100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ask Republicans about jobs, they’ll answer about Obamacare | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
site ran by and information provided by are not the same thing the information from the link originates from Paul Krugman,, as the New York Times explains: Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics. Mr Krugman also won the Nobel Prize for economics in October 2008 The pathetic little Statist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
site ran by and information provided by are not the same thing the information from the link originates from Paul Krugman,, as the New York Times explains: Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics. Mr Krugman also won the Nobel Prize for economics in October 2008 The pathetic little Statist? Actually the article was by an even bigger nutter than JMK who offed himself because he couldn't get a job in mainstream journalism. Looks like even the liberal socialists could would not touch someone this toxic. But unfortunately our gal seems to have gone for the bait hook line and sinker. LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
such humorous ego,,
please, continue with the irrelevant associations I still trust readers to take from the source what they will, to discern personal opinions from facts, and research further if interested with the references within the work or with their own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
such humorous ego,, please, continue with the irrelevant associations I still trust readers to take from the source what they will, to discern personal opinions from facts, and research further if interested with the references within the work or with their own. You posted incorrect information and he corrected you and showed where the information actually came from. Instead of admitting your mistake you assault his ego? Then you claim falsely that his correction to your misleading "facts" is irrelevant? Talk about ego. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing that has to be said to show that conservatives aren't and Republicans are anti average American is .........wait for it...........The Bush tax cuts did absolutely nothing to help create jobs. 10 years of Bush tax cuts have done nothing to help the economy unless the uber rich were buying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 10/19/11 04:23 PM
|
|
such humorous ego,, please, continue with the irrelevant associations I still trust readers to take from the source what they will, to discern personal opinions from facts, and research further if interested with the references within the work or with their own. You posted incorrect information and he corrected you and showed where the information actually came from. Instead of admitting your mistake you assault his ego? Then you claim falsely that his correction to your misleading "facts" is irrelevant? Talk about ego. what did I post that was 'incorrect' let me re post what started this ego filled , nonsensical, back and forth "I will merely supply some definitions for readers to make up their own minds Capital gains - the increase in value of an asset (as stock or real estate) between the time it is bought and the time it is sold Reform- to put or change into an improved form or condition welfare reform was enacted under President Clinton, it reduced payments by putting time limits on how long welfare could be received AND the conditions by which they can be received (Which included work activities) there is also a capital gains tax phenomena in AMerican history which can be read about here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-capgainsspur.htm my definitions came from Websters,, so they werent incorrect welfare reform is also fairly well documented, so it wasnt incorrect there is also a capital gains tax phenomena( an observable fact or event) which was included in the site I posted the information regarding how lowering capital gains taxes has , in fact, resulted in investments and savings decreasing instead of increasing THOSE NUMBERS (numbers, in this case, which are factual) were referenced to come from the bureau of economic analysis(as Im sure the author didnt have these numbers sitting in his head for recall and had to retrieve them from some source) as well as Paul Krugman , who is a nobel prize winner in economics ,,,,nothing there is inaccurate, or incorrect,, but what followed was a persistent attempt to attack what I posted as either inferior or from someone less intelligent ( as in, 'quick, grab your brain') or outright crazy (as in, 'are you smoking crack') so , yes, I did point out the ego involved,, as is usually the case with ad hominem debate (attacking the person instead of attacking the argument) My ego is in tact, which is apparent by my repeated contribution that allowed for READERS to read and decide for themself and my assumption that they will be able to do so the tendency to attack peoples character, based upon things like whether they have done drugs, or who they associated with, are always humorous to me as ways to completely IGNORE their capabilities or to imply they have none merely because of their social choices.... but it happens so often nowadays, that people apparently think it makes sense to do so,,,,, for a perspective on capital gains tax from a less 'controversial' individual http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692#m4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what did I post that was 'incorrect' let me re post what started this ego filled , nonsensical, back and forth Sorry it was not my ego, rather the inferiority complex which you seem unable to overcome. For example, the claim that got 100% on an online IQ test. The claim that you were a prodigy etc etc.  