.. and I feel sorry for people like you who actually tow the lies your told
Democrats do it to spur some special interest, like green energy, but that kills jobs in other industries..
Eh? Where did you get that idea from? That they only spur a narrow segment of special interest??
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Their record profits come as a result of harming others , if it was universal across the country, the GDP would be exploding, not growing at the slowest rate in history.. Thge stock market as well, come as a result of low interest rates in the savings/CDs and horrible bond market. Moving all of the money out of other industries into just the stock market does not indicate things are fabulous. In fact, stock markets climb when people get laid off and "record profits" because other costs are controlled, like outsourcing. high stock markets arent always to be celebrated, but you keep towing the democratic talking point that things are great cause the stock markets high while people who actually do know what we're talking about, laugh at you.
The unemployment is below 5%. Nice try.
The stock market is about the future, it goes up when people are optimistic about the future. Did I cite it as the ONLY evidence? No. When observed in combination with other factors like unemployment, raising wages, housing recovery, etc; it paints a clear picture. It's a combination of events, not just one event. You repeatedly ignore this important fact because most likely you are unable to refute the argument otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Exactly correct.. But Obama and President Clinton, had exactly the opposite fiscal policy, but you still expect the exact same result.. How can that be?
Because times have changed. Obama took reign near the beginning of the Great Recession. Now, the crisis is over and the economic plan naturally needs to be different from 8 years ago. One size never fits all when it comes to the economy. Something that you don't seem to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You're the one who entered guns into the discussion, but to pretend the two are unrelated is a moronic point of view as most gun violence occurs in areas with high welfare and little economic spending. Despite what the left wants everyone to believe, welfare, DOES NOT STIMULATE, if it did, welfare prone areas would be booming regions. Where you guys get your economic theories from, I'll never understand, where welfare stimulates and capitalism, comes as a result of theft.. but yet capitalistic areas, like New York City, boom, and you guys hold it up as a sign of success, while you bash the capitalism which takes place which allowed it, and then you go and celebrate the welfare as stimulating regions where it occurs.
its completely laughable.. and I feel sorry for people like you who actually tow the lies your told
I did not enter guns into the discussion, it was brought up by another posters who said Donald Trump has a policy to reduce illegal gun ownership in the hood (completely false).
And I did not ever framed gun ownership as an economic issue. You did. But your point is unclear and illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Despite what the left wants everyone to believe, welfare, DOES NOT STIMULATE, if it did, welfare prone areas would be booming regions. Where you guys get your economic theories from, I'll never understand, where welfare stimulates and capitalism, comes as a result of theft.. but yet capitalistic areas, like New York City, boom, and you guys hold it up as a sign of success, while you bash the capitalism which takes place which allowed it, and then you go and celebrate the welfare as stimulating regions where it occurs.
its completely laughable.. and I feel sorry for people like you who actually tow the lies your told
There is no line to tow because this is NOT what liberals believe. You believe in some really strange ideas that seem to originates from the ether.
.
The 'left's narrative' (as you put the observation of everyone with a clue) is that Clinton will massively win the African-American vote, probably on par with President Obama's 93% to 6% obliteration of Governor Romney in that demographic.
Now, if you're capable of some very simple mathematics, the type you should have learned in elementary school, then you can figure that in 2012 about 129 million people cast votes for President and that about 13% of those people were African-Americans - thus, almost 17 million African-Americans voted. And what is 6% of almost 27 million? About 1 million. Yes, so while 16 million African-Americans pulled the lever for Obama, about 1 million did so for Romney. Thus, you pants-wetting excitement over the fact that you've managed to find a single black church that is pro-Trump is ... well, about what you'd expect, given that there will probably be at least hundreds of thousands of African-Americans voting for Trump. But there will still be more than 17 million voting for Clinton.
And?
So?
Bet you were all giddy over this back in September 2012, weren't you?
Quote:
Some black clergy see no good presidential choice between a Mormon candidate and one who supports gay marriage, so they are telling their flocks to stay home on Election Day. That's a worrisome message for the nation's first African-American president, who can't afford to lose any voters from his base in a tight race.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 24 days ago)
27,637 posts, read 16,123,288 times
Reputation: 19048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
The 'left's narrative' (as you put the observation of everyone with a clue) is that Clinton will massively win the African-American vote, probably on par with President Obama's 93% to 6% obliteration of Governor Romney in that demographic.
Now, if you're capable of some very simple mathematics, the type you should have learned in elementary school, then you can figure that in 2012 about 129 million people cast votes for President and that about 13% of those people were African-Americans - thus, almost 17 million African-Americans voted. And what is 6% of almost 27 million? About 1 million. Yes, so while 16 million African-Americans pulled the lever for Obama, about 1 million did so for Romney. Thus, you pants-wetting excitement over the fact that you've managed to find a single black church that is pro-Trump is ... well, about what you'd expect, given that there will probably be at least hundreds of thousands of African-Americans voting for Trump. But there will still be more than 17 million voting for Clinton.
And?
So?
Bet you were all giddy over this back in September 2012, weren't you?
hell im tempted to go on a rant and say im voting for trump and post it on youtube.
by the end of the week i could have a gig on fox news and 100-250,00 views on my youtube channel through all the right wing outfits that will pick up the video.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
