I love your analytical ability, TC. "I believe x, therefore it is true."

I'd lay out what a mindless retard you are, but you are either seriously that delusional - and hence will ignore anything that doesn't mesh with your preconceived notions - or are (as I suspect) nothing but another imbecilic troll and are well aware how feeble your statements are.

In any case, no matter what happens politically, I will continue to have a far better life than you, both from an income and a happiness perspective.

And given what a tard you are, that's likely to remain true for the rest of your sad little life.

But, hey, I'm sure riling people up by posting stupidity is its own reward, and when you're forced to live in mommy's basement because your job as a fry cook doesn't pay enough, you have to take what pleasure you can get out of life.

Feel free to attempt to rebut these facts, but you might as well quit while you're behind.

Well surely she gets a sympathy vote?

"Retard?"
How old is someone who thinks "retard" is an insult.
Stratagos, another stupid teenager.
This site is overrun with children.
Poof. Gone is a heartbeat.

President Obama's argument that he will reduce the deficit by raising $1.5 Trillion in taxes is reminiscent of Walter Mondale's rhetoric when he ran for President.
Raising taxes destroys economic growth which leads to more people qualifying for the Big Government fiscally unsustainable cradle-to-grave programs that actually increase the debt and do nothing to do reduce it.

The only way to reduce the national debt is through economic growth that gets individuals off of the cradle to grave programs.

Raising taxes doesn't create economic growth.
Raising taxes doesn't reduce the deficit or debt.
Raising taxes doesn't get you elected President of the United States.
Whoever is telling Obama that demanding higher taxes is the way to win the 2012 election needs to be put in charge of the Democratic Party permanently.

Then we would never have another Democratic President who would raise taxes.

Carter had a slight lead on Ronald Reagan in the polls until Oct 28, 1980 when Reagan asked the famous question that haunts every presidential incumbent to this day.

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."

When Rick Perry puts that question to the American people in October 2012 the election results of 1980 will repeat themselves.

2010 was just a bitter taste for the fools who believe that Barack Obama's policies will produce growth, reduce unemployment, reduce the annual deficit, or deal meaningfully with the national debt.

Thank God the American people are so much better informed than the ignorant teenagers, brain dead marxists, and lazy pathetic socialists that frequent this board.

Oh, cut to the quick I am. "Oh yeah? Well, you suck! And I'll pretend to plonk you, so my utter lack of ability to respond won't be any more obvious than it already is!"

Truly, I have met an opponent worthy of conflict....

...with my three year old

largeham, Erika Nader's Grass might be an issue but BoltBeam has the Beam for it prepared. You take Ludicolo, Lantern or some really bulky water and Ice Beam/Ice Punch/Falcon Punch those ecofascists to oblivion.

wow stratagos,way to completely ignore that post...

Ninjaruler, why should I bother reading it? He's going to ignore the errors I point out, so what would be the point in bothering to respond, or for that matter even read it?


Debate requires both parties to be willing to acknowledge good points the other person raises. Responding to a monologue by someone who is simply going to ignore people who point out errors is a complete waste of time.

Obama should follow Mao's techniques for job growth. When Milton Friedman visited China he saw them undertaking massive infrastructure projects with hand tools instead of machines. Milton asked them why there were using shovels instead of bulldozers and the Chinese said using shovels created more jobs. Milton said they should use spoons instead of shovels if that was their reasoning.

After listening to Obama make an utter fool along the same line of reasoning talking about how ATM's eliminated bank teller positions you wonder how someone so elementary in their understanding could become president.

Then there is this quote from Suskind's forthcoming book.
Christina Romer and Larry Somers both, in fact, were concerned by something the President had said in a morning briefing: that he thought the high unemployment was due to productivity gains in the economy. Summers and Romer were startled.

“What was driving unemployment was clearly deficient aggregate demand,” Romer said. “We wondered where this could be coming from. We both tried to convince him otherwise. He wouldn’t budge.”

When the President thinks that improving productivity by replacing an abacas with a computer isn't a good idea there is no doubt that the wrong individual is President.

I am taking a macroeconomics class and the last few classes have been spent on the crises. In a few sentence, my prof (who has a phd) said that it is common sense to raise spending/lower taxes during bad economic times and lower spending/raise taxes during good times. The situation we are in now sucks, but could be a heck of a lot worse. Now i know you are going to accuse me of not thinking for myself and bla bla bla, but for goodness sakes he has a PHD. That is at least respectable.

Two unpaid wars, 1.7 trillion in debt due to tax cuts, another trillion for the perscription drug boondoggle that wasn't paid for, no growth due to tax cuts, an unregulated Wall Street that led to financial crisis, massive economic contraction at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, losing 800,000 jobs per month.