So wrong on so many counts. Red herrings deleted... here is also a capital gains tax phenomena in AMerican history which can be read about here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-capgainsspur.htm This link is what it is about. I think I have made myself clear regarding this Kangas fellow. I was correcting you as to the source of the artcle. You claimed it was Krugman. I corrected that indicating it was nutter Kangas. Our gal msharmony probably did not know who the nutter Kangas was and probably thought he was Messiah II - the Return of B0 (that was zero) as his take on economics correlated to her own. As they say "bird of a feather flock together". My ego is in tact, which is apparent by my repeated contribution that allowed for READERS to read and decide for themself and my assumption that they will be able to do so. So let me get this right... you provided an article written by a nutter, who was known to have pitched several of the articles supporting a socialism to various liberal media outlets, and got turned by each of these because he was a nutter, and proved as much when he offed himself (as in committed seppuku washroom style), to decide for themselves. So what are we supposed to decide? That he was really Krugman in disguise? Or that Steve Kangas was reincarnated into Krugman? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course the pump priming fetish favored by the JMK aficionados such as Hopkins, Perkins and the rest of the Jackass Trust just prolonged a recession which should have been over and done with in a year and a half at the most. Leave it to the academics to get it wrong as usual. But this sort of pump priming is favored by B0 and his cronies. The malaise in the economy is a direct result of B0 ineptitude at everything other than having his teleprompter give rabble rousing tirades. After all the Dear Leader B0 who was hailed as the Messiah by the riffraff of silly street has been proven himself to be nothing more than a perpetually agitating electioneer full of bluster but lacking any serious substance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
site ran by and information provided by are not the same thing the information from the link originates from Paul Krugman,, as the New York Times explains: Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics. Mr Krugman also won the Nobel Prize for economics in October 2008 The pathetic little Statist?  Not to mention he's Mr Wrong.  He couldn't see the crash when it was right in front of his eyes! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course the pump priming fetish favored by the JMK aficionados such as Hopkins, Perkins and the rest of the Jackass Trust just prolonged a recession which should have been over and done with in a year and a half at the most. Leave it to the academics to get it wrong as usual. But this sort of pump priming is favored by B0 and his cronies. The malaise in the economy is a direct result of B0 ineptitude at everything other than having his teleprompter give rabble rousing tirades. After all the Dear Leader B0 who was hailed as the Messiah by the riffraff of silly street has been proven himself to be nothing more than a perpetually agitating electioneer full of bluster but lacking any serious substance. I politely disagree. The current malaise was caused by multiple factors. First among them being the loose money policy of the FED over the last 30+ years. Then there's the runaway spending, senseless and irresponsible warmongernig, maintaining a global empire (10,000+ military bases around the world), welfarism, runaway costs due to socialization and quasi-socialization of various businesses, and numerous wasteful, unconstitutional beaurocracies (EPA, DoE, TSA, etc), and the devaluation of the dollar. (the USD has lost more than 70% of its value since Tricky Dick Nixon closed the window on the gold standard) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 10/19/11 08:22 PM
|
|
what did I post that was 'incorrect' let me re post what started this ego filled , nonsensical, back and forth Sorry it was not my ego, rather the inferiority complex which you seem unable to overcome. For example, the claim that got 100% on an online IQ test. The claim that you were a prodigy etc etc. So wrong on so many counts. Red herrings deleted... here is also a capital gains tax phenomena in AMerican history which can be read about here http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-capgainsspur.htm This link is what it is about. I think I have made myself clear regarding this Kangas fellow. I was correcting you as to the source of the artcle. You claimed it was Krugman. I corrected that indicating it was nutter Kangas. Our gal msharmony probably did not know who the nutter Kangas