Money for bingster


User avatar
Posted by bingster
15 Jan 2014, 5:56 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 4:42 pm wrote:

First, an economy will recover on its own, once bad policy is no longer enacted. FDR began reversing his own policies in the late 30's.

But arguably the biggest reason for the recovery was the huge post-WWII tax cut enacted by Repubs.

That's bulls***. Despite the Post WWII tax cut, starting in 1949 there were five recessions in twelve years totalling 25% of that period, which is precisely why Supply Sider JFK proposed his across the board tax rate cut that closely resembled Reagan's.

As usual, you bungle basic reality. :rofl:


What "post wwii tax cut"? the top bracket was still in the 90's when Kennedy was elected? Eisenhower didn't cut taxes, Kennedy did.

and you baggers always tend to forget that all of that booming recovery from WWII on through the 50's was heavily government subsidized from the auto makers, through the housing boom, GI Bill, etc.... That boom wasn't despite liberal policies, it was because of liberal policies.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
18 Jan 2014, 4:25 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 3:21 pm wrote:

And affected very, very few Americans.

And here's a great quote. He opposed a tax cut only for budgetary/ inflationary reasons, and only temporarily.



exactly, Clem. For "budgetary" reasons. Hmmmm. Do we have any "budgetary" reasons to increase taxes now? Hmmmmm.... Also, regardless of who were in the top tax bracket, we paid off the war debt and the cost of the interstate system with higher taxes. It can be done again.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
19 Jan 2014, 6:28 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
golfboy » 19 Jan 2014 4:02 pm wrote:
Rule #1: Liberals lie

My language should be tighter. :rofl:
She had a man pay for her education, then divorced him when she graduated.


Big whoop. George W went AWOL. Too bad Wendy doesn't have the conservative machine to cover up for her.
2

User avatar
Posted by bingster
19 Jan 2014, 12:33 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
Truthwarrior757 » 19 Jan 2014 11:00 am wrote:
SUCK ON IT PROGRESSIVES! North Dakota is PROOF that conservative economic policies is what raises that standard of living. and proof that communist progressive economic policies in America SUCK and create more dependency and prolong poverty.......... :clap:

Coincidence Obama has not visited North Dakota through his entire illegal presidency? :huh:

McDonald's Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires

In one North Dakota town, prospective McDonald's employees are netting a nice paycheck before they ever have to ask a customer if they want fries with that.
McDonald's workers are netting $300 bonuses just to sign on to work at the eatery in Dickinson, North Dakota, Businessweek reports. That's just one sign of a state currently reaping the benefits of an oil boom, sending the jobless rate plunging to 3.4 percent and engendering fierce competition among employers to find workers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/2 ... _Austin_TX


First of all, I don't see anywhere in your links that McD's is offering a $15 minimum wage. I also don't see any details regarding the signing bonus. Is it for any worker? I sincerely doubt it. I'm sure it's like other chains who lure managers away from other retailers. Meaning, I'm sure the $15/hour and the signing bonuses are for managers, but neither of your links supply those details.

Second of all, it's a boom town. Is that your idea of responsible conservative policies? What happens when the boom is over, genius?
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
21 Jan 2014, 2:47 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
RichClem » 21 Jan 2014 1:24 pm wrote:

Those have been constants. The new factor is Obamacare, as well as Millennials rejection of Obama's NSA policies and their perception that Obama is dishonest.


I'll give you that. Good point. Like Skeptic has pointed out, though, that support is not going over to your side, though.
Those cumulatively have done deep damage to Obama's support, and polls have shown it.


Baloney, the young are very highly supportive of private accounts and don't expect to get anything like a fair shake from S.S. and Medicare.

I supported what you said. That's what I meant by "minor tweaks to the safety net". I said that that is understandable. However, I also made the point that they would not support anything Ryan or your side has proposed. They wouldn't support an overall privatizing of Social Security or Voucherizing Medicare. The survey polled the concept of tweaks, not overhaul.

Minor tweaks? Obamacare needs a "minor tweak? :rofl:

You just can't read. I wasn't talking about Obamacare, moron!
They formerly were very supportive of Obama, more than the general public, but among every demographic group that was strong for Obama, his support has plummeted.


That you're clueless. :\


I wouldn't say his support has "plummeted" and again, I defer to Skeptic's point that support sure as hell isn't going to the Republicans.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
21 Jan 2014, 7:22 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
crimsongulf » 20 Jan 2014 9:07 pm wrote:

Thread really isn't about that, but since you brought it up, I wonder how much the Congresswoman gives to the poor?


No, the thread is much more ridiculous. It tries to make the point that because this woman is a millionaire, she doesn't have a reasonable argument to make regarding income disparity in this country. I find that concept retarded. Who would know better than her?

Of course, you cons always laugh at libs for always wanting to spend someone elses money. Every time a liberal cries about income disparity, you guys call us broke ass welfare receivers who want someone else to give us money.

You can't have it both ways. Here's a woman who has money and says the playing field should be more level. This article is ridiculous because you guys argue both contradictory sides of an argument while being oblivious to it. Who gets to argue this issue, according to you guys? Broke people don't have any right. Rich people are hypocrites. Maybe you guys are just wrong.
3

User avatar
Posted by bingster
21 Jan 2014, 8:34 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
Cedarswamp » 21 Jan 2014 7:25 pm wrote:

Name the Dixicrats (notice they're not Dixiecans) that, switched party affiliation...I'll spot you Strom Thurmond, now name another.

