Paul Ryan gets the best health care money can buy and you're payin for it-SUCKERS! Meanwhile, he's trying to privatize it so the industry can jack up your premiums (if you're lucky enough to afford them) even more than they are now. If you ever see this nigger ask him how much he pays for health insurance! BTW no one in Canada has ever gone banckrupt (you will if Ryan has his way) from medical bills. Say it with me 'SUCKERS"!
Ryan and the GOP believe in choices!! That's right-if they have their way senior citizens will have to make lots of choices - one choice they'll have to make will be between health care and food! SUCKERS!!!
@TheKmbt Ryan is a joke: medicare part D was marketed by cons as "choices". In reality it's a corporate scam to price gouge taxpayers for prescription drugs. What Ryan and cons are saying is: daddy just drove home with a 1/2 million dollar Lamborghini from the lot and in order for the family to pay the minimum payments on his credit card they'll have to "cut the fat" from the kids' lunch money. they are giving taxbreaks to the rich who don't need it and take away from education.
No. What I came up with is that your argument that not paying for someone's lunch is not the same as not paying for someone's education. I stand by that. You obviously disagree.
@lchrisberg1 I was speaking about "kids' lunch money" as part of a dysfunctional family I used as a metaphor for US society. The last sentence on the other hand is obviously outside of the metaphor: it refers to Ryan's plan to give further taxbreaks to the rich while cutting among others Federal Pell Grants, but education is just 1 ex. There is no room in 400 characters to write a dissertation but it's evident that the tax cuts did not refer to the selfish Lamborghini owner in the metaphor..
First, I don't think American society is dysfunctional.
Spending on everything is out of control. Our fiscal situation is approaching Greece's level. History demonstrates when you cut tax RATES, tax REVENUES increase. It happened under JFK, Reagan, and Bush II. When the private economy grows, more people have jobs, business make more money and tax revenues increase. Please tell me understand the difference between tax revenues and tax rates. I have no idea what a tax cut is?
@lchrisberg1 "First, I don't think American society is dysfunctional." and that's because you clearly have no clue what you are talking about...historically or otherwise. I gave you the facts that DIRECTLY contradict everything you say. In the 1st 30 years after WW2, under both dems and republicans the GDP grew much faster than the debt and wage earners netted a 75% increase of income. Since 1981 THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. What matters about taxes is not the cutting but the incentives.
@lchrisberg1 You can cut some taxes and raise some other taxes, the result will be either a positive econ growth or a negative. Specifically, if your tax incentive is to have rich individuals take money out of brick and mortar businesses and put it into personal luxury consumption or wall street speculation you'll have economic harm done to Main Street. 4 ex: When RR dropped top marginal taxrates from 70% to 30% he told the rich to take their money out of corporations taxed @35%
Next. RR's policies initiated the largest continuous period of peacetime expansion in modern US history. Inflation was tackled, unemployment dropped like a rock, and GDP grew consistently. If you take out the first two years where a recession had to be induced to squelch inflation, the record is even more impressive...and I am talking about per capita GDP, the one that matters in the real world
@lchrisberg1 What Reagan did was his first budget decimated the public sector, it created 2.5 million jobless in the government sector and then he went ahead and privatized large parts of government and had these private contractors rehire the government workers at a lower wage rate while charging the taxpayers a lot more so that the national debt ballooned. AGAIN: anybody can buy a Lamborghini and put it on the credit card...FOR A WHILE!
@lchrisberg1 So when Clinton came in, all he had to do was raise that personal income tax rate on the highest bracket to 39.6% to make it again higher than corporate taxes so that it does not penalize corporate investments. This is where Peter Orszag comes in. Since 2002 we have the Bush tax cuts which again undermined this incentive struct set up by Clinton but instead of restoring it they are opting for extending the cuts and dropping the corporate rate bellow 30%. It will work,
@szatmar666 but it will only work at the cost of taking food away from the needy and destroying capitalism as we it existed when the middle class was the strongest in America. This is why people should go after Obama, not because of right wing pseudo economics. The Obama fiscal policy and monetary policy is EXACTLY the same as the Bush policy and the reason is because both the dems and the repubs only care about their wealthy buddies in the corporate boardrooms and not about their constituents
A couple of points. First of all, raw GDP numbers prove nothing. What matters is per capita GDP. If your GDP doubles in 20 years but your population triples, each individual is poorer than before. I repeat. You are an idiot.
Second of all, RR took over an economy in complete doldrums with double digit inflation. You may be too young to remember, but that is where the term stagflation came from...high unemployment and high inflation. According to Keynesian theory, that can't happen
@lchrisberg1 I didn't use "raw GDP numbers" I simply pointed out the in 1981 the National Debt was 32% of GDP. Under RR/Bush it went to 66% of GDP, under Clinton went down again to 56% of GDP and under W went up to 83% of GDP. Instead of simply calling people "idiots" why don't you just acknowledge that you have no clue or start showing some real numbers. Mine come from the budget "Historical Tables" pdf document and BLS. Your probably from GOP propaganda.
You know, what's the point? Just wallow in your ignorance and watch as the economy heads straight into a debt bomb crash.
You don't understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues.
You can't bring yourself to acknowledge that when marginal tax rates on the wealthy have been reduced the last three times, the economy both expanded and tax revenues rose.
You use statistics like a selfish third grader to win debaters points.
@lchrisberg1 No, you are projecting. Everything you accuse me of, you are obviously guilty of yourself. the fact is that you right wingers don't really give a damn about capitalism and economy or the national debt. What you really want is to destroy the public sector because you hate a certain class of people. the communists didn't want to destroy the private sector because it was good economic policy. They did it to hurt the people they waged class warfare against. U R REVERSE BOLSHEVIKS!
@szatmar666 You are absolutely right, this IS class warfare. Ir Paul Ryan cared about outcomes and results he would show an example of where did taxcuts for the rich EVER create a job?! It goes against ECON101: you drop the taxrates on top personal incomes and thus you create an incentive to take money out of the economy for personal use. that's what's happening for the last 30 years and it's responsible for deiindustrializing America. Taxcuts have driven capital out of the US economy.
@madashelldude Yes, exactly! the right wingers are right about 1 thing: the 70% top marginal tax rate before RR was a PUNITIVE taxrate but it was designed to punish people who decided to take out more than $3.2 million from their company for personal use, either luxury spending or wall street speculation. Since Reagan there is more and more incentive for people to take money out of US businesses and put in A) wall street investment accounts, B) offshore and C) personal luxury spending.
HaHaHa How old are you? 15? 16? Come onto the WSJ site and make some of those asinine comments. I want some of my friends to get a load of you. I knew it was a mistake to come on one of these really public sites where idiocy reigns.
@lchrisberg1 I am a regular on Ron Paul's forum and I can devastate them in 30 seconds with links to the BLS and the US budget. The problem with you right wingers is that rational arguments are not what motivates/interests or convinces you: just like the commies, you are out there to hurt certain people and spread the sociopathology of the trustfund babies and the entitled classes. You could easily explain how reducing the top marginal taxrates creates jobs, but instead you chose to BS.
@lchrisberg1 I know, propaganda only works in a closed circle where no one is allowed to disagree with the set of approved dogmas and postulates. As soon as radicals are challenged on their premises they are at a loss and seek the protection of their herd: that's because your ideas cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Major Nobel Prize winning economists question supply side, from Joe Stiglitz, George Akerlof to Paul Krugman all the real intellectual firepower is to the left of the democrats.
Hmm... Krugman, Stiglitz and Akerlof. I read Krugman pretty much everyday - he is good for a laugh. Stiglitz writes for the WSJ often and I am still waiting for him to get something right. I read Akerlof and Shiller's Animal Spirits.. in a book club. Unimpressed. Akerlof is Vice Chair Yellen's husband interestingly enough. Throw in Summers and Romer and you have a whole lot of intellectual failure. They all predicted wonders from the stimulus and were all WRONG! Except Krugman.
@lchrisberg1 So much of your energy is wasted on intellectually dishonest ad hominem attacks and intellectually flimsy arguments, no wonder you guys can't get accepted in most well informed societies. You are quiet right: they all asked for more stimulus and they also asked for the end of the Bush taxcuts. That's because you can't have an effective Keynesian stimulus spending under radical supply side fiscal and monetary policies. The tax rates are the same as under Bush and interest rates 2.
@madashelldude Obama put a pile of stimulus dollars in front of corporations and told them to create jobs while leaving the Bush taxcuts in place practically forcing them to spend the money instead on CEO compensation since putting it back in the business would incur a tax penalty at the corporate tax rate compared to all the benefits with carried interest and capital gains etc that the current individual investment tax rates afford the investor class just to keep their money off Main Str
What a bunch of nonsense. R U trying to be an idiot. Tell me genius, how much of the stimulus went to the states and local governments? How much of it went to lower income Americans as welfare payments? I would call them tax credits but you have to pay taxes before you get a credit, technically.
Now, do you want to restate your previous nonsense about putting stimulus money in front of corporations????
@lchrisberg1 All that money that went to foodstamps and state and local governments and middle class taxcuts was spent in the real economy which means revenue for local businesses. there was also a bailout which was given to businesses directly. my argument was that all of these billions poured into the economy found their way into the investment accounts of the wealthy because of the way fiscal policy and monetary policy is set up.
@lchrisberg1 foodstamps were $20 billion, bailouts for the banks: $700 billion, bailout for the auto industry another $700bn and loan guarantees worth trillions. So the people you so passionately hate got chump change but 100% of that was spent on groceries and paid for the salaries of farmers, grocers and delivery drivers. So at the end of the day they all ended up on some corporate balance sheet. Question is when it did what did CEOs do with it: reinvest in job growth or executive bonuses?!
The "pie chart" is an estimate from the NYT on 1/15, before the law was passed. So what? I can read, you know.
Accepting it as a close approximation, though, just where is all that money given to corporations you ranted about? Hmmm.. More lies and errors from you. Do you have the foggiest idea what you are talking about?
