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.
The above post is the reality of modern American politics: a segment of voters lives in an alternative reality, fed fake facts by Fox and Rush — whom they listen to out of tribal affiliation -- and completely unaware that it’s all fiction.
I do not listen to Rush. I do not read fox news.
I listened to this imposter claim we need 800 billion for shovel ready jobs.
Oops.. they didn't even have any shovels.
I listened to this imposter scream about green energy.
All of the companies he invested billions into have gone bankrupt
Name something he has done for America ???
He has spent more money in 3 years than ALL 43 PRESIDENTS COMBINED!!
What do we have to show for it ?? 43 million americans on food stamps!
Now here is your turn to show what he has done in 3 years time
I want to carefully read this list you construct from CNN and the other left wing radical propaganda you relish.
Show me... !! What has he done ???
Six trillion dollars...............whoa!!! what do we have to show for it ????????????????????????? NOTHING
Thank you for showing me the right stuff!! - You got nothing!!
There are only two choices. Either you hate america or you embrace communism
If you wanted to bring a country to its knees and destroy it.. There are certain basic elementary steps to accomplish this.
[...] Destroy the foundations that country is built upon (In God We Trust)
The USA was built in 1956?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData
Initiate a gay military for the first time in over 200 years.
a) I'm sure all the heteros in the military rejoice to be classified as gays by your choice of words.
b) even if the whole army was made of homosexuals: what about it? Are they inferior soldiers in your eyes? Please provide scientific data/links to back up your assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData
YOu sir.(little child) are BLIND!!
I originally intended to comment on the other "points" of your masterpiece, but after reading your closing compliments again, I think I'll refrain. Nothing good would come out of it, I think.
It's clear that the deficits that were incurred during the Bush years were directly tied to Bush era tax-cuts. That's indisputable.
If deficits and debts are what you are concerned about, then you can't possibly consider any of the GOP candidates, as all of their plans increase the deficit.
Tax revenues increased after a tax cut. Democrats just hate this, but increased revenues are the norm after tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts spur economic growth. The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Oops! Wrong again! Revenues actually increased by $47 billion. What about jobs? In the 18 months before the Bush tax cuts our economy lost 267,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the cuts it added over 300,000 jobs. In the next 19 months another 5 million jobs were added.
Obama care will be cheaper for you than what you have now!
That is the biggest lie in the world. Now we find out it is going to cost 1.76 TRILLION.
You are blind deaf and challenged to admit the truth.Obitler is the worst president this country has ever had.
Obama says he is the fourth best president of the U.S.
I have one question. Who were the 40 that were worse ??
Homosexuality is CONDEMNED BY GOD HIMSELF. It is an abomination in his sight!
homosexuality caused the downfall of Rome, Greece, Sodom & Gomorrah.. Now show me one country that thrives with that perversion ??
Now I seee..................you don't even believe in God!! Now it all makes sense. Whoa unto them that call evil good and proclaim that good is evil!!
Are Americans better off now than they were 4 years ago??? SIMPLE ANSWER : no
Don't bother. Those who live in the political alternative reality cannot even be reasoned with, as their absurd vision of what they think is reality is too set in their minds.
Tax revenues increased after a tax cut. Democrats just hate this, but increased revenues are the norm after tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts spur economic growth. The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Oops! Wrong again! Revenues actually increased by $47 billion.
I'd hate to break it to you how far off the facts you are.
You main fallacy is that the Bush tax-cuts increased revenue. There is no empirical evidence that the claim is true and plenty of evidence that the claim is false.
Not even Mitch McConnell makes that claim. McConnell said, there is "No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue." He wasn't saying it increased it; he said it didn't diminish it. But even that's wrong.
George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."
The bottom-line is that the Bush tax-cuts cut revenue: In 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. In 2003, these amounts were $1,782.53 billion and $11,142.1 billion. In other words, GDP rose 12% and federal revenues fell 12%.
Federal revenues eventually rose, to take out the 2000 peak in 2005 (2007 in real terms,) but this doesn't mean much. Revenues eventually catch up due to GDP growth and population growth regardless of policy. The economy grows 4-6% most years, unadjusted for inflation, so naturally the general trend of taxes is to rise about 4-6% each year. Being unable to return to a previous peak for five years, despite this built in trend strongly suggests tax cuts reduced revenue, ceteris parabus.
Looking at it graphically we see that after each of the Bush tax-cuts, revenue dropped. How anyone can deny this and claim that the tax-cuts increased revenues is astounding. In mid-2003, federal revenue was lower than in 1999:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHouse9
What about jobs? In the 18 months before the Bush tax cuts our economy lost 267,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the cuts it added over 300,000 jobs. In the next 19 months another 5 million jobs were added.
What you tout as remarkable performance on jobs during the Bush years is actually dismal performance.
Clinton's employment record, with higher taxes, far out-achieves Bush's.
In eight years, Bush's gains were 5 million, or an average of 52,000 per month. The number of job gains needed to handle increases in population is 150,000 per month (citation). Clinton, who raised taxes, in 8-years added 22 million jobs. Apart from a stellar performance, Bush's job performance was dismal. Thus, the theory, such as it is, that lower taxes spur job creation sure isn't confirmed from your example.
This is the unemployment rate and civilian employment during Bush's term, 1/2001-1/2009:
If a previous president would have increased the deficit by double the amount of his predecessor’s eight year tenure in only his first 30 months, would you have considered him an oniomaniac?
If the Previous President spent a TRILLION DOLLARS in Stimulus nd Guaranteed 8% unemployment would you have called him a liar?
Oh HEy, What about 13 consecutive weekends of GOLF During a Crisis?
Criticized a states law without ever reading it?
Oh how about this Joining with a Foreign Country such as Mexico who has everything to lose and Suing a American State so illegal immigration could continue.
Putting 87,000 people out of work with his off shore oil drilling moritorium.
Oh how about filling your CABINET and ADVISERS with people who don't pay their own TAXES!
Actually, on that Nobel prize one, it makes the Nobel people look like idiots and it cheapens the prize. It's not the recipient's fault.
I would substitute appointing a self-avowed Communist (Van Jones) to his administration, something about the Solyndra scandal or giving money to Petrobras to do the exact same thing he forbade in the Gulf.
Also, this one: If a previous presidential candidate promised under him, electricty rates would necessarily skyrocket, and then became President and promoted and subsidized electric cars, would you have said, "What the bleep and where is the media on this?"
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.