That's the Republican economic legacy. Obama has been cleaning up your shitshow, and saved us from depression. You have no credibility whatsoever. Even Raygun advisors said trickle down was an utter failure.

Chew gotta go.

"That is at least respectable."
Unless he's created a job or runs a business it isnt to him. My guess is he'll tell you he's wrong because he doesn't have to be right to not get fired. Apparently, those that run businesses must be correct 100% of the time, otherwise they get fired. (contradiction?)

Woo, ignorant teenagers! Thank Christ TC's here to deal with the problem, otherwise I'd have to spend all my time lecturing people about how I'm more productive than they are... on the... internet... board... of a leisure website... huh. Anyone seeing a problem here?

Dunecat, just click mute and I vanish from your world.

It worked perfectly on your Dunecat. Bye, have a great life.

Republicans have been running on a promise to “repeal Obamacare,” so if the high court were to strike down the law, at least in part, it could feed the claim that the president overreached in pushing for the law.

Funny line in an article in the New Yorker.

"....the Republicans are lunatics dedicated above all to destroying the Obama Presidency."

You can leave out the lunatics phrase and simply substitute Democrats for Republicans and Bush for Obama to reveal the hypocrisy of the author.

I guess Hendrick Hertzberger doesn't realize how easy it is to recognize transparent hypocrisy.

Democrats didn't dedicate themselves to destroying the Bush Presidency. The DNC convention put out an order in 2004 not to say anything bad about Bush. Democrats went along with a lot of Republican policies, to their detriment. Many voted for the Iraq war. Stop lying. The lunacy of the GOP is on full display. Witness the recent speech by the NRA President, Captain of the Murder Industry Wayne LaPierre about a "conspiracy" to take away their guns.

LOL. Fox News just buried Rick Perry.

http://www.examiner.com/grassroots-politics-in-chicago/rick-perry-threw-up-all-over-himself

Time for the "draft Chris Christie" show again.

Democrats suffered historic, grievous losses in the 2010 midterm elections, with a New Deal size loss in the House of 63 seats, and a loss of 6 seats in the Senate. In Jimmy Carter's 1978 midterms, Democrats lost only 15 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate.

With Obamanomics unemployment is stuck over 9%, with unemployment among African-Americans, Hispanics, and teenagers at depression level double-digit rates for at least 2 years now. Real wages and incomes are falling, back to levels last seen over 30 years ago. Poverty is soaring to new records as well, with more Americans suffering in poverty than any time since the Census Bureau started keeping records over 50 years ago.

In the Democrat majority-controlled Senate, 23 Democrat seats are subject to elections in 2012, with 6 of those open seats involving a retiring incumbent. Only 10 Republican seats are subject to election, with only two retirements from safe seats in Texas and Arizona.

The Republicans stand poised to take back the Senate and retain control of the House while possessing a better than even money chance to defeat Obama.

It's not that bleak, many of the democrat seats up for re-election are safe democratic seats, including the 2 independents (CT will change back to democrat for example). According to polling and distribution the most likely outcome is 51-49 for republicans, or 50-50, so it will be close... however with about 10 close races one side or another could swing that between now and then.

Republicans need to put up a serious candidate like Christie, as long as Perry is in the race they might shoot themselves in the foot. And Romney, though capable, has a similar charisma to John Kerry and Al Gore - e.g a likely loser.

As someone who finds both parties an absolute joke, and watching them argue is like watching a person argue with themselves in the mirror, I want to point something out.

Government does not PRODUCE a single product. It is a consumption center. All jobs created by the government, come because of the Private sector, not in spite of it. Do you grasp that Putin33?

Now, onto taxing the rich/poor etc. Unpaid wars, that BOTh paries paid for. Just checking. both are to blame. Debt is accumulated from spending, not from lack of collection. let me see if I get this right. In your lunatic world, If Obama has a 9 trillion dollar budget, and falls short of it by 4.5 trillion, it is a LACK of tax revenue problem, not a spending problem, correct?

Democrats controlled both houses for 2 years, the purse strings for 4, and did...nothing. Nothing. They sat on their hands, unless they were pointing their fingers at the other side saying "their fault, not mine". In their defense, the Repugs do it also, but I am looking at your single post right now Putin, and really laughing

In what crazy world does tax cuts equate to lack of economic growth? What economic formula are you using for THAT?

And tell me what Obama has done, or has tried to do that is actually aimed at helping create jobs? As he filets small business (the single biggest job creator in the country) every chance he gets, labeling them as 'rich'

He said if his Stimulus bill got passed, with control of BOTH houses, that he would keep unemployment under 8%. lol. That man wont ever see 8%. he may not ever see under 9% during his legacy here, and chances are high that it will end up over 10 under his watch.