Looks to me like you have a hateful point of view that you troll through stats to find some to suit your pre-conceived notions. Does that help you sleep?
@lchrisberg1 "just where is all that money given to corporations you ranted about?" Corporate america had its most profitable year in 2010, especially the ones who got bailed out. Don't pretend you were not explained how the money works in the economy. You give a man a foodstamp 100% of that will show up on corporate balance sheets immediately for trucking companies, grocery chains agro busiss etc.
@madashelldude it's a waste, he's not really interested in an argument, haven't you figured it out yet?! just another right wing troll pushing his fascist agenda.
@madashelldude i dont see republicans mandating the gov control everything. i see that from the dems. i suggest you look up the definition of "fascist" kid. im sorry your shitty father couldnt get you more so you feel you deserve the right to take from others. did he touch you too? you seem quite angry.
@187Unseen LOL! Projecting much?! Both communists and nazis (left and right wing extremist) mandated that "gov control everything". U should read the definition of these terms from Merriam Websters or the Oxford English dictionary because you are clearly ignorant of basic English . Turn off the boob tube: it is clearly hurting your IQ.
noun * an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. * (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action * The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43);
I not only am trying, I believe I have proven that you are FOS.
The economy has 15-18 real statistics that mean something. Not individually, but taken as a whole. There are probably 15 or so really important policies that have a major impact on those 15-18 real statistics. Each policy has a different time frame to impact the economy. Tax rate changes and budget expenditures just don't change everything overnight.
@madashelldude yeah, it says corporate profits were up 28% and they had $1.67 trillion dollars and still not hiring and the reason of course is the Bush taxcuts that make it stupid to hire and pay higher corporate taxes when you can simply give a fat bonus to the execs and get the Bush tax benefits. This moron will pretend he never heard this argument before.
You like to troll through these statistics and pick out a few and wow these readers with "proof" that Keynesian policies work. The objective and smart readers see right through you. I workout with people who sit on the FOMC. The Keynesians in that group at least have rational arguments and don't cite the nonsense you do. You are just an amusement.
@lchrisberg1 you are a sore loser: you even acknowledge that you cannot argue with the stats like comparing unemployment & job creation in 1982 with 2010. So you got your ass handed to you that much is obvious and now you are pretending that never happened! Your language is that of a hooligan/ troll, not someone who's interested in a conversation. Let us know when you actually develop an argument for Ryan's taxcuts for the rich, we are still waiting fir that one! LOL!!
@lchrisberg1 So let me get this straight: people who present actual facts and numbers or point out what Keynesian fiscal policy supposed to be based on actual econ 101, are just listing "excuses" while you trying to explain away why Reagan lost 2.5 million jobs at the same point in his presidency when Obama gained 1 million, that supposed to be an "argument".. You right wingers are truly pathetic losers!
@szatmar666 He is calling people "Keynesian" because of where they work and not their actual views and policies. The natural use of an orwellian language is especially telling.
Hmmm... Once again. Three times since 1960, the top marginal tax rate has been cut. Three times the economy grew at faster than average rates and three times total tax revenues increased. Pray tell me, when did those occur?
Lots of excuses from Keynesians these days. I hear it all the time at work. If we had spent more, we would just be one day closer to the Greek like debt crash looming on the horizon. You guys haven't the foggiest idea what makes an economy grow and it shows.
@lchrisberg1 When Kennedy cut taxes from 92% to 70% the excuse was that he also closed tax loopholes and thus achieved more revenues. I think it was a mistake because the loopholes were put back in by lobbyists and an important incentive to invest in America was weakened. Instead I would have left the taxrates at 90% and made sure I send the IRS on wealthy tax dodgers: sabotaging the national economy by tax dodging should be a bigger crime than robbing a bank.
Nice evasion. Anyone with average or better intelligence can see that. Like I said, you Keynesians are full of excuses. Tax revenues increased and the economy grew each and every time.
Well, you are having your way now. Gov't spending is at an all peacetime high and what was GDP last quarter? 1.8% I can't wait to hear more excuses about that. Obama and the Keynesians have given you two monsterous spending years and where are we? The slowest recovery in history.
@lchrisberg1 Look, we don't need "excuses". The economic numbers are well known since WW2: a 13X GDP growth before 1981 and a 75% increase in wages. Keynesian policies work when implemented right. Problem is in the US we have radical supply side fiscal and monetary policies compete against less radical supply side policies. None of the Keynesian heavyweights are on Obama's team. When Obama makes Stiglitz or Krugman his chief adviser and follows actual Keynesian policies we can talk.
Summers and Romer not Keynesian heavyweights? Seriously? He was the Chief Economist of the World Bank and Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton. Not a heavyweight? He needs a girdle...
Romer sat on the NBER - you know, that committee that decides when recessions begin and end. I will not make any comments about weight in deference to her, though.
@lchrisberg1 If you are arguing that Obama's stimulus didn't work as it should have I am with you as I said. If you arguing it completely failed I would ask compared to whom, Reagan?! Reagan at this point had a 10.3% unemployment rate, Obama is at 8.8%. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5%, Obama 7.8%. The first Reagan budget went into action in Oct 1981 or fiscal year 1982 at 7.9% unemployment rate, Obama's t 10%. RR lost 2.5 million jobs in 82, Obama gained 1 million in 2010!!
@lchrisberg1 the other thing about hurling empty insults and nonsense is that you seem to be completely ignorant of the words you are using. The word "Keynesian" is associated with specific fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies that very few politicians follow today. The last time we had some weak Keynesian policies was Clinton's 1st term under Stiglitz. FDR and Truman put a punitive 92% taxrate on behavior that caused the great depression in order to stop it for good=40 yrs of prosperity
Ohhh, so that's the excuse. Hmmm.. Not pure enough. Nonsense. The economy is not like some machine requiring a perfect balance to run properly. All policy decisions have an impact. Reagan didn't get all he wanted and his supply side policies were not implemented in full either. Just more excuses.
Obama has the crack Keynesian brain trust and had both houses of Congress, something Reagan never had. He failed. His Keynesian policies not only failed, they continue to fail. TRUTH.
@lchrisberg1 the other interesting fact is that RR had the same exact tax rate on individuals as Obama has today. Just an interesting little fact... the only difference is the spending. Without the spending, with these tax rates and interest rates we would have had another great depression since these also happen to be the lowest tax rates since the Great Depression with all the major new Deal regulatory framework removed. This is what Paul Ryan wants: another GD: excellent buying opportunity
BTW, who made it out of the panic pretty much unscathed? I've got your back on that one. It is Germany. Hmmm... Who spent the least on stimulus? I'll set you up with that one as well. That's right. Germany. He thinks our failing policy is insane? One last time,,,,Germany. Watch England now. They have wised up. Compare their growth going forward with ours....but I don't expect to actually hear from you.
@lchrisberg1 Germany has very strict regulations regarding the financial sector. They don't tolerate tax dodgers and fancy financial instruments. they also put a lot of money in real industrial development in transportation and green energy: they manufacture 50% of all solar panels in the world and they have patents on crucial nano technology and material science for the 21st century. that's their type of innovation: ours and the British is "financial innovation" ie. stealing.
I feel sorry for people that have to answer to Paul Ryan. He is so straight with the facts, and these guys just can't successfully spin anything on him.
The very first thing Boner, Ryan and the rest of the right wing clan will do if they get the majority will be to CUT TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY! Just like Bush did. How's that trickle down economics working for you? Suckers!
Medicare Part D was created to give more to the drug companys and make make doctors take less and make Medicare go broke. Paul Ryan broke Medicare so he could say that it does not work.
These LIARS claim ten years of savings in a single years' budget. The lie it 10X larger than the actual, and as was pointed out, 88% of that gigantic 10X lie is not a savings at all but standard reduction because the surge in Iraq is over. So, the actual TRUTH is, the Obama admin. is claiming 100 billion in savings over ten years, or 10 billion per year, while spending is 3,800+ billion a year. They save $10 and spend $3,790.00. Hi honey, I spent four grand and saved ten dollars.
Look at projections on National Debt for the next 10 years...20 trillion!!!! these savings are crap, why are we spending 120-140billion on Iraq-afganistan when we can start worrying about our own debt and problems, I can tell you where we can cut some spending...this assholes job thats where. save 120-140 billion every year over 10 years and lets start getting rid of this debt.
FoxNews, FoxNews, FoxNews...... @madshelldude, is that all you have? You forgot Rush, Hannity, etc., that their opinions are the only ones conservatives listened to. @Floridanon407, I find it odd that liberals will not address the issues you put on the table, but all we conservatives get our thinking from FoxNews. Facts to liberals are like a cross to a vampire. I don't have time to name the liberal media outlets there are bowing to the Messiah.
Paul Ryan needs to be the next President of the United States. This guy is an intelligent, logical thinker with insane knowledge and an actual written plan for fixing what's wrong with America.
I'm watching this healthcare debate and I just had to do a search on Paul Ryan to see what people thought of him. This guy is at the top of his game. He's like a one man CBO and his critique of this bill cuts like a laser.
@unclelight hahaha! he looks white to me. LOL! besides, is this all democrats can come with is name calling and not bring facts to the table like Congressman Paul Ryan? Obama talks about change but he doesn't include what the cost will be for such change. how about the cost of your freedom dickhead, let that marinate in that thick liberal progressive michael moore left wing nut job head of yours... stupid liberals i swear, who taught these stupid fucks!
I am proud to live in the 1st district and fully support the message of common sense and tough choices Paul is promoting. He has 3 small children and wants to leave them with a better country, not a bankrupt one.
@MrWorkingguy God bless men like him and scott brown and i bet he drives a truck lol. obama will shove this socialize health care down our throats this summit was all a show for him, i just dont know why we dont demand impeachment now for him.
republicans bankrupted this country, why would americans trust them?! They are enemies of humanity. most of them get their news from FOX News funded by an australian propagandist and a saudi oil prince. last time they had a chance they put in office a bunch of rednecks and oil industry crooks and saw how their savings evaporated, their jobs went away yet they want more?! what a bunch of no nothing nincompoops!