The dixiecrats didn't leave the party, they died.


That's fine. I'll give you that. There are others, wiki has a list, but mostly the old Dems died hard. The ones who switched the most were the black voters from Republican to Dem and white voters vice versa. KKK guy, I'm forgetting his name right now, finally ran as a Republican for his last hurrah and lost. He had run numerous times as a Dem, independent, and then, lastly, as a Republican. What's his name? Former Wizzard of the KKK? I think he's still alive. David Duke.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
21 Jan 2014, 8:45 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
When you look at progressive/liberal parties of the 20th century it is kinda complicated. There remained liberal Dems in the north as well as some conservative republicans in the south. Teddy was the first progressive, and I believe Wilson took the torch for the Dem party. Then FDR and Truman. Eisenhower, you can argue, carried it to some degree. The southern dems remained conservative until the 60's. When you look at the vote for the Civil Rights act, you see it's purely geographical, however. Regardless of party name, the south voted against and the north voted for (almost completely).

There's no question, however, civil rights realigned the parties to the parties of today. Conservative, anti-civil rights are Republicans. Liberal/progressive are dems.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
21 Jan 2014, 8:41 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2014 7:38 pm wrote:

He obfuscates. The issue is why the rank and file bolted to join the hated party of lincoln - the party of sherman's march to the sea.

Hadda be something big. But they can't lay their finger on it.


I've argued this point countless times. They usually run off eventually. They don't believe in what they are arguing. Just mention "party switch of the 60's" or "Southern Strategy" and they'll scream "myth" without providing any kind of an alternative theory.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
22 Jan 2014, 6:19 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838


Doesn't this finally put a lid on this pile of shit? Stephens turned down extra security and the report even says the video was a culprit in the attack. What's left to the rights bs? Anything?
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
23 Jan 2014, 1:20 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
Obummerstinks » 23 Jan 2014 12:12 pm wrote:
Reagan turned pessimism into optimism when taking the reins from the peanut farmer. The vast majority saw their incomes go up, mortgage rates that were sky high go down, and the country as a whole get out of the peanut farmer funk.

Optimism is a very powerful thing. Note its absense today.



Hey, I'll give Reagan all of the credit in the world for his "rah rah" speeches. He increased optimism. That's the basis of my entire op, he was a great performer. He lifted the country's hopes. I won't argue that.

However, his policies did not match his rhetoric. Reagan had nothing to do with interest rates or inflation. His Fed Chair was appointed by the peanut farmer. His actions over hostages were illegal and chicken shit, compared to the peanut farmer. The peanut farmer sent a mission to release them. Carter wasn't in uniform. Had the operation succeeded, Reagan may not have even won the election. Most of the time, Reagans rhetoric was completely opposite of his actions.
2

User avatar
Posted by bingster
23 Jan 2014, 12:51 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
RichClem » 23 Jan 2014 11:47 am wrote:

Translated into non-moonbat English:

You're hopelessly ignorant and have no freaking clue what Reagan's policies were. :rofl:

"His foreign policy was worse than ever." :clap:


You've already demonstrated your ignorance on Reagan many times. I remember putting up numerous quotes of Reagan's from his first inaugural and you thought it was Nixon. Since when did you know anything about Reagan?
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
24 Jan 2014, 2:54 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
Racetex (RSIG) » 24 Jan 2014 1:48 pm wrote:
Bullshit. Our Pres should be blamed for his and his people actions in this entire thing. Clinton wasn't forthcoming and you know it as does the rest of the world. Why put gag orders on those who were there and had info on the case? It was done for political reason and the right was pushing it for political reasons. Hell the entire world know it was a major Al Qaeda hit and we went running with a fucking movie bullshit thing.


Wow, where did that come from? Clinton? I suppose you have evidence of your accusations that would have come out during the investigations? Way to make a mature post and then come back with crazy. I'm sorry, but this case is nothing like "We can't allow the smoking gun to come out in the form of a mushroom cloud". Nope, nothing even close!
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
26 Jan 2014, 2:39 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838


Why do conservatives only look up to pond scum? You really should reach higher in life.
1

User avatar
Posted by bingster
26 Jan 2014, 2:43 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
Truthwarrior757 » 26 Jan 2014 12:59 pm wrote:

If not Bill Maher I'm sure you quoted other liberals just as dumb as he is so wtf difference does make :LOL:

Bottom line is Nugent is speaking the truth


Calling Obama a mongrel and a communist has nothing to do with the truth. Only truth is, you and Ted are a couple of racist morons.
3

User avatar
Posted by bingster
26 Jan 2014, 3:05 pm

bingster Moderator
User avatar
Moderator

Posts: 17838
I like the concept of the article. By labeling everything on the left as anti-christian they lead the sheep to vote conservative. That's spot on. While Catholics are still, as a religion, totally against contraceptives, I've seen multiple surveys that show almost all Catholic women (98%) have used or regularly use contraceptives. However, how do you think their priests are telling them to vote?
1