Bush was a serious turd, no doubt. However, at some point, Obama has to take credit for his own pile of manure he has left, which is increasingly looking like a BIG one.

The housing crisis however, which still lingers, can be laid (stil) and the feet of the deomcrats. They are STILL funding that disaster, and Obongo is STILL trying to back up them bad loans.

There shoudl be tax increases, but they should be raised only against BIT spending cuts. That is the only way to get rid of the debt in reality.

I have a question that's been bugging me for some time, and it's about the whole "the government is a consumtion centre that doesn't produce anything" idea. This may be largely true, but surely it is only true because we (and by we I mean the elected governments over the past few decades) have made it so? Not so long ago, in the days of publicly owned companies such as British Coal, the government produced a hell of a lot (of, in this case, coal...obviously). You could even argue that the government eductation factories produce vast numbers of educated (more or less) citizens to join the workforce every year.

It just strikes me as unfair to use the argument that the government doesn't produce anything against people like Putin as if the likes of Putin ever got into power the government would end up producing quite a lot.

Wow, is this topic still going? I think the whole thing would become redundant if he just answered why he fucked President Eden's bitch.

Is seems like an simple-minded escape to say the political parties are a joke.
If you want to discuss economic growth then identify the periods of economic growth since the establishment of the Fed and the income tax in Wilson's first term.

1922-1929, robust growth
1929-1946, Depression and massive rationing.
1947-1963, Short growth spurts intermixed with at least four recessions.
1964-1968, robust growth
1969-1983-Stagnation, worst economic period since the Depression
1982-1989-Robust Growth
1990-1991-Sharp Recession
1992-1999-Robust Growth
2000-2002-Moderate Recession
2003-2007-Moderate Growth
2008-2009-Sharp Recession
2009-2011-Slow to now growth (sideways economy)

The find the proper policy mix for economic and job growth look to the policies during the periods of growth, and especially avoid the policies of the stagnation decade.

The policy mix that worked in 1922-1929, 1964-68, and 1982-1989 were sound money (moderate interests rates) and corporate and marginal tax cuts (Mellon reduced rates in the 20's by 30% across the board, Kennedy reduced rates across the board by 20% and Reagan by 45%)
Clinton used a policy of loose money (low interest rates) with tax cuts for the lower tax brackets and capital gains, but 4% increase for higher tax brackets.

The 1920's policy mix produced a surplus every year.
1960's and 1980's produced deficits but did not borrow from the social security trust fund
1990's produced a surplus by borrowing massively from social security.

The 1920's and 1990's produced speculative bubbles in the stock market.
The 1920's the stock market crash, the 1990's the .dot come crash.

The common thread of all four periods is capital gains tax cuts and tax cuts for the lower brackets.
The bottom 47% of Americans do not pay income tax today so their taxes can't be cut.
Reducing capital gains and corporate taxes is the common thread of all four periods and should be done immediately and dramatically.
Economic growth and job growth have been the results in four historical periods since 1913.

"Government does not PRODUCE a single product. It is a consumption center. All jobs created by the government, come because of the Private sector, not in spite of it. Do you grasp that Putin33? "

Wrong. Governments provide all sorts of productive services not provided by the market. Furthermore there are many examples of government managed manufacturing firms that both produce and sell many things. But free market fundamentalists are caught up in this mythical world where the market does everything or has to do everything.

"In what crazy world does tax cuts equate to lack of economic growth? What economic formula are you using for THAT? "

1.7 trillion in tax cuts, meaning 1.7 trillion dollars in the hole, and what jobs were created? What jobs? Tell me smart guy, where was all the growth? Bush had the worst jobs record of any post-war President and yet we had all these tax cuts. Tax cuts have nothing to do with growth and never have.

Furthermore, if the government is engaging in the purchasing of goods and services, or provides capital, then the government is providing the resources needed to create jobs. And since the private sector isn't do shit right now, except sitting on its piles of money, the government has to step in and do this. Government spending creates jobs. Everyone has known this for decades. It's basic economics.

And the assumption of 8% unemployment was made well prior to knowing the full extent of the shit show the Obama administration inherited with 800,000 lost jobs per month the first several months in office and the economy contracting by 5%. Obama's stimulus turned that around and by mid year we were experiencing growth while jobs stopped hemoragging. Of course he'll get no credit from cranks like you, but that's a fact. Obama can't single handedly control the global economy. He can't control what's going on in Europe and Japan, which is making a mess of things here. He can't command the private sector to invest. If they won't do it they won't do it. They accept all these goodies and tax breaks and they still won't invest. The fatal flaw of your piece of shit capitalistic economic model that business has discretion not to invest, while the rest of us suffer.