@madashelldude hows that 10%+ unemployment, 26week and rising turn around time for the unemployed, added TRILLIONS in deficits, continued wars, gitmo still open, DEMOCRAT house of representatives RENEWING THE PATRIOT ACT, coming inflation, administration jobs for lobbyists, no CSPAN hearings, closed door special interest dealing and lack of repealing DADT working out for you buddy?
you boy is a hack and your evaluation of the economy under bush is bunk.
To me and anybody in the rest of the world Obama is too far to the right. If he fails free market capitalism fails. The USA never tried left wing ideas such as national hcare like other capitalist countries have, or free and accessible education, welfare etc. While americans are bickering over 18th century economic ideas and jailing their defunct lower classes in record numbers other countries r taking over leadership in all areas. It would be common sense to look at what they do differently.
if you want to see what the left wing solutions are then look at europe and canada... you'll see our future in how their countries are being ran... it's terrible... i don't like it... we're americans... not europeans... if dems want to be like them then go over there...
@iongi229 I'm a Canadian and I like it here. We Canadians pay less taxes per person than Americans and we have the most sound banking system in the world. Our economy has also recovered early from the recession. If anything, you should be copying the fiscal management policies of our government.
@MrEthekyaa I know you like it there and if anyone loves that way of government, they have the freedom to become canadian. the minority that believes in such as system thought they can get away with it and now all americans for the first itme in a a long time don't agree with sort of government. no government should be given power to tell me what to do. i am fighting for the freedom of the individual and individual responsibilities to oneself, not to be fed to rely on government like a drug!
@madashelldude name a capitalist country in europe that is similar to ours mr. LEFT WING NUT JOB. name a couple matter of a fact. you can't cause' they are experimenting with your left wing ideas and guess what, it's failing in the EU you stupid idiot. so no, i don't want any part of those idiot left wing ideas like taking my hard earn money and giving to lazy fucks. i support giving my taxes to those that need it, not those that milk it. you probably rely on gov. like a drug addiction. LOL!
unemployment is 9.7% and dropping. I am happy that dumbass republicans are putting all their eggs on the economy basket. That's a place I am willing to go this november because the economy is growing at 6% right now: that means jobs are about to start to come back too. It's right wingers who watch foreign owned propaganda at Fox News who want this country to fail so they can take power: disgusting!
@DEPORTALLILLEGALS It will drop. This is not a lightswitch you can just flip. As people enter the job market those who were not counted before start to look for jobs too. It's not Obama's fault that the US has no welfare to stablize the real economy and unemployment figures don't match ILO standards like in EU. Just a reminder btw: under Saint Ronald in Nov-Dec 1982 unemployment was 10.8% and he inherited a slightly lower 7.5%. Look it up at bls . gov!
lol... i was curious and looked it up, compared the unemployment rates of the years that Reagan was in office. Went to bls . gov and saw an interesting story... Reagan served two terms from 1981 to 1989 and that "huge" spike of unemployment was in the end of his second year in office... after that the unemployment rate steadily went downwards untill it reached 5.3 percent in 1989... so it kinda seems like your omitting context right? But, you already knew that didn't you...
and that's Reagan's 1st term, so PLEASE STOP LYING! I know lying is a conservative thing, but with google nowadays it's just way too easy to catch republican lies.
@madashelldude LOL... dude, you just repeated the thing that i just said.... and you are still omitting context... by the end of Reagan's second term it was WAY lower than what you posted.
I obviously just stated "that huge spike of unemployment was in the end of his second year in office then it steadily went downwards till it hit 5.3% in 1989"... You still just omitting the context of his entire presidency... LOL, man you're really bad at this
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 What "CONTEXT" dumbass?! Are we in OBAMA's 2nd term yet?! NO! Oh yeah, if you want REAL context go to gpoaccess . gov and look up the Budget of the President and see table 7.1 in the pdf doc "Historical Tables". You'll find that in 1981 the national debt was $994 bn or 32% GDP. By the end of Reagan's 2nd term it tripled: $2.9 TRILLION or 53% GDP!!! By Jan 1993 $4.35 TRILLION or 66% of GDP, not to mention W: 2001: $5.5 TR 56%-> 2009: $11.9 TR 83%. Clinton: 66%GDP->56%GDP
@madashelldude dude... lol debt is a totally different discussion pal. I was just showing that you said that during Reagan's presidency the unemployment only went up. It didn't, lol and then you're own numbers (that i previously gave anyway) showed that you were full of crap on that claim. Thats all I was talking about bro, and that was the "context" that you omitted because like dems and reps alike, you enjoy manipulating fact and context to make things look the way you want :P
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 BTW, this is really funny: "the debt is a different discussion". I bet that's what you tell your wife when you buy a new car you can't afford ;) ROFL! Also, do you really feel that easily manipulated and weak minded that you know you are being manipulated but can't explain how exactly?! I mean what's the manipulation in what I am proving here?! That the last 3 republican presidents borrowed more money than they created through GDP growth?! That's undisputed FACT, "bro"!
@madashelldude Get it through your head... I don't like the GOP, and I'm not arguing you about debt. That's what your arguing, your creating a straw man of my statements. Its really simple, you omitted figures, and then you got pissed, and then you went to what all dem shills do and assumed that I'm a GOPer. From there you went off on something that was COMPLETELY unrelated to what I was talking about. You're to a t what people do when they're almost completely unreachable
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Of course it's about the debt. Reagan/Bush created 20 million new jobs in 12 years. Clinton created 23 million in 8 years. the big difference between them is not just the sheer number but HOW they did it. Reagan/Bush created those jobs by borrowing money from future generations. Clinton created it by genuine economic growth. Of course you don't want to talk about that because that's all your ammo: obfuscating and bullshitting. that's all u cons are good at.
@madashelldude Pleaaaase.... get this through your head, I'm not debating the debt with you. If you would like to I will happily obliged. Yet again, let me state this fact... You omitted context to make a point, I called you on it and now you're arguing debt... Thats all that there really is to this exchange.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 RR lost 54k jobs in 1981 the FY of Carter's last budget. He lost 2.1 million jobs in 1982 which was his first budget complete with his taxcuts. Barack Obama lost 4.5 million jobs in 2009 which was Bush's last budget and gained 880k in 2010 thus far which is his first budget. Tehre is no other relevant context to this discussion. The debt is relevant in a different conversation you raised which is the year legacy of RR: he created 18 million jobs based on borrowed money.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 I meant to say "8 year legacy of Ronald Reagan". Obviousy that's a different discussion since Obama has been in office for less than 2 years, so it's irrelevant to compare how many jobs Reagan created in 8 years with how many Obama created in less than 2. The fact that you can't comprehend this makes me wonder if you are really fit for any intelligent discussion.
@madashelldude theres been a net loss in jobs, the only jobs he's "saved or created" have been gov't jobs or in private sector industries that are favored by the administration, they never talk about jobs "lost or prevented" and come next January when he raises taxes or lets tax decreases expire which is raising taxes it will create an even harsher environment for job growth, but the gov jobs will continue to increase because thats the only jobs liberals are good at creating.
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 the reason you want the debt to be "completely unrelated" to job creation and economic growth is because the same policies Clinton pursued so successfully: raising the top marginal tax rate and closing tax loopholes on corporations were the policies that created jobs and balanced the budget too and they are the same policies republicans are whining about today and attacking Obama for. When in fact we have a clear 30 yr record of whos ideas work and who's don't.
@madashelldude Lol, and did I say there was a problem on that buddy? Nope, can't seem me complaining on that one :)
Merely just wanted to call you out for the liar that you were when discussing strictly the variables of Reagan's time in office and unemployment rates. Thats all buddy, wasn't talking about debt, wasn't talking about obama or anything else mate :)
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Reagan and Bush Sr created 20 million new jobs in 12 years while quadrupling the National Debt, or increasing it from 32% of GDP to 66% of GDP. Clinton created 22 million new jobs while the National Debt was decreasing from 66% of GDP to 56% of GDP. In other words there is no year since Saint Ronald took office that a republican pres didn't present a budget that increased the debt faster than the GDP while the only pres who avoided that was a DEMOCRAT! DEAL WITH IT!
@madashelldude LOL... buddy, I have a lot of problems with Reagan's policies... and I have never seen him as a saint. But, unlike you I'm not in the pocket of either party and as a result I'm not spoon fed what I believe and can be objective... Ever heard of it pal?
@madashelldude you might want to check on who was in charge of that. It was a "Republican Congress and Newt Gingrich" who came up with the "Contract With America" that created the budget surplus. Clinton was doing nothing to untill Republicans took over. More Democrats changing history to suite themselves.
@CoryEttinger Thanks for illustrating republican "logic":
A) Bush had the SAME EXACT congress between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007. NOT 1 of these 6 years did he increase the GDP faster than the debt. In fact the debt went from 56% of GDP in Jan 2001 to 65% of GDP in Jan 2007. Data from gpoaccess . gov / usbudget Historical Tables Section 7.
B) It's interesting to me that Clinton's budget in your mind is the merit of the republican Congress, but Obama's budget is Obama's fault?! Hm, wiki the OMB!
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Sure, anybody can create jobs if they spend like drunken sailors. Question is are those jobs a result of real economic growth, or just more debt piled on the nation's credit card. I challenge any republican shill commenting here to come up with 1republican budget that didn't increase the national debt faster than it increased the GDP. Just 1 year since 1981! I checked THERE IS NONE!
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "went up, went down". Are you even capable of making a coherent point?! Again: when did a republican like Paul Ryan EVER propose a policy or a budget that ACTUALLY worked as advertised in reducing the debt and growing the economy?! WHAT YEAR AND WHAT EXACT NUMBERS are we talking about?! Enough of this bullshit! show some facts or STFU!
