Dems now begging Al Franken to UNRESIGN

cawacko said:
JFK's tax cuts were supply side which unleashed growth.
Click to expand...

So, why is JFK's setting the top rate around 70% 'supply side' and Obama having it under 40% not?

You're proving my point about the irrationality of Republicans that all they know is 'cut'.

Hey, lowering the oven from 600 degrees to 425 made my cookies come out better!

Republicans say lowering it to 100 degrees will make the cookies bake VERY well!

The rest of the '60's was Keynesian though you are correct as LBJ's spending along with the Fed pushed inflation and a weak dollar which we paid for in the '70's. Nixon continued the Keynsian's push "we're all Keynesian's now" with his wage and price controls ultimately giving us stagflation which Keynesianism didn't have an answer for as the Phillips Curve said this wasn't supposed to happen.
Click to expand...

You're proving my point again. You decide who you want to praise. Better economy BEFORE them? Oh, it caused later problems! Better economy during their presidency? They get the credit! Better economy after they're president? They get credit again!

As stated along with Volker supply side brought us out of those doldrums and unleashed almost 30 years of boom and growth.
Click to expand...

Finally you got something partially right. Who appointed Volcker?

Under Obama we went back to Keynesian economics and we saw the results.
Click to expand...

Ya, let's see, Obama inherited the post-Reagan low tax rates and the Bush tax cuts, a $1 trillion deficit, an economy in the worst recession of 75 years and Republicans who refused to pass his policies. What a jerk!

Oh wait, he cut the deficit over half, saw the longest job growth in who knows how many decades, a stock market boom, unemployment down a lot, despite all that - and he wasn't that great. Imagine if a real Democrat was in office.
 
Micawber said:
No he should resign and maintain the Democratic moral superiority on this issue. You can't condemn these backward right wing pigs when you don't subject Dem pigs to the same.

I understand the sentiment though. Unfortunately or fortunately it is the essence of high minded principles that you must live by their onerous standards, which injects unfairness.
It's like being a Christian and supporting Republican policies. There is an especially cold frozen circle in eternity awaiting them. We don't want to be anything like them, saying the one and doing the other.
Click to expand...

The point is, it's not "the same".

But Franken is going to resign anyway, as wrong as it is.
 
Man, I'm really hoping that Franken refuses to step-down. What a reversal of rhetoric that would be for the GOP to hammer Dems for the next year. Add on the fact that Weinstein continues to be the gift that keeps on giving (Selma Hayek just claimed he threatened to kill her), and media leftists continue to drop like flies, and it's edge Republicans.
 
CFM said:
You mean like Liberals telling us that social welfare spending will eradicate poverty and keep people from being poor? That smoke and mirrors bullshit? You idiots on the left are trying to fix a problem with money where the root cause of the problem isn't a lack of money but a lack of willingness to do for yourself. Put people in a situation where they have to do for themselves and many will figure out they need to get off their asses and do what they should have been doing for a long time. Those that don't we won't have to worry about any more. Success either way.
Click to expand...

You really are a lying piece of dogshit, aren't you?

Nobody ever claimed that social welfare spending will eradicate poverty and keep people from being poor, you dirtbag. The only claim made by anyone on the left who I've ever heard, was that it would give people a basic, minimum, human standard of living where they wouldn't have to live in parks, back alleys, homeless camps or cardboard boxes and wouldn't have to stand in food kitchen lines to eat. A roof overhead, food on the table and basic, minimum health care. And it doesn't cost greedy peckerwood trash like you all that much.

Your assumption that these people are all just too lazy to go out and work is nothing more than the typical lowlife assholes' rationalization you rely on so you don't have to admit to yourselves what selfish greedy scum you are.
 
Craig234 said:
So, why is JFK's setting the top rate around 70% 'supply side' and Obama having it under 40% not?

You're proving my point about the irrationality of Republicans that all they know is 'cut'.

Hey, lowering the oven from 600 degrees to 425 made my cookies come out better!

Republicans say lowering it to 100 degrees will make the cookies bake VERY well!



You're proving my point again. You decide who you want to praise. Better economy BEFORE them? Oh, it caused later problems! Better economy during their presidency? They get the credit! Better economy after they're president? They get credit again!



Finally you got something partially right. Who appointed Volcker?



Ya, let's see, Obama inherited the post-Reagan low tax rates and the Bush tax cuts, a $1 trillion deficit, an economy in the worst recession of 75 years and Republicans who refused to pass his policies. What a jerk!