was and probably thought he was Messiah II - the Return of B0 (that was zero) as his take on economics correlated to her own. As they say "bird of a feather flock together". My ego is in tact, which is apparent by my repeated contribution that allowed for READERS to read and decide for themself and my assumption that they will be able to do so. So let me get this right... you provided an article written by a nutter, who was known to have pitched several of the articles supporting a socialism to various liberal media outlets, and got turned by each of these because he was a nutter, and proved as much when he offed himself (as in committed seppuku washroom style), to decide for themselves. So what are we supposed to decide? That he was really Krugman in disguise? Or that Steve Kangas was reincarnated into Krugman? WOW,,, with tiresome repetition,,,, ""I will merely supply some definitions for readers to make up their own minds " readers should decide whatever they wish, they should also be able to use the REFERENCES provided within the piece to further research the information,,,,especially if they take some issue or question with the person writing the article,,,, and thank you , for finally deciding to delete 'red herrings',,,also politely referred to previously as ad hominem attacks,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
site ran by and information provided by are not the same thing the information from the link originates from Paul Krugman,, as the New York Times explains: Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics. Mr Krugman also won the Nobel Prize for economics in October 2008 The pathetic little Statist? I must admit the "Lord Keynes" shtick still cracks me up. He rather deserves it, though, I suppose-seeing as his "General Theory" gave intellectual ammunition to generations of Statists, intellectual riff-raff, and various parasites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing that has to be said to show that conservatives aren't and Republicans are anti average American is .........wait for it...........The Bush tax cuts did absolutely nothing to help create jobs. 10 years of Bush tax cuts have done nothing to help the economy unless the uber rich were buying. The Bush tax cuts were pathetically small, and didn't offset his regime's insane spending. The buying power lost by the middle class and poor made the "tax cuts" irrelevant in real terms. You're right that the regime didn't do anything to help the economy. There's nothing a government can do to "help" an economy in the first place (except getting out of the economy). The economic interventionist fetish is a result of what Hayek aptly called "The Fatal Conceit". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing that has to be said to show that conservatives aren't and Republicans are anti average American is .........wait for it...........The Bush tax cuts did absolutely nothing to help create jobs. 10 years of Bush tax cuts have done nothing to help the economy unless the uber rich were buying. The Bush tax cuts were pathetically small, and didn't offset his regime's insane spending. The buying power lost by the middle class and poor made the "tax cuts" irrelevant in real terms. You're right that the regime didn't do anything to help the economy. There's nothing a government can do to "help" an economy in the first place (except getting out of the economy). The economic interventionist fetish is a result of what Hayek aptly called "The Fatal Conceit". You are absolutely right in that the only thing the government can do to help the economy is get out of the way. However, governments, like people love control and even more than that they love doing favors for those who elect them which means the governments will intervene in the economy. Government do not create job, that is a plain and simple fact. The Keynesians with their pump humping fetish cannot fathom that people can get it right on their own without the state's interventionist hand mucking around in the economy. The paltry tax cuts during the Bush era did not and could not really do much for the economy and was a merely small bone thrown in our direction.Not only did we need to cut taxes, and flatten these taxes Bush should have cut spending . However, like Greece there is no appetite for cutting spending because it will inevitably aggrieve some votes. And some of these people, like the OWS scatalogists being loud and obnoxious will be all the rave in the liberal left media (which is almost all of them). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DeusImperator
on
Wed 10/19/11 09:12 PM
|
|