@madashelldude Lol...It was a completely coherent point... in "Saint Ronald's" presidency unemployment went down... You made it out to be other wise... I called you on it, you showed me right, and then you got pissed...
Lol, why are you still going on about this?
BTW the burden of proof isn't on me shill... Its on you and yours to try and make this work now :)
BTW, I'm not a rep or dem so I don't support anyone, yes even Ryan, by default... Why must I support him?
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Don't try to lie again. I listed unemployment numbers throughout RR's 1st term pointing out that they were not better than under Obama. In fact they were the EXACT same numbers in the summer of 1982. No one has ever made a point about Reagan's 2nd term. There is no reason why, this is not even the middle of Obama's 1st term. You must be either retarded, or you clearly don't understand english.
@madashelldude Oh yeah... I know why, that's because I judge a persons merit by virtue of their actions and the effects of their policies. Let me ask you this question you duped sorry pseudo-democrat. What budget has been proposed by a democrat in congress right now that does exactly what you ask for? Answer: there isn't one...
Call Ryan and all republicans, as well as Obama and all democrats on the basis of fact. You don't do that shill, wake up!
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Obama's deficit spending just like Clinton's 1993-1994 deficit spending will create real economic growth because it's targeting productive sectors of the economy such as the auto industry and education. This is not rocket science. If you look at budgets all the way back to 1946 the basic priorities were the same in every president's budget, republican or democrat. It's only Reagan and the Bush family who's selling this tax cutting snake oil and it bankrupted the USA.
@madashelldude obama is spending like a drunken sailor and there are NO JOBS in the private sector where they need to be, Government is growing though.
you're retarded... i can say the same thing with all the news that are not foxnews... all of those liberal news are terrible... they paint a picture of obama as if he's a rockstar during his campaign... and look at obama... he's terrible in his first year and making it worst...
@madashelldude Hahaha! Australian propagandist? Australia is close to being socialist than we are! They have the VAT tax that NO REPUBLICAN WANT which MOST DEMOCRATS WANT. So much for you australian propagandist theory. where did you get your info, CNN? MSNBC? NBC? ABC? NY TIMES? utterly ridiculous. democrats want to spend more money than the entire war effort so i ask, who is putting the country to shit... OBAMA AND HIS STUPID ASS DEMOCRATS! He's a lobbyist with the ACLU so shut up!
szatmar666, your ignorance is clear, even if I disregard your inability to spell. I suspect you live off of entitlement programs and add no value to the economy. Maybe that is why you have so much time to spread your ignorance here. Be part of the solution or go suck on your tailpipe and do us a favor.
@szatmar666 you left dems love the govt, handouts and govt, goodies, time for us to get a real conservative in and restore our country to true conservative principles, mass, lost to scott brown, in nov, gop will take over, in 2012 obama will be back in his ghetto hahahahaha
@debz12180 LOL! "True conservative principles"?! You are all too stupid to have principles. Modern US prosperity was founded on the New Deal and Bretton Woods: in the 30 years between 1946-1981 GDP increased 13X from $221 billion to $3.1 TRILLION while the debt increased 3X. Since Reagan's presidency and supply side nonsense: the debt increased 14X from $994bn in 1981 to $14 trillion while the GDP increased 5X. The bottom 90% increased their income 1946-1981 by 75%, since 1981 by 1(ONE!)%
@lchrisberg1 It's called the FACTS, dummy. These numbers are published with the budget of the USA under "Historical Tables". How about you do the compare?! I have a feeling you don't know and what's worse, don't really care what happened between 2008-2010, you just want that black man out of your white house.
The man is a completeon there budgets liar. He is talking about fund accounting, which is money that doesn't exist, but will be taxed and printed in the future. I've torn apart state officials when comparing actually budgets with the projected budgets. Goofy budgeting, that allows Peter to lie. With his approach they end up saying, sorry it was a projection and your cuaght pay up taxpayer He is complete ass. Peter people have cuaght on, and we want to kick you to the curb, your ideological jerk
It's nice to know that Wall St. is not the only place the knows how to pull accounting shenanigans. Did this guy go to the Arthur Anderson School of accounting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes asshole, it was your candidate "Mccain " that said that they would stay in Irak for 100 yrs, were was this dickhead then, when these" honorable" men were running the country, yeah these honorable men who torturesm who suspended habeua corpus, who gave the president the power to decide who and what is terrorism.
We have a bunch of wimps running the country. Whenever I hear Orszag and Geithner speak I just cringe. As much as I disagreed with the Bush Administration, at least there were a bunch of real and honorable men and women running the show. This Obama thing is a fucking circus full of ideological assclowns! We're doomed.
"This is, even by Washington standards, unusually dishonest. And coming from the administration of Barack Obama, who promised us honest accounting and made a big show of how much integrity and candor he would bring to his governing, this is astonishing."
"The farce on display here is enough to shred that promise. Nearly all of Obamas budget cuts consist of ending the Iraq war on more or less the timetable it would already have ended, and in raising taxes. Add to that a $634 billion downpayment on national health care, and vastly exaggerated economic growth estimates, and we see that Obama has delivered a budget that is $9 trillion in the red over 10 years, and still masks the true cost with smoke and mirrors."
What a joke this guys is. Just another one of Oblama's foot men lying to the public. if you get a chance, watch McCain's speech to the senate from 3/3/09. It is worth the watch.
Your kids are now slaves of the state because of this spending. Even if they move off shore their citizenship ensures they will be taxed by this government (Dem or Rep).
I do a lot of financial projections for corporations as part of my day job, and if someone on my team had come back with an assumption as blatantly stupid as the surge continuing for 10 years in their model, they'd [ahem] have to fix it before the numbers went public. This "budgeting" is a farce.
Koch Whore!
DillonDee1 2 months ago
Orszag... Duh! Typical Liberal dummy!
snaps81625 4 months ago 2
The best character is Paul ryan - the other should go an work for private equity
Chilililabombwe 7 months ago
Comment removed
stringlov 9 months ago 17
Comment removed
stringlov 9 months ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
Paul Ryan gets the best health care money can buy and you're payin for it-SUCKERS! Meanwhile, he's trying to privatize it so the industry can jack up your premiums (if you're lucky enough to afford them) even more than they are now. If you ever see this nigger ask him how much he pays for health insurance! BTW no one in Canada has ever gone banckrupt (you will if Ryan has his way) from medical bills. Say it with me 'SUCKERS"!
TheKmbt 9 months ago
Ryan and the GOP believe in choices!! That's right-if they have their way senior citizens will have to make lots of choices - one choice they'll have to make will be between health care and food! SUCKERS!!!
TheKmbt 9 months ago
@TheKmbt Ryan is a joke: medicare part D was marketed by cons as "choices". In reality it's a corporate scam to price gouge taxpayers for prescription drugs. What Ryan and cons are saying is: daddy just drove home with a 1/2 million dollar Lamborghini from the lot and in order for the family to pay the minimum payments on his credit card they'll have to "cut the fat" from the kids' lunch money. they are giving taxbreaks to the rich who don't need it and take away from education.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
Really? Not paying for someone's lunch is taking away from their education....How stupid can you be?
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 "stupid"?! really, that's all you can come up with?! LOL! Pot calling the kettle black!
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
No. What I came up with is that your argument that not paying for someone's lunch is not the same as not paying for someone's education. I stand by that. You obviously disagree.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 I was speaking about "kids' lunch money" as part of a dysfunctional family I used as a metaphor for US society. The last sentence on the other hand is obviously outside of the metaphor: it refers to Ryan's plan to give further taxbreaks to the rich while cutting among others Federal Pell Grants, but education is just 1 ex. There is no room in 400 characters to write a dissertation but it's evident that the tax cuts did not refer to the selfish Lamborghini owner in the metaphor..
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
First, I don't think American society is dysfunctional.
Spending on everything is out of control. Our fiscal situation is approaching Greece's level. History demonstrates when you cut tax RATES, tax REVENUES increase. It happened under JFK, Reagan, and Bush II. When the private economy grows, more people have jobs, business make more money and tax revenues increase. Please tell me understand the difference between tax revenues and tax rates. I have no idea what a tax cut is?
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 "First, I don't think American society is dysfunctional." and that's because you clearly have no clue what you are talking about...historically or otherwise. I gave you the facts that DIRECTLY contradict everything you say. In the 1st 30 years after WW2, under both dems and republicans the GDP grew much faster than the debt and wage earners netted a 75% increase of income. Since 1981 THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. What matters about taxes is not the cutting but the incentives.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 You can cut some taxes and raise some other taxes, the result will be either a positive econ growth or a negative. Specifically, if your tax incentive is to have rich individuals take money out of brick and mortar businesses and put it into personal luxury consumption or wall street speculation you'll have economic harm done to Main Street. 4 ex: When RR dropped top marginal taxrates from 70% to 30% he told the rich to take their money out of corporations taxed @35%
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
Next. RR's policies initiated the largest continuous period of peacetime expansion in modern US history. Inflation was tackled, unemployment dropped like a rock, and GDP grew consistently. If you take out the first two years where a recession had to be induced to squelch inflation, the record is even more impressive...and I am talking about per capita GDP, the one that matters in the real world
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 Again: Reagan/bush QUADRUPLED the NATIONAL DEBT. You cannot expand even a private business if your debt grows faster than your business.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 What Reagan did was his first budget decimated the public sector, it created 2.5 million jobless in the government sector and then he went ahead and privatized large parts of government and had these private contractors rehire the government workers at a lower wage rate while charging the taxpayers a lot more so that the national debt ballooned. AGAIN: anybody can buy a Lamborghini and put it on the credit card...FOR A WHILE!
szatmar666 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 So when Clinton came in, all he had to do was raise that personal income tax rate on the highest bracket to 39.6% to make it again higher than corporate taxes so that it does not penalize corporate investments. This is where Peter Orszag comes in. Since 2002 we have the Bush tax cuts which again undermined this incentive struct set up by Clinton but instead of restoring it they are opting for extending the cuts and dropping the corporate rate bellow 30%. It will work,
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666 but it will only work at the cost of taking food away from the needy and destroying capitalism as we it existed when the middle class was the strongest in America. This is why people should go after Obama, not because of right wing pseudo economics. The Obama fiscal policy and monetary policy is EXACTLY the same as the Bush policy and the reason is because both the dems and the repubs only care about their wealthy buddies in the corporate boardrooms and not about their constituents
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
A couple of points. First of all, raw GDP numbers prove nothing. What matters is per capita GDP. If your GDP doubles in 20 years but your population triples, each individual is poorer than before. I repeat. You are an idiot.
