Republican Judgement

Users who are viewing this thread

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
You're the one that made the claim. Minor laps it up like mother's milk (see how nice I'm being, considering all the similes available?). Neither of you questioned. You just parrot the talking points given to you.

You're lazy, John. That's why you insist on lumping people into categories and labeling them. Actually dealing with individuals as individuals would take effort. Besides, you might have to actually change your mind, which requires character. So instead, you sit on your perch and squawk.

InrSVLdQJwOqt7qGYEN-i6Q7yrxgrcc3rhej5SR3YOORWAFICA.jpg

Cool parrot. What's her name? Libby the libertarian? :p

The research has ben done and the sources cited. YOU are the lazy one who won't take the time to verify them. YOU are the hypocritical one who enjoys socialized medicine and teachers union negotiated pay and benefits for yourself and your loved ones, but fight against it for all other Americans.
 
  • 2K
    Replies
  • 29K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
When I read things like "the" old America, as if there is only the old one and this one, it raises alarms for me. The more I study history, the more I realize that generalizations like this article simply don't wash. There are just too many variables, and many of those variables are completely lost in history.

For instance (and this has nothing at all to do with the subject, it just came to mind) there was a horrendous race riot in Tulsa, OK, in 1921. John's probably heard of it because he's from OK, but it's not even hinted at in the US history books. It just wasn't deemed important enough to cover. What else wasn't important enough?

In this article, "the" old America was apparently talking about the 50's, maybe early 60's. What does the author call the almost 200 years prior to the old America? LOL
The 50s & 60s were a turbulent time for the US. I'm not educated enough (yet) to make the sweeping generalities the author is apparently comfortable making.
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
303474_481048181920698_1232719129_n.jpg
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
whats the matter Johnny

Cat got your tongue?

Acc hit a sore spot you could not respond to so back to the basics for you. IE: cartoons

The point he made is viable. The sources in that article need to be determined. If it came from Fox news you would condemn it as bull shit. Perhaps it came from some liberal source equally questionable. Nah that would never happen would it :D
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
whats the matter Johnny

Cat got your tongue?

Acc hit a sore spot you could not respond to so back to the basics for you. IE: cartoons

The point he made is viable. The sources in that article need to be determined. If it came from Fox news you would condemn it as bull shit. Perhaps it came from some liberal source equally questionable. Nah that would never happen would it :D

Alice- rightwing fucktards of your ilk wouldn't know a "viable point" if it walked up and bit you on the conservobot ass. If you bots had a valid counterpoint, you would make it - but you don't so it's the same old right wing fucktard circle-jerk merry go round.

This study from 1940 remains true, today. "In 1940 a team of social scientists studied the thinking of voters in Sandusky, Ohio to find out why they voted the way they did. The scientists found that people voted according to their income, ...religion, age, occupation, and so on, following the pattern of their relatives, neighbors and friends. They did not vote on the basis of a detached, impartial weighing of the issues. "Dispassionate, rational voters," the survey concluded, "exist mainly in textbooks on civics, in the movies, and in the minds of some political idealists. In real life, they are few."

Rudolf Flesch - The Art of Clear Thinking

You're like the fat idiot Republican in post 1043- too fucking stupid to see the truth right in front of your face. Supply side economics has failed, but right wing Reagan worshiping morons keep on keeping on. You and the TEA Party idiots will keep it alive again in november and still blame the Democrats for your own inability to think and reason.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Did the Republicans Deliberately Crash the U.S. Economy?- The U.K. Guardian.

Why has job creation in America slowed to a crawl? Why, after several months of economic hope, are things suddenly turning sour? The culprits might seem obvious – uncertainty in Europe, an uneven economic recovery, fiscal and monetary policymakers immobilized and incapable of acting. But increasingly, Democrats are making the argument that the real culprit for the country's economic woes lies in a more discrete location: with the Republican Party.
...
Beyond McConnell's words ("The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."), though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.

Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.

And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.

Read more at link.

Supply side economics has failed, but right wing Reagan worshiping morons keep on keeping on.

If Reagan was alive today, he'd be too liberal for the current GOP...
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
The research has ben done and the sources cited. YOU are the lazy one who won't take the time to verify them.
You copied a propaganda jpg because it fit your mindless paradigm and pasted it here. That makes it your claim. I ask valid questions that you can't answer - or won't, because you don't have the first idea of where to get the information, since it's not in a spoon.
  • Are these "prices" only what the patient pays out at the point of service?
  • Who else pays, and how much?
  • Are there gov't laws restricting the prices to keep them artificially low?
  • Though the services bear the same name, are they provided at comparable quality of service?
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
You copied a propaganda jpg because it fit your mindless paradigm and pasted it here. That makes it your claim. I ask valid questions that you can't answer - or won't, because you don't have the first idea of where to get the information, since it's not in a spoon.
  • Are these "prices" only what the patient pays out at the point of service?
  • Who else pays, and how much?
  • Are there gov't laws restricting the prices to keep them artificially low?
  • Though the services bear the same name, are they provided at comparable quality of service?
gonna be hard to find a cartoon that will answer that in detail

which leaves Johnny the following options:

Call you a fucktard
Call you a cersvobot
The list is too long to continue
 

MoonOwl

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,573
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
Here's my 2c. We need to go back to the 90% tax bracket. hehehehehehehehehhe....... do those words now make me a domestic terrorist? hmmmmm.....