WOW,,, with tiresome repetition,,,, At least I am consistent. ... several lines of the usual blathering deleted ... and thank you , for finally deciding to delete 'red herrings',,,also politely referred to previously as ad hominem attacks,,,, ??? Look at what I delete ??? these were just more diversionary blathering by you that detracted the forum readers for the issue. So obviously you 1. Do not know what a red herring is 2. You do not know what an ad hominem is because all that was being delete were your blathering (which was just vexatious) and if anyone ad hominem was deleted it was yours. Perhaps, that online IQ testing computer was programed to provide affirmative action based results? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW,,, with tiresome repetition,,,, At least I am consistent. ... several lines of the usual blathering deleted ... and thank you , for finally deciding to delete 'red herrings',,,also politely referred to previously as ad hominem attacks,,,, ??? Look at what I delete ??? these were just more diversionary blathering by you that detracted the forum readers for the issue. So obviously you 1. Do not know what a red herring is 2. You do not know what an ad hominem is because all that was being delete were your blathering (which is just vexatious) and if anyone ad hominem was deleted it was yours. consistently condescending,, great trait red herring - A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue ad hominem - An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person ... now, the supposed 'red herrings' that were deleted,,, "I will merely supply some definitions for readers to make up their own minds Capital gains - the increase in value of an asset (as stock or real estate) between the time it is bought and the time it is sold Reform- to put or change into an improved form or condition welfare reform was enacted under President Clinton, it reduced payments by putting time limits on how long welfare could be received AND the conditions by which they can be received (Which included work activities) COMPLETELY RELEVANT to a previous post which touched on ALL THREE TOPICS,,,, Im not into diversion, I will respond to the posts which I choose to respond to with relevant information about whatever topic or topics those posts cover,,, sigh but keep making the assumptions,,,,seems to be a compulsion,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW,,, with tiresome repetition,,,, At least I am consistent. ... several lines of the usual blathering deleted ... and thank you , for finally deciding to delete 'red herrings',,,also politely referred to previously as ad hominem attacks,,,, ??? Look at what I delete ??? these were just more diversionary blathering by you that detracted the forum readers for the issue. So obviously you 1. Do not know what a red herring is 2. You do not know what an ad hominem is because all that was being delete were your blathering (which was just vexatious) and if anyone ad hominem was deleted it was yours. Perhaps, that online IQ testing computer was programed to provide affirmative action based results? lol, couldnt resist huh> really should do something about that whole race complex thing ya got going,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DeusImperator
on
Thu 10/20/11 05:01 AM
|
|
You said
My brain works quite well, in fact, went to the mensa sight myself and took the sample test, got all questions right,, I have also been in the gifted and talented program throughout my entire pre college educational journey, so please dont assume that reading and absorbing alot of things on topics that interest you makes me less intellectually compatible, as opposed to just not as interested Citing that instance, I said: Perhaps, that online IQ testing computer was programed to provide affirmative action based results? To which you replied: lol, couldnt resist huh> really should do something about that whole race complex thing ya got going,,,, Not race complex, but a little perplexed at the claim that you even might qualify for Mensa that was all, so I suggested that perhaps the computer might have provided a affirmative action based result - but this was merely a suggestion and have no way of proving otherwise. Remember, as I said earlier, my sister even claims that her dog got a 100% on the Mensa test. Mensans do not run around forums claiming to have a Mensan level IQ (which is considered bad form), and is seen as proof that the claimant is just another wannabe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 10/20/11 10:58 AM
|
|
You said My brain works quite well, in fact, went to the mensa sight myself and took the sample test, got all questions right,, I have also been in the gifted and talented program throughout my entire pre college educational journey, so please dont assume that reading and absorbing alot of things on topics that interest you makes me less intellectually compatible, as opposed to just not as interested Citing that instance, I said: Perhaps, that online IQ testing computer was programed to provide affirmative action based results? To which you replied: lol, couldnt resist huh> really should do something about that whole race complex thing ya got going,,,, Not race complex, but a little perplexed at the claim that you even might qualify for Mensa that was all, so I suggested that perhaps the computer might have provided a affirmative action based result - but this was merely a suggestion and have no way of proving otherwise. Remember, as I said earlier, my sister even claims that her dog got a 100% on the Mensa test. Mensans do not run around forums claiming to have a Mensan level IQ (which is considered bad form), and is seen as proof that the claimant is just another wannabe. so how was it another mingler happened to know your status? which is the only way it was introduced in this particular thread... and why not just state that you thought there was a mistake instead of an 'affirmative action based result'? but , as the persistent assumptions are starting to bore me,,, I Will return to the op,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask Republicans about jobs, they’ll answer about Obamacare By Dana Milbank, Published: October 5 By most of the usual measures, President Obama has no business being reelected. Here’s why he might be anyway. On Wednesday morning, as Senate Democratic leaders were scrambling to find a way to enact part of Obama’s jobs bill, a dozen Republican lawmakers assembled outside the Capitol to complain about . . . health-care reform. “Every day I get up, I do at least something to fight Obamacare,” Rep. Steve King (Iowa) announced to the cameras. Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) proclaimed that the year-and-a-half-old law meant the “socialization of medicine.” “Monstrous!” contributed Rep. Joe Pitts (Pa.). “This was a 2,733-page bill! . . . No amendments! . . . Partisan vote!” Maybe so, gentlemen, but don’t you have something better to do with your time? The president’s support is mired in the low 40s in opinion polls, and three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track — an obvious opportunity for the opposition party. But rather than exploit Obama’s vulnerability on the economy, the tea party faithful are stuck in 2010, demanding repeal of the health-care law. That has allowed Obama, despite his own belated focus on unemployment, to jump way out in front of Republicans on the issue: In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Obama has a 15-point advantage over congressional Republicans on job creation, and his jobs package enjoys majority support. The Republicans who assembled Wednesday on a patch of the Capitol lawn known as the “Senate Swamp” claimed that they, too, had a jobs plan: repealing Obamacare. “If the president wants a jobs bill, this is it: Repealing Obamacare is a jobs bill,” proposed Rep. Jeff Landry (La.). “We don’t have to go through all the shenanigans of him coming up here and talking to a joint session of Congress.” Landry’s evidence that health-care reform is killing jobs: a constituent claims he is reducing his workforce by 25 percent because of Obamacare — never mind that the relevant provisions don’t take effect for a few years. Rep. Louie Gohmert (Tex.) offered a similar take as he waved around a copy of Obama’s jobs bill. The president, he said, “is out there demonizing anybody that won’t pass his jobs bill, but all he has to know is this: There is more jobs that will be created by repealing Obamacare.” Specifically, the GOP group complained that Obamacare is “costing us jobs — at least 800,000,” according to Sen. David Vitter (La.). Additionally, said Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), “it puts 3.2 million jobs at risk.” In case you doubt this, “these are all backed up by statistics,” the senator said. Not exactly. The 3.2 million figure was attributed to the International Franchise Association, a group that fought the health-care bill. And the 800,000 jobs the bill is “costing” us? That was from a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill’s impact — in 2021. The lawmakers were in the Swamp to receive a repeal-Obamacare petition signed by 1.6 million people, organizers claimed, at the urging of Mike Huckabee (R-Fox News) and conservative activist Ken Hoagland. Introducing the lawmakers, Hoagland said that “it’s not a surprise” small businesses have stopped hiring. “They will tell you: ‘I have 50 people. I cannot hire one more, because if I hire one more, I either pay huge fines to the IRS or I must provide comprehensive, expanded health care for everyone.’ ” This is strange, because the relevant requirement for businesses larger than 50 employees does not take effect until 2014. The point was also contradicted, moments later, by Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), who argued that the health-care law would allow businesses to save money by shifting costs to the government. “Employers are going to have a very easy decision to make,” he said. “Do I buy family coverage for about 10, 15 thousand, or do I pay a $2,000 penalty, and I wouldn’t be throwing my employees to the wolves — I’d be making them eligible for huge subsidies. So who wouldn’t take that deal?” The logic wasn’t compelling, but the moment gave the tea party lawmakers a chance to recall some of their favorite slogans from the health-care wars. Malpractice! Read this bill! Unconstitutional! Our liberties! Socialized medicine! Shenanigans! Sleight of hand! Repeal this bill! Toward the end of this 2010 reprise, Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.) raised a valid point. “What we really needed to be focusing on two years ago was putting people back to work,” he said. “We literally spent two years fiddling while Rome was burning.” Right. And now Gingrey and his colleagues would resume the fiddling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2011/10/05/gIQAjPVKOL_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_postpolitics  damn somebody gets it in that circus troop IT likewise troubles me when politicians turn their job into a personal wrestling match against other politicians instead of a collaberation with colleagues to do whats best for the country,,,, |
|
|
|
|