Second of all, RR took over an economy in complete doldrums with double digit inflation. You may be too young to remember, but that is where the term stagflation came from...high unemployment and high inflation. According to Keynesian theory, that can't happen
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 I didn't use "raw GDP numbers" I simply pointed out the in 1981 the National Debt was 32% of GDP. Under RR/Bush it went to 66% of GDP, under Clinton went down again to 56% of GDP and under W went up to 83% of GDP. Instead of simply calling people "idiots" why don't you just acknowledge that you have no clue or start showing some real numbers. Mine come from the budget "Historical Tables" pdf document and BLS. Your probably from GOP propaganda.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
You know, what's the point? Just wallow in your ignorance and watch as the economy heads straight into a debt bomb crash.
You don't understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues.
You can't bring yourself to acknowledge that when marginal tax rates on the wealthy have been reduced the last three times, the economy both expanded and tax revenues rose.
You use statistics like a selfish third grader to win debaters points.
You are just filled with hate.
I'm done.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 No, you are projecting. Everything you accuse me of, you are obviously guilty of yourself. the fact is that you right wingers don't really give a damn about capitalism and economy or the national debt. What you really want is to destroy the public sector because you hate a certain class of people. the communists didn't want to destroy the private sector because it was good economic policy. They did it to hurt the people they waged class warfare against. U R REVERSE BOLSHEVIKS!
szatmar666 9 months ago 2
@szatmar666 You are absolutely right, this IS class warfare. Ir Paul Ryan cared about outcomes and results he would show an example of where did taxcuts for the rich EVER create a job?! It goes against ECON101: you drop the taxrates on top personal incomes and thus you create an incentive to take money out of the economy for personal use. that's what's happening for the last 30 years and it's responsible for deiindustrializing America. Taxcuts have driven capital out of the US economy.
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude Yes, exactly! the right wingers are right about 1 thing: the 70% top marginal tax rate before RR was a PUNITIVE taxrate but it was designed to punish people who decided to take out more than $3.2 million from their company for personal use, either luxury spending or wall street speculation. Since Reagan there is more and more incentive for people to take money out of US businesses and put in A) wall street investment accounts, B) offshore and C) personal luxury spending.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
HaHaHa How old are you? 15? 16? Come onto the WSJ site and make some of those asinine comments. I want some of my friends to get a load of you. I knew it was a mistake to come on one of these really public sites where idiocy reigns.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 I am a regular on Ron Paul's forum and I can devastate them in 30 seconds with links to the BLS and the US budget. The problem with you right wingers is that rational arguments are not what motivates/interests or convinces you: just like the commies, you are out there to hurt certain people and spread the sociopathology of the trustfund babies and the entitled classes. You could easily explain how reducing the top marginal taxrates creates jobs, but instead you chose to BS.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 I know, propaganda only works in a closed circle where no one is allowed to disagree with the set of approved dogmas and postulates. As soon as radicals are challenged on their premises they are at a loss and seek the protection of their herd: that's because your ideas cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Major Nobel Prize winning economists question supply side, from Joe Stiglitz, George Akerlof to Paul Krugman all the real intellectual firepower is to the left of the democrats.
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
Hmm... Krugman, Stiglitz and Akerlof. I read Krugman pretty much everyday - he is good for a laugh. Stiglitz writes for the WSJ often and I am still waiting for him to get something right. I read Akerlof and Shiller's Animal Spirits.. in a book club. Unimpressed. Akerlof is Vice Chair Yellen's husband interestingly enough. Throw in Summers and Romer and you have a whole lot of intellectual failure. They all predicted wonders from the stimulus and were all WRONG! Except Krugman.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@madashelldude
Krugman wanted to double or triple down on the spending. THEY WERE ALL WRONG!!!!!!
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 So much of your energy is wasted on intellectually dishonest ad hominem attacks and intellectually flimsy arguments, no wonder you guys can't get accepted in most well informed societies. You are quiet right: they all asked for more stimulus and they also asked for the end of the Bush taxcuts. That's because you can't have an effective Keynesian stimulus spending under radical supply side fiscal and monetary policies. The tax rates are the same as under Bush and interest rates 2.
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude Obama put a pile of stimulus dollars in front of corporations and told them to create jobs while leaving the Bush taxcuts in place practically forcing them to spend the money instead on CEO compensation since putting it back in the business would incur a tax penalty at the corporate tax rate compared to all the benefits with carried interest and capital gains etc that the current individual investment tax rates afford the investor class just to keep their money off Main Str
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
What a bunch of nonsense. R U trying to be an idiot. Tell me genius, how much of the stimulus went to the states and local governments? How much of it went to lower income Americans as welfare payments? I would call them tax credits but you have to pay taxes before you get a credit, technically.
Now, do you want to restate your previous nonsense about putting stimulus money in front of corporations????
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 All that money that went to foodstamps and state and local governments and middle class taxcuts was spent in the real economy which means revenue for local businesses. there was also a bailout which was given to businesses directly. my argument was that all of these billions poured into the economy found their way into the investment accounts of the wealthy because of the way fiscal policy and monetary policy is set up.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 foodstamps were $20 billion, bailouts for the banks: $700 billion, bailout for the auto industry another $700bn and loan guarantees worth trillions. So the people you so passionately hate got chump change but 100% of that was spent on groceries and paid for the salaries of farmers, grocers and delivery drivers. So at the end of the day they all ended up on some corporate balance sheet. Question is when it did what did CEOs do with it: reinvest in job growth or executive bonuses?!
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
You didn't answer the question...and the part you tried to, you got wrong. TARP was a 700B authority of which only 388B was ever paid out.
There was no 700B for banks and another 700B for autos. The total cost to taxpayers is now estimated at only 30B. Once again, how stupid are you?
I would quit if I were you. You just keep making more and more of a fool of yourself.
You never did tell us how much was spent on state and local gov.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 Your point about the TARP and the stimulus for states is just nit-picking. what are you trying to prove?! Here is a pie chart:
economix.blogs.nytimes . com/2009/01/15/stimulus-pie-chart
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
The "pie chart" is an estimate from the NYT on 1/15, before the law was passed. So what? I can read, you know.
Accepting it as a close approximation, though, just where is all that money given to corporations you ranted about? Hmmm.. More lies and errors from you. Do you have the foggiest idea what you are talking about?
Looks to me like you have a hateful point of view that you troll through stats to find some to suit your pre-conceived notions. Does that help you sleep?
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 "just where is all that money given to corporations you ranted about?" Corporate america had its most profitable year in 2010, especially the ones who got bailed out. Don't pretend you were not explained how the money works in the economy. You give a man a foodstamp 100% of that will show up on corporate balance sheets immediately for trucking companies, grocery chains agro busiss etc.
This is what I was talking about:
money.cnn . com/2010/11/24/news/economy/thebuzz/index.htm
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude it's a waste, he's not really interested in an argument, haven't you figured it out yet?! just another right wing troll pushing his fascist agenda.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666 hey look! another left wing troll trying to push his fascist agenda! lol@u kid.
187Unseen 6 months ago
@187Unseen left wingers "push" left wing agenda, fascists are right wingers! Your hatred is stupid and pathetic.
madashelldude 6 months ago
@madashelldude i dont see republicans mandating the gov control everything. i see that from the dems. i suggest you look up the definition of "fascist" kid. im sorry your shitty father couldnt get you more so you feel you deserve the right to take from others. did he touch you too? you seem quite angry.
187Unseen 6 months ago
@187Unseen LOL! Projecting much?! Both communists and nazis (left and right wing extremist) mandated that "gov control everything". U should read the definition of these terms from Merriam Websters or the Oxford English dictionary because you are clearly ignorant of basic English . Turn off the boob tube: it is clearly hurting your IQ.
madashelldude 3 weeks ago
@187Unseen
Oxford English Dictionary:
fascism
noun * an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. * (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action * The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43);
madashelldude 3 weeks ago
@madashelldude
I not only am trying, I believe I have proven that you are FOS.
The economy has 15-18 real statistics that mean something. Not individually, but taken as a whole. There are probably 15 or so really important policies that have a major impact on those 15-18 real statistics. Each policy has a different time frame to impact the economy. Tax rate changes and budget expenditures just don't change everything overnight.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 oops links don't work, try to google for the CNN article but the financial press is full of this: Thanks for nothing, Corporate America
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude yeah, it says corporate profits were up 28% and they had $1.67 trillion dollars and still not hiring and the reason of course is the Bush taxcuts that make it stupid to hire and pay higher corporate taxes when you can simply give a fat bonus to the execs and get the Bush tax benefits. This moron will pretend he never heard this argument before.
szatmar666 9 months ago
@madashelldude
You like to troll through these statistics and pick out a few and wow these readers with "proof" that Keynesian policies work. The objective and smart readers see right through you. I workout with people who sit on the FOMC. The Keynesians in that group at least have rational arguments and don't cite the nonsense you do. You are just an amusement.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 you are a sore loser: you even acknowledge that you cannot argue with the stats like comparing unemployment & job creation in 1982 with 2010. So you got your ass handed to you that much is obvious and now you are pretending that never happened! Your language is that of a hooligan/ troll, not someone who's interested in a conversation. Let us know when you actually develop an argument for Ryan's taxcuts for the rich, we are still waiting fir that one! LOL!!
szatmar666 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 So let me get this straight: people who present actual facts and numbers or point out what Keynesian fiscal policy supposed to be based on actual econ 101, are just listing "excuses" while you trying to explain away why Reagan lost 2.5 million jobs at the same point in his presidency when Obama gained 1 million, that supposed to be an "argument".. You right wingers are truly pathetic losers!