Oh wait, he cut the deficit over half, saw the longest job growth in who knows how many decades, a stock market boom, unemployment down a lot, despite all that - and he wasn't that great. Imagine if a real Democrat was in office.
Click to expand...

JFK cut taxes, Obama raised them. Obama's entire premise was the opposite of supply side.

You are conflating policy and partisanship. You are stuck in a Republican/Democratic mindset. I'm talking about economic policy. Nixon, for example, was a Republican who pushed Keynesian economic policies. Bill Clinton, his last six years, passed very different types of legislation than Obama did even though they are both Democrats. Bill Clinton cutting capital gains taxes in '97 was supply side.

Republicans refused to pass Obama's policies? He passed nearly a $1 trillion stimulus, he passed legislation for health care covering 1/6th of the economy and he passed massive new financial regulations in Dodd-Frank. Obama had plenty of legislation passed and we saw the results. First President since Hoover not to have 3% annual growth for one year. And yes, we can "thank" Bernanke and Yellen for their easy money policies which created our current asset bubble.

If Obama wasn't a real Democrat I'd be very scared to see one.
 
cawacko said:
JFK cut taxes, Obama raised them. Obama's entire premise was the opposite of supply side.
Click to expand...

And that is a highly dishonest statement.

JFK cut taxes from a top rate of about to about 70%. Obama raised the top rate from a bit under 40% to a bit higher under 40%. So who had the lower tax rates?

Your argument is that 70% is 'supply side' and under 40% is 'the opposite of supply-side'.

This is why talking to dishonest right-wingers is a waste of time.

Republicans refused to pass Obama's policies? He passed nearly a $1 trillion stimulus, he passed legislation for health care covering 1/6th of the economy and he passed massive new financial regulations in Dodd-Frank.
Click to expand...

More dishonesty. Not one Republican in the House voted for the stimulus. A larger one was blocked. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. Three in the House voted for Dodd-Frank. His jobs bill, infrastructure and many others were blocked.

Obama had plenty of legislation passed and we saw the results.
Click to expand...

The little he got passed got us out of the worst recession since Hoover and several years of job growth and other benefits you ignored in my post. It'd have been a lot better if Republicans had not blocked so much. They love to cause harm then Democrats.
 
Craig234 said:
And that is a highly dishonest statement.

JFK cut taxes from a top rate of about to about 70%. Obama raised the top rate from a bit under 40% to a bit higher under 40%. So who had the lower tax rates?

Your argument is that 70% is 'supply side' and under 40% is 'the opposite of supply-side'.

This is why talking to dishonest right-wingers is a waste of time.



More dishonesty. Not one Republican in the House voted for the stimulus. A larger one was blocked. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. Three in the House voted for Dodd-Frank. His jobs bill, infrastructure and many others were blocked.



The little he got passed got us out of the worst recession since Hoover and several years of job growth and other benefits you ignored in my post. It'd have been a lot better if Republicans had not blocked so much. They love to cause harm then Democrats.
Click to expand...

I expect people to disagree on a board like this but you accuse me of lying because you don't understand the subject. You are the ignorant one here. You clearly don't even know the basis of what supply side economics believes. How about you do some research before spouting off?

Republicans were right in not supporting any of those policies. They should become Democrats if they are going to support Keynesian policies. (well unless Bush is in office in which case they showed zero discipline and were rightly run out of office)

If Obama wanted a "jobs" bill he could have made a modicum of an attempt to unleash the private sector but that's not who he was.
 
cawacko said:
I expect people to disagree on a board like this but you accuse me of lying because you don't understand the subject. You are the ignorant one here. You clearly don't even know the basis of what supply side economics believes. How about you do some research before spouting off?

Republicans were right in not supporting any of those policies. They should become Democrats if they are going to support Keynesian policies. (well unless Bush is in office in which case they showed zero discipline and were rightly run out of office)

If Obama wanted a "jobs" bill he could have made a modicum of an attempt to unleash the private sector but that's not who he was.
Click to expand...

You're damn tiresome. You don't even know what Keynesian means. You think that JFK's tax cut was not a Keynesian policy. Try reading:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2004/01/tax_cuts_in_camelot.html
 
Craig234 said:
You're damn tiresome. You don't even know what Keynesian means. You think that JFK's tax cut was not a Keynesian policy. Try reading:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2004/01/tax_cuts_in_camelot.html
Click to expand...