We should. I've said it before, but I'll repeat as it's relevant. My Grandfather was in the 90% tax bracket all those years ago. Trust me. He still made plenty of money. He had good CPA's and I think he took advantage of any 'breaks' offered. In that 90% tax bracket he certainly wasn't hurting. He and my Grandmother were quite comfortable. Also proud that they could earn enough to help fund the programs that the 90% tax bill afforded. Strengthening America.

That's the thinking that is missing these days. Now it's profit above all else. Has been for awhile... We're seeing the results.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
if you go to that high of a rate then there would be a ton of write offs which will be used. Then you would have liberals saying it is an abuse of the system.

That 90% rate was a farce. The net taxes paid would have been comparable to later rates

One problem is that there is too much wealth envy that drives the discussion. It is based on emotion. X person makes too much money. And I want my piece of it no matter what

What needs to be discussed is the tactic of accepting things like stock in exchange for a salary. It is not fair to avoid paying the same tax rate due to it being a capital gain when in fact it really was wages. The tricky part is that when accepting a wage you have a guaranteed earning and with stock you may well lose your ass.

I get the disparity between wages for management versus workers that has a indefensible ratio. But why should it matter what the CEO makes AS LONG AS THE GOVT DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE OR BAILOUT THAT COMPANY??
 

CityGirl

Active Member
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frédéric Bastiat

It's a done deal. The thing that gets me is this quote is applied to the lower incomes (at least when Neal Boortz uses it) What is easier to unravel in this country, the welfare state or the military industrial/prison complex? Which unraveling would have the most dire effects on economies across the nation? How many jobs and communities are built up around the welfare state? How many jobs and communities are built up around the military industrial/prison complex?

I would add to Bastiat's quote, in addition to a legal sytem that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it, an economic system that finances it. Oh, yes, plunder has become a way of life but the plunderers are not by any means the poor.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
funny you would quote Bastiat

I am not familiar with him other than what a member I knew who had that as a user name at another site

Based on comments he made I don't think Bastiat would be very supportive of the liberal mindset of today

I believe he was a "classical liberal".
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Here's my 2c. We need to go back to the 90% tax bracket. hehehehehehehehehhe....... do those words now make me a domestic terrorist? hmmmmm.....

We should. I've said it before, but I'll repeat as it's relevant. My Grandfather was in the 90% tax bracket all those years ago. Trust me. He still made plenty of money. He had good CPA's and I think he took advantage of any 'breaks' offered. In that 90% tax bracket he certainly wasn't hurting. He and my Grandmother were quite comfortable. Also proud that they could earn enough to help fund the programs that the 90% tax bill afforded. Strengthening America.

That's the thinking that is missing these days. Now it's profit above all else. Has been for awhile... We're seeing the results.

if you go to that high of a rate then there would be a ton of write offs which will be used. Then you would have liberals saying it is an abuse of the system.

That 90% rate was a farce. The net taxes paid would have been comparable to later rates

One problem is that there is too much wealth envy that drives the discussion. It is based on emotion. X person makes too much money. And I want my piece of it no matter what

What needs to be discussed is the tactic of accepting things like stock in exchange for a salary. It is not fair to avoid paying the same tax rate due to it being a capital gain when in fact it really was wages. The tricky part is that when accepting a wage you have a guaranteed earning and with stock you may well lose your ass.

I get the disparity between wages for management versus workers that has a indefensible ratio. But why should it matter what the CEO makes AS LONG AS THE GOVT DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE OR BAILOUT THAT COMPANY??

Sure, but maybe they were onto something back in the day. A 90% tax bracket helped smooth ruffled feathers of the envious, while the tax breaks kept the money circulating.

Could it be that deception is the grease that keeps the machinery running smoothly?
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Here's my 2c. We need to go back to the 90% tax bracket. hehehehehehehehehhe....... do those words now make me a domestic terrorist? hmmmmm.....

We should. I've said it before, but I'll repeat as it's relevant. My Grandfather was in the 90% tax bracket all those years ago. Trust me. He still made plenty of money. He had good CPA's and I think he took advantage of any 'breaks' offered. In that 90% tax bracket he certainly wasn't hurting. He and my Grandmother were quite comfortable. Also proud that they could earn enough to help fund the programs that the 90% tax bill afforded. Strengthening America.

That's the thinking that is missing these days. Now it's profit above all else. Has been for awhile... We're seeing the results.

LOL - It's hilarious watching the resident conservobot and the resident libtardatarian attempt to refute this. It is as if they either believe they will somehow be a member of the 1% club (they won't) or they think that by shilling for the rich, it will somehow make their economic lives better (it won't).

The fact of the matter is that America's most prosperous times were when top marginal rates were the highest, and the middle class was far broader. Our problems began getting worse with each lowering, culminating with Reagans huge cuts. Our infrastructure is suffering terribly. There are hundereds of Army Corps of Engineer dams that have decayed to the point of presenting a public flood danger, and bridges and levees and sewer systems as well. Instead of using tax revenue to pay for our ongoing wars, we BORROW the money. And who benefits? The top 1%.

But if we dare suggest the wealthiest step up and pay in proportion to the benefits they recieved from our collective infrastructure, their useful idiots in the middle class step right up with a battery of excuses why this is impossible.

Try and get the various Rush Limbaugh bots on here to listen and you might as well be talking to a concrete wall. Their minds are made up. I used to try and reason with them, but it's no use. They always have that same old canned right wing talk radio comeback that has served them for the last 20 years. And to a bot, they deny listening to right wing radio - but i know that's a fucking lie. The libertarian only slightly differs from the conservative - but they are one and the same essentially. Lower taxes on the rich and keep the poor down.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top