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666 He is calling people "Keynesian" because of where they work and not their actual views and policies. The natural use of an orwellian language is especially telling.
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
Hmmm... Once again. Three times since 1960, the top marginal tax rate has been cut. Three times the economy grew at faster than average rates and three times total tax revenues increased. Pray tell me, when did those occur?
Lots of excuses from Keynesians these days. I hear it all the time at work. If we had spent more, we would just be one day closer to the Greek like debt crash looming on the horizon. You guys haven't the foggiest idea what makes an economy grow and it shows.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 When Kennedy cut taxes from 92% to 70% the excuse was that he also closed tax loopholes and thus achieved more revenues. I think it was a mistake because the loopholes were put back in by lobbyists and an important incentive to invest in America was weakened. Instead I would have left the taxrates at 90% and made sure I send the IRS on wealthy tax dodgers: sabotaging the national economy by tax dodging should be a bigger crime than robbing a bank.
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
Nice evasion. Anyone with average or better intelligence can see that. Like I said, you Keynesians are full of excuses. Tax revenues increased and the economy grew each and every time.
Well, you are having your way now. Gov't spending is at an all peacetime high and what was GDP last quarter? 1.8% I can't wait to hear more excuses about that. Obama and the Keynesians have given you two monsterous spending years and where are we? The slowest recovery in history.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 Look, we don't need "excuses". The economic numbers are well known since WW2: a 13X GDP growth before 1981 and a 75% increase in wages. Keynesian policies work when implemented right. Problem is in the US we have radical supply side fiscal and monetary policies compete against less radical supply side policies. None of the Keynesian heavyweights are on Obama's team. When Obama makes Stiglitz or Krugman his chief adviser and follows actual Keynesian policies we can talk.
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
Summers and Romer not Keynesian heavyweights? Seriously? He was the Chief Economist of the World Bank and Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton. Not a heavyweight? He needs a girdle...
Romer sat on the NBER - you know, that committee that decides when recessions begin and end. I will not make any comments about weight in deference to her, though.
EXCUSES....EXCUSES....ERRORS....ERRORS....EXCUSES.....EXCUSES
Whose arguments don't want to see the light of day?
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 If you are arguing that Obama's stimulus didn't work as it should have I am with you as I said. If you arguing it completely failed I would ask compared to whom, Reagan?! Reagan at this point had a 10.3% unemployment rate, Obama is at 8.8%. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5%, Obama 7.8%. The first Reagan budget went into action in Oct 1981 or fiscal year 1982 at 7.9% unemployment rate, Obama's t 10%. RR lost 2.5 million jobs in 82, Obama gained 1 million in 2010!!
madashelldude 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 the other thing about hurling empty insults and nonsense is that you seem to be completely ignorant of the words you are using. The word "Keynesian" is associated with specific fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies that very few politicians follow today. The last time we had some weak Keynesian policies was Clinton's 1st term under Stiglitz. FDR and Truman put a punitive 92% taxrate on behavior that caused the great depression in order to stop it for good=40 yrs of prosperity
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
Ohhh, so that's the excuse. Hmmm.. Not pure enough. Nonsense. The economy is not like some machine requiring a perfect balance to run properly. All policy decisions have an impact. Reagan didn't get all he wanted and his supply side policies were not implemented in full either. Just more excuses.
Obama has the crack Keynesian brain trust and had both houses of Congress, something Reagan never had. He failed. His Keynesian policies not only failed, they continue to fail. TRUTH.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 the other interesting fact is that RR had the same exact tax rate on individuals as Obama has today. Just an interesting little fact... the only difference is the spending. Without the spending, with these tax rates and interest rates we would have had another great depression since these also happen to be the lowest tax rates since the Great Depression with all the major new Deal regulatory framework removed. This is what Paul Ryan wants: another GD: excellent buying opportunity
madashelldude 9 months ago
@madashelldude
BTW, who made it out of the panic pretty much unscathed? I've got your back on that one. It is Germany. Hmmm... Who spent the least on stimulus? I'll set you up with that one as well. That's right. Germany. He thinks our failing policy is insane? One last time,,,,Germany. Watch England now. They have wised up. Compare their growth going forward with ours....but I don't expect to actually hear from you.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 Germany has very strict regulations regarding the financial sector. They don't tolerate tax dodgers and fancy financial instruments. they also put a lot of money in real industrial development in transportation and green energy: they manufacture 50% of all solar panels in the world and they have patents on crucial nano technology and material science for the 21st century. that's their type of innovation: ours and the British is "financial innovation" ie. stealing.
madashelldude 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How does this guy sleep at night?
This administration is so corrupt and despicable.
TheAtheistAntidote 9 months ago
how does this guy sleep at night?
This administration is so corrupt and despicable.
TheAtheistAntidote 9 months ago
how does this guy sleep at night.
This administration is so corrupt and despicable.
TheAtheistAntidote 9 months ago
P: Ron Paul and VP: Paul Ryan 2012
2846odlab 11 months ago
10 years of surges.....yeah
scottysmo88 1 year ago
Yeah, Ryan rips through BS like a laser...
aurum2007 1 year ago
I feel sorry for people that have to answer to Paul Ryan. He is so straight with the facts, and these guys just can't successfully spin anything on him.
rockon6191 1 year ago
Paul Ryan for President
pittistheshit86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The very first thing Boner, Ryan and the rest of the right wing clan will do if they get the majority will be to CUT TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY! Just like Bush did. How's that trickle down economics working for you? Suckers!
unclelight 1 year ago
Medicare Part D was created to give more to the drug companys and make make doctors take less and make Medicare go broke. Paul Ryan broke Medicare so he could say that it does not work.
genYprogressive 1 year ago
Looks like troll "mada" lives in a shell!
orziggy's voice makes me laugh every time I hear it.
How can Anyone take him seriously?
3martijns 1 year ago
orziggy's voice is that of a 7 year old!
obamie & his "Fuzzy Math" Puppet orziggy.
3martijns 1 year ago
@3martijns you cretins wouldn't know math is it bit u in the ass!
madashelldude 1 year ago
These LIARS claim ten years of savings in a single years' budget. The lie it 10X larger than the actual, and as was pointed out, 88% of that gigantic 10X lie is not a savings at all but standard reduction because the surge in Iraq is over. So, the actual TRUTH is, the Obama admin. is claiming 100 billion in savings over ten years, or 10 billion per year, while spending is 3,800+ billion a year. They save $10 and spend $3,790.00. Hi honey, I spent four grand and saved ten dollars.
Silicondoc 1 year ago
Paul Ryan schools these fools!
mdbarnes21 1 year ago
Look at projections on National Debt for the next 10 years...20 trillion!!!! these savings are crap, why are we spending 120-140billion on Iraq-afganistan when we can start worrying about our own debt and problems, I can tell you where we can cut some spending...this assholes job thats where. save 120-140 billion every year over 10 years and lets start getting rid of this debt.
briggs9187 1 year ago
FoxNews, FoxNews, FoxNews...... @madshelldude, is that all you have? You forgot Rush, Hannity, etc., that their opinions are the only ones conservatives listened to. @Floridanon407, I find it odd that liberals will not address the issues you put on the table, but all we conservatives get our thinking from FoxNews. Facts to liberals are like a cross to a vampire. I don't have time to name the liberal media outlets there are bowing to the Messiah.
ryefieldt 1 year ago 3
How about "obstructionist right wing nut nigger"?
unclelight 1 year ago
Ryan is the right wings nigger and everyone knows thier asses are owned by big business! Wake up niggers!
unclelight 1 year ago
and peter orzag is just a straight up bitch who basically spews more white house bullshit ..
Chslosers 1 year ago
is that the best comeback you can come up with against him? that he's a right wing nigger? hahaha... liberals can't argue out of their own ass...
iongi229 1 year ago 4
Paul Ryan needs to be the next President of the United States. This guy is an intelligent, logical thinker with insane knowledge and an actual written plan for fixing what's wrong with America.
camoody1 1 year ago
I'm watching this healthcare debate and I just had to do a search on Paul Ryan to see what people thought of him. This guy is at the top of his game. He's like a one man CBO and his critique of this bill cuts like a laser.
Stockpile1 1 year ago
So far, I like Paul!
nothingisgreener 1 year ago
Ryan is the right wings nigger!
unclelight 1 year ago
@unclelight obama is the left wing nigga, we need Ryan back in, usa is not a socialist country obama needs to move to venzuela
debz12180 1 year ago
@unclelight hahaha! he looks white to me. LOL! besides, is this all democrats can come with is name calling and not bring facts to the table like Congressman Paul Ryan? Obama talks about change but he doesn't include what the cost will be for such change. how about the cost of your freedom dickhead, let that marinate in that thick liberal progressive michael moore left wing nut job head of yours... stupid liberals i swear, who taught these stupid fucks!
iongi229 1 year ago
I am proud to live in the 1st district and fully support the message of common sense and tough choices Paul is promoting. He has 3 small children and wants to leave them with a better country, not a bankrupt one.