So you choose to believe Slate's argument so that makes me tiresome? I've read plenty on it. Seems like its new to you considering what you wrote about JFK and Obama, tax rates and supply side.

Why come here if you want an echo chamber? People can disagree but quit whining.
 
cawacko said:
So you choose to believe Slate's argument so that makes me tiresome? I've read plenty on it. Seems like its new to you considering what you wrote about JFK and Obama, tax rates and supply side.

Why come here if you want an echo chamber? People can disagree but quit whining.
Click to expand...

Not wanting your lies is not an 'echo chamber'. Calling the slate piece an 'argument' that JFK's policy was Keynesian just shows your dishonesty and refusal to learn when you're wrong and admit it. Waste of time.

When you can't admit the basic definition of the word, the issue is clearly lost on you.
 
Superfreak said:
I certainly agree that we need to distinguish between a photo opp in poor taste and groping an underage woman. But to say all his accusers claims pale in comparison to all other claims is just partisan nonsense from you.
Click to expand...

Why are there no pictures of Franken pretending to cup the balls of a sleeping man? It would have been funnier

Either sexual harassment of women is wrong or it isn’t.

I hope Franken weasels out of his resignation
 
Nomad said:
You really are a lying piece of dogshit, aren't you?

Nobody ever claimed that social welfare spending will eradicate poverty and keep people from being poor, you dirtbag. The only claim made by anyone on the left who I've ever heard, was that it would give people a basic, minimum, human standard of living where they wouldn't have to live in parks, back alleys, homeless camps or cardboard boxes and wouldn't have to stand in food kitchen lines to eat. A roof overhead, food on the table and basic, minimum health care. And it doesn't cost greedy peckerwood trash like you all that much.

Your assumption that these people are all just too lazy to go out and work is nothing more than the typical lowlife assholes' rationalization you rely on so you don't have to admit to yourselves what selfish greedy scum you are.
Click to expand...

Why are you only interested in giving them the “minimum”?

Minimum wage?
Minimum healthcare?
Minimum food?
Minimum housing?

Define what is “basic” healthcare? Does that mean you don’t want them to have advanced healthcare

I will understand if you exercise your JPP 5th Amendment right not to show yourself to be a fucking idiot
 
Nomad said:
You really are a lying piece of dogshit, aren't you?

Nobody ever claimed that social welfare spending will eradicate poverty and keep people from being poor, you dirtbag. The only claim made by anyone on the left who I've ever heard, was that it would give people a basic, minimum, human standard of living where they wouldn't have to live in parks, back alleys, homeless camps or cardboard boxes and wouldn't have to stand in food kitchen lines to eat. A roof overhead, food on the table and basic, minimum health care. And it doesn't cost greedy peckerwood trash like you all that much.

Your assumption that these people are all just too lazy to go out and work is nothing more than the typical lowlife assholes' rationalization you rely on so you don't have to admit to yourselves what selfish greedy scum you are.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're claiming that, as Johnson stated, a "unconditional war on poverty" was designed to get rid of it but allow people to stay poor as long as they could eat, have a place to live, etc? During the 1964 State of the Union address, when Johnson began his push for what would be called the war on poverty he said, and I QUOTE, "Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it". Guess you claim that no one ever said such as thing has been squashed like a bug.


There is no such thing as greed when it comes to someone wanting to keep what they've earned. However, someone expecting, even demanding, someone else have taken from them what they've earned in order that the one demanding it get even a penny, is greedy. Greed isn't defined as someone not doing with what he/she earned the way you think they should. If, as you claim, you care so much for people that don't have what you think they deserve, I suggest you get to buying it for them voluntarily before demanding someone else be forced to buy it. If you can't or aren't willing to do so, fuck off. I don't anyone anything in life. If they aren't willing to do what it takes to get it themselves, let them do without.
 
Teflon Don said:
Why are you only interested in giving them the “minimum”?

Minimum wage?
Minimum healthcare?
Minimum food?
Minimum housing?

Define what is “basic” healthcare? Does that mean you don’t want them to have advanced healthcare

I will understand if you exercise your JPP 5th Amendment right not to show yourself to be a fucking idiot
Click to expand...

People like Nomad care so much for others they're willing to let everyone else be forced to fund it things for people that don't have them.
 
Teflon Don said:
Either sexual harassment of women is wrong or it isn’t.

I hope Franken weasels out of his resignation
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You think it's that simple?? Nobody even knows what sexual harassment is!!! To me most of these harassment charges should be labeled as prostitution. These women sell themselves to get a cushy job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top