MrWorkingguy 1 year ago
@MrWorkingguy God bless men like him and scott brown and i bet he drives a truck lol. obama will shove this socialize health care down our throats this summit was all a show for him, i just dont know why we dont demand impeachment now for him.
debz12180 1 year ago
republicans bankrupted this country, why would americans trust them?! They are enemies of humanity. most of them get their news from FOX News funded by an australian propagandist and a saudi oil prince. last time they had a chance they put in office a bunch of rednecks and oil industry crooks and saw how their savings evaporated, their jobs went away yet they want more?! what a bunch of no nothing nincompoops!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude hows that 10%+ unemployment, 26week and rising turn around time for the unemployed, added TRILLIONS in deficits, continued wars, gitmo still open, DEMOCRAT house of representatives RENEWING THE PATRIOT ACT, coming inflation, administration jobs for lobbyists, no CSPAN hearings, closed door special interest dealing and lack of repealing DADT working out for you buddy?
you boy is a hack and your evaluation of the economy under bush is bunk.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
To me and anybody in the rest of the world Obama is too far to the right. If he fails free market capitalism fails. The USA never tried left wing ideas such as national hcare like other capitalist countries have, or free and accessible education, welfare etc. While americans are bickering over 18th century economic ideas and jailing their defunct lower classes in record numbers other countries r taking over leadership in all areas. It would be common sense to look at what they do differently.
madashelldude 1 year ago
if you want to see what the left wing solutions are then look at europe and canada... you'll see our future in how their countries are being ran... it's terrible... i don't like it... we're americans... not europeans... if dems want to be like them then go over there...
iongi229 1 year ago 4
@iongi229 I'm a Canadian and I like it here. We Canadians pay less taxes per person than Americans and we have the most sound banking system in the world. Our economy has also recovered early from the recession. If anything, you should be copying the fiscal management policies of our government.
MrEthekyaa 1 year ago
@MrEthekyaa I know you like it there and if anyone loves that way of government, they have the freedom to become canadian. the minority that believes in such as system thought they can get away with it and now all americans for the first itme in a a long time don't agree with sort of government. no government should be given power to tell me what to do. i am fighting for the freedom of the individual and individual responsibilities to oneself, not to be fed to rely on government like a drug!
iongi229 1 year ago
@madashelldude name a capitalist country in europe that is similar to ours mr. LEFT WING NUT JOB. name a couple matter of a fact. you can't cause' they are experimenting with your left wing ideas and guess what, it's failing in the EU you stupid idiot. so no, i don't want any part of those idiot left wing ideas like taking my hard earn money and giving to lazy fucks. i support giving my taxes to those that need it, not those that milk it. you probably rely on gov. like a drug addiction. LOL!
iongi229 1 year ago
unemployment is 9.7% and dropping. I am happy that dumbass republicans are putting all their eggs on the economy basket. That's a place I am willing to go this november because the economy is growing at 6% right now: that means jobs are about to start to come back too. It's right wingers who watch foreign owned propaganda at Fox News who want this country to fail so they can take power: disgusting!
bls . gov/news.release/empsit.nr0 . htm
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude Hrm one month later it's still at 9.7. I thought it was dropping?
DEPORTALLILLEGALS 1 year ago
@DEPORTALLILLEGALS It will drop. This is not a lightswitch you can just flip. As people enter the job market those who were not counted before start to look for jobs too. It's not Obama's fault that the US has no welfare to stablize the real economy and unemployment figures don't match ILO standards like in EU. Just a reminder btw: under Saint Ronald in Nov-Dec 1982 unemployment was 10.8% and he inherited a slightly lower 7.5%. Look it up at bls . gov!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude
lol... i was curious and looked it up, compared the unemployment rates of the years that Reagan was in office. Went to bls . gov and saw an interesting story... Reagan served two terms from 1981 to 1989 and that "huge" spike of unemployment was in the end of his second year in office... after that the unemployment rate steadily went downwards untill it reached 5.3 percent in 1989... so it kinda seems like your omitting context right? But, you already knew that didn't you...
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 UNEMPLOYMENT:
YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
19817.57.47.47.27.57.57.27.47.67.98.38.5
19828.68.99.09.39.49.69.89.810.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
198310.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.58.3
19848.07.87.87.77.47.27.57.57.37.47.27.3
and that's Reagan's 1st term, so PLEASE STOP LYING! I know lying is a conservative thing, but with google nowadays it's just way too easy to catch republican lies.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude LOL... dude, you just repeated the thing that i just said.... and you are still omitting context... by the end of Reagan's second term it was WAY lower than what you posted.
I obviously just stated "that huge spike of unemployment was in the end of his second year in office then it steadily went downwards till it hit 5.3% in 1989"... You still just omitting the context of his entire presidency... LOL, man you're really bad at this
FYI, not a rep. or a conservative...
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 What "CONTEXT" dumbass?! Are we in OBAMA's 2nd term yet?! NO! Oh yeah, if you want REAL context go to gpoaccess . gov and look up the Budget of the President and see table 7.1 in the pdf doc "Historical Tables". You'll find that in 1981 the national debt was $994 bn or 32% GDP. By the end of Reagan's 2nd term it tripled: $2.9 TRILLION or 53% GDP!!! By Jan 1993 $4.35 TRILLION or 66% of GDP, not to mention W: 2001: $5.5 TR 56%-> 2009: $11.9 TR 83%. Clinton: 66%GDP->56%GDP
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude dude... lol debt is a totally different discussion pal. I was just showing that you said that during Reagan's presidency the unemployment only went up. It didn't, lol and then you're own numbers (that i previously gave anyway) showed that you were full of crap on that claim. Thats all I was talking about bro, and that was the "context" that you omitted because like dems and reps alike, you enjoy manipulating fact and context to make things look the way you want :P
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 BTW, this is really funny: "the debt is a different discussion". I bet that's what you tell your wife when you buy a new car you can't afford ;) ROFL! Also, do you really feel that easily manipulated and weak minded that you know you are being manipulated but can't explain how exactly?! I mean what's the manipulation in what I am proving here?! That the last 3 republican presidents borrowed more money than they created through GDP growth?! That's undisputed FACT, "bro"!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude Get it through your head... I don't like the GOP, and I'm not arguing you about debt. That's what your arguing, your creating a straw man of my statements. Its really simple, you omitted figures, and then you got pissed, and then you went to what all dem shills do and assumed that I'm a GOPer. From there you went off on something that was COMPLETELY unrelated to what I was talking about. You're to a t what people do when they're almost completely unreachable
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Of course it's about the debt. Reagan/Bush created 20 million new jobs in 12 years. Clinton created 23 million in 8 years. the big difference between them is not just the sheer number but HOW they did it. Reagan/Bush created those jobs by borrowing money from future generations. Clinton created it by genuine economic growth. Of course you don't want to talk about that because that's all your ammo: obfuscating and bullshitting. that's all u cons are good at.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude Pleaaaase.... get this through your head, I'm not debating the debt with you. If you would like to I will happily obliged. Yet again, let me state this fact... You omitted context to make a point, I called you on it and now you're arguing debt... Thats all that there really is to this exchange.
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 RR lost 54k jobs in 1981 the FY of Carter's last budget. He lost 2.1 million jobs in 1982 which was his first budget complete with his taxcuts. Barack Obama lost 4.5 million jobs in 2009 which was Bush's last budget and gained 880k in 2010 thus far which is his first budget. Tehre is no other relevant context to this discussion. The debt is relevant in a different conversation you raised which is the year legacy of RR: he created 18 million jobs based on borrowed money.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 I meant to say "8 year legacy of Ronald Reagan". Obviousy that's a different discussion since Obama has been in office for less than 2 years, so it's irrelevant to compare how many jobs Reagan created in 8 years with how many Obama created in less than 2. The fact that you can't comprehend this makes me wonder if you are really fit for any intelligent discussion.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude theres been a net loss in jobs, the only jobs he's "saved or created" have been gov't jobs or in private sector industries that are favored by the administration, they never talk about jobs "lost or prevented" and come next January when he raises taxes or lets tax decreases expire which is raising taxes it will create an even harsher environment for job growth, but the gov jobs will continue to increase because thats the only jobs liberals are good at creating.
TheUnitedStatists 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 the reason you want the debt to be "completely unrelated" to job creation and economic growth is because the same policies Clinton pursued so successfully: raising the top marginal tax rate and closing tax loopholes on corporations were the policies that created jobs and balanced the budget too and they are the same policies republicans are whining about today and attacking Obama for. When in fact we have a clear 30 yr record of whos ideas work and who's don't.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Oh, yeah, did I mention that at the end of Clinton's 2nd term unemployment was 3.9%?!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude Lol, and did I say there was a problem on that buddy? Nope, can't seem me complaining on that one :)
Merely just wanted to call you out for the liar that you were when discussing strictly the variables of Reagan's time in office and unemployment rates. Thats all buddy, wasn't talking about debt, wasn't talking about obama or anything else mate :)
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@madashelldude You have successfully made my entire night... LOL seriously man, that was awesome... totally a pick me up.
from your post.
January 1981 = 7.5 then grows till December 1982 = 10.8 (the end of his second year as I previously stated)
Then from January 1983 till December of 1984 it drops to 7.3% (lower than when he was elected)
Question: Did you just copy and paste the table from somewhere, assume I was lying because I proved you wrong, and then add more evidence for me?
Yep...
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Reagan and Bush Sr created 20 million new jobs in 12 years while quadrupling the National Debt, or increasing it from 32% of GDP to 66% of GDP. Clinton created 22 million new jobs while the National Debt was decreasing from 66% of GDP to 56% of GDP. In other words there is no year since Saint Ronald took office that a republican pres didn't present a budget that increased the debt faster than the GDP while the only pres who avoided that was a DEMOCRAT! DEAL WITH IT!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude LOL... buddy, I have a lot of problems with Reagan's policies... and I have never seen him as a saint. But, unlike you I'm not in the pocket of either party and as a result I'm not spoon fed what I believe and can be objective... Ever heard of it pal?
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@madashelldude you might want to check on who was in charge of that. It was a "Republican Congress and Newt Gingrich" who came up with the "Contract With America" that created the budget surplus. Clinton was doing nothing to untill Republicans took over. More Democrats changing history to suite themselves.
CoryEttinger 1 year ago
@CoryEttinger Thanks for illustrating republican "logic":
A) Bush had the SAME EXACT congress between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007. NOT 1 of these 6 years did he increase the GDP faster than the debt. In fact the debt went from 56% of GDP in Jan 2001 to 65% of GDP in Jan 2007. Data from gpoaccess . gov / usbudget Historical Tables Section 7.
B) It's interesting to me that Clinton's budget in your mind is the merit of the republican Congress, but Obama's budget is Obama's fault?! Hm, wiki the OMB!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Sure, anybody can create jobs if they spend like drunken sailors. Question is are those jobs a result of real economic growth, or just more debt piled on the nation's credit card. I challenge any republican shill commenting here to come up with 1republican budget that didn't increase the national debt faster than it increased the GDP. Just 1 year since 1981! I checked THERE IS NONE!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude So yeah, jobs went up
this equals context
you claimed they didn't
you omitted context
and then went on and on in a violent tirade about something I wasn't even talking about when I called you on it
And all the while you've been going ON AND ON AND ON about the glories of the dems
Lol, dude... you need to understand that this is EXACTLY what either party would have you do.
You sir, are a democrat shill... And you sir, can't think for yourself.
Btw... I'm an independant :)
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 "went up, went down". Are you even capable of making a coherent point?! Again: when did a republican like Paul Ryan EVER propose a policy or a budget that ACTUALLY worked as advertised in reducing the debt and growing the economy?! WHAT YEAR AND WHAT EXACT NUMBERS are we talking about?! Enough of this bullshit! show some facts or STFU!
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude Lol...It was a completely coherent point... in "Saint Ronald's" presidency unemployment went down... You made it out to be other wise... I called you on it, you showed me right, and then you got pissed...
Lol, why are you still going on about this?
BTW the burden of proof isn't on me shill... Its on you and yours to try and make this work now :)
BTW, I'm not a rep or dem so I don't support anyone, yes even Ryan, by default... Why must I support him?
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Don't try to lie again. I listed unemployment numbers throughout RR's 1st term pointing out that they were not better than under Obama. In fact they were the EXACT same numbers in the summer of 1982. No one has ever made a point about Reagan's 2nd term. There is no reason why, this is not even the middle of Obama's 1st term. You must be either retarded, or you clearly don't understand english.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude Oh yeah... I know why, that's because I judge a persons merit by virtue of their actions and the effects of their policies. Let me ask you this question you duped sorry pseudo-democrat. What budget has been proposed by a democrat in congress right now that does exactly what you ask for? Answer: there isn't one...
Call Ryan and all republicans, as well as Obama and all democrats on the basis of fact. You don't do that shill, wake up!
HatemongerNTBSF1129 1 year ago
@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Obama's deficit spending just like Clinton's 1993-1994 deficit spending will create real economic growth because it's targeting productive sectors of the economy such as the auto industry and education. This is not rocket science. If you look at budgets all the way back to 1946 the basic priorities were the same in every president's budget, republican or democrat. It's only Reagan and the Bush family who's selling this tax cutting snake oil and it bankrupted the USA.
madashelldude 1 year ago
@madashelldude obama is spending like a drunken sailor and there are NO JOBS in the private sector where they need to be, Government is growing though.
CoryEttinger 1 year ago
you're retarded... i can say the same thing with all the news that are not foxnews... all of those liberal news are terrible... they paint a picture of obama as if he's a rockstar during his campaign... and look at obama... he's terrible in his first year and making it worst...
iongi229 1 year ago 3
@madashelldude Hahaha! Australian propagandist? Australia is close to being socialist than we are! They have the VAT tax that NO REPUBLICAN WANT which MOST DEMOCRATS WANT. So much for you australian propagandist theory. where did you get your info, CNN? MSNBC? NBC? ABC? NY TIMES? utterly ridiculous. democrats want to spend more money than the entire war effort so i ask, who is putting the country to shit... OBAMA AND HIS STUPID ASS DEMOCRATS! He's a lobbyist with the ACLU so shut up!
iongi229 1 year ago
szatmar666, your ignorance is clear, even if I disregard your inability to spell. I suspect you live off of entitlement programs and add no value to the economy. Maybe that is why you have so much time to spread your ignorance here. Be part of the solution or go suck on your tailpipe and do us a favor.
MrWorkingguy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
these fucking republicons are just a bunch of grand standing lying morns
zfacts . com/p/318 . html
szatmar666 1 year ago
@szatmar666 you left dems love the govt, handouts and govt, goodies, time for us to get a real conservative in and restore our country to true conservative principles, mass, lost to scott brown, in nov, gop will take over, in 2012 obama will be back in his ghetto hahahahaha
debz12180 1 year ago
@debz12180 LOL! "True conservative principles"?! You are all too stupid to have principles. Modern US prosperity was founded on the New Deal and Bretton Woods: in the 30 years between 1946-1981 GDP increased 13X from $221 billion to $3.1 TRILLION while the debt increased 3X. Since Reagan's presidency and supply side nonsense: the debt increased 14X from $994bn in 1981 to $14 trillion while the GDP increased 5X. The bottom 90% increased their income 1946-1981 by 75%, since 1981 by 1(ONE!)%
szatmar666 9 months ago
@szatmar666
What a load of crap that is. How about this. Compare 2008 through 2010.
lchrisberg1 9 months ago
@lchrisberg1 It's called the FACTS, dummy. These numbers are published with the budget of the USA under "Historical Tables". How about you do the compare?! I have a feeling you don't know and what's worse, don't really care what happened between 2008-2010, you just want that black man out of your white house.
szatmar666 9 months ago
The man is a completeon there budgets liar. He is talking about fund accounting, which is money that doesn't exist, but will be taxed and printed in the future. I've torn apart state officials when comparing actually budgets with the projected budgets. Goofy budgeting, that allows Peter to lie. With his approach they end up saying, sorry it was a projection and your cuaght pay up taxpayer He is complete ass. Peter people have cuaght on, and we want to kick you to the curb, your ideological jerk
1KuanTi 2 years ago
Orsazg is so intellectually dishonest it is embarrassing.
fazoolius 2 years ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
We don't have shit lol
fufuberry5 2 years ago
You must See this YOUTUBE segment.
By a black preacher, Rev. Manning. It will change everything you think. Type in: Her Name is Ms. Ann
also, Howard Stern interviews him on YOUTUBE
peteykkk 2 years ago
I like the way orszag tries to lie his way out of the questions by playing with statistics.
ORSZAG, That technique didn't work in 5th grade math, what makes you think it would work here?
Unklebillybob 2 years ago 2
Orszag is either a moron or a completely dishonest goon.
chukmaty 2 years ago 2
Paul Ryan is GREAT
terryooooooo 2 years ago 21
i live in his district in WI
hes awsome
usgeosurvey 2 years ago 3
usgeosurvey: I'm so jealous of yall! :-)
Mshowdyfromlonestar 2 years ago
YES HE IS!! Ryan is a voice of reason in congress!
JohnGaltSpeaking1981 2 years ago 5
This orszag guy is a smirky little kid who is not qualified to be there!
30percentplusreturns 2 years ago
It's nice to know that Wall St. is not the only place the knows how to pull accounting shenanigans. Did this guy go to the Arthur Anderson School of accounting.
qnahum 2 years ago
If the Iraq surge is on the books, why not put Social Security and Medicare back on? We need more reps like Paul Ryan to set the record straight
DMitchVA 2 years ago
Peter Orzag is very very dishonest on this issue...
jjmcoates 2 years ago 4
Traditional? I don't think that means change. Spin, spin, spin.
hellobyebye18 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes asshole, it was your candidate "Mccain " that said that they would stay in Irak for 100 yrs, were was this dickhead then, when these" honorable" men were running the country, yeah these honorable men who torturesm who suspended habeua corpus, who gave the president the power to decide who and what is terrorism.
rortiz266 2 years ago
We have a bunch of wimps running the country. Whenever I hear Orszag and Geithner speak I just cringe. As much as I disagreed with the Bush Administration, at least there were a bunch of real and honorable men and women running the show. This Obama thing is a fucking circus full of ideological assclowns! We're doomed.
DrPhucker 2 years ago
"As much as I disagreed with the Bush Administration, at least there were a bunch of real and honorable men and women running the show."
OK, your just called the most corrupt administration in US history honorable. I mean, WTF.
FranzHess 2 years ago
"This is, even by Washington standards, unusually dishonest. And coming from the administration of Barack Obama, who promised us honest accounting and made a big show of how much integrity and candor he would bring to his governing, this is astonishing."
HelmerandRawlins 2 years ago 2
"The farce on display here is enough to shred that promise. Nearly all of Obamas budget cuts consist of ending the Iraq war on more or less the timetable it would already have ended, and in raising taxes. Add to that a $634 billion downpayment on national health care, and vastly exaggerated economic growth estimates, and we see that Obama has delivered a budget that is $9 trillion in the red over 10 years, and still masks the true cost with smoke and mirrors."
HelmerandRawlins 2 years ago
What a joke this guys is. Just another one of Oblama's foot men lying to the public. if you get a chance, watch McCain's speech to the senate from 3/3/09. It is worth the watch.
BooBTuberToo 2 years ago 2
It is the hypocracy in the way these guys don't answer straight questions with straight answers while feigning transparency that wreeks of
stratvic 2 years ago 2
just keeps getting better and better...
oasis53147 2 years ago 4
Is this the kind of transparency they advocate?
zshrier 2 years ago 3
Yes they lie their ass off and spend my kids life away!!
killergames187 2 years ago 2
Your kids are now slaves of the state because of this spending. Even if they move off shore their citizenship ensures they will be taxed by this government (Dem or Rep).
stratvic 2 years ago 2
I do a lot of financial projections for corporations as part of my day job, and if someone on my team had come back with an assumption as blatantly stupid as the surge continuing for 10 years in their model, they'd [ahem] have to fix it before the numbers went public. This "budgeting" is a farce.
bigdogslo 2 years ago 4