Well it’s started, and it will only get worse. This morning on the Obama reelection network, MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry and her guests are bemoaning the fact that Obama is seen through the lens as the “first black president” and what an extra burden that is. Evidently they have forgotten how they celebrated that fact just 4 years ago, and the fact that Obama has taken every opportunity to remind people of that fact – “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon”, so why the disconnect? Obama is slipping amongst “white voters” so it must be because of racism right? After all, white unemployment is less than black unemployment so according to MSNBC, white voters should be flocking to the polls to vote for this President and if they don’t, well then they’re just ungrateful racists.
Yesterday, Sam Donaldson chimed in to support the noton that the recent heckling on behalf of the daily caller news reporter was because ……… wait for it ……. Obama is black. No other president has ever had to deal with rude press reporters before right Sam? It seems to me Sam that you perfected the “rude press” persona, so it seems a little disingenuous for you to ascribe mal intent to other reporters following your lead.
This is going to be a vey interesting political summer folks, and the democrats will play every card they can to keep Obama in office. The race card will be just one of them, but it will trump all others.
Happy Father’s day to all you dad’s out there!
UPDATE:
As an addition to this thread, in my opinion we will have a very hard time moving this country forward, if we continue to wallow in the ethnic, race and financial divide that democrats, and Obama have us mired in. We are all children of God, regardless of our skin color, with the same needs and wants for ourselves and our family, so let’s stop listening to those who want to divide us for their political futures, and let’s start focusing on common sense policies that will benefit all of us, and not just a few.
Blogs For Victory 
HAPPY FATHERS DAY all…..
New Black Panther Party: ‘We Will Not Sit Back Passively Like Jews and Go to the Gas Chambers’
Government
“They’ve been given a social license to kill based on their white skin privilege.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panther-party-we-will-not-sit-back-passively-like-jews-and-go-to-the-gas-chambers/
WOW
Arkansas Tea Party Member Resigns After Telling This Racially-Charged Joke About ‘Democracy’
“She is a gray-haired elderly lady, and I did not want to go up and yank her off stage.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/arkansas-tea-party-member-resigns-after-telling-this-racially-charged-joke-about-democracy/
———————————————————————————-
the TRUTH buried in a joke is still the TRUTH!
maybe she should have quoted slic willy about Ubama pouring his coffee. MOTESAH?
WTF?????
MSNBC Ponders: Would a White President Get Interrupted During Speech?
“This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing president be doing this if we had a white president there?”
expect this to ratchet up folks, they are telling us how they plan to run……
Lets see here, we have the rats playing unlimited race cards and now we have darth rino bad mouthing the Supreme Court for the Citizens United case.
This is all the rats have left. Can’t run on policy or results. I smell at least 320 electoral votes for Mitt come the night of Nov 6.
Let the riots commence.
so let’s stop listening to those who want to divide us for their political futures, and let’s start focusing on common sense policies that will benefit all of us, and not just a few.
George Zimmerman will be so relieved to hear that….
it is hard to ignore calls for riots, murder and mayhem,
It is hard to ignore those who have burned, looted, rampaged, murdered every large city in America some twice.
it us hard to ignore that 47% of our fellow citizens pay no federal taxes yet suck up 90 of all entitlements, then scream for more of OUR hard earned money and vote.
it is hard to ignore atheist communism hell bent to destroy our country and us.
singing kum byah solves nothing against hard core revolutionaries and those bent on delivering violent overthrow of the US.
I wish it did, but I am a realist…….
I know what you mean Neo. However, this is not the time or place. This is not the right issue. This not the right battle. This is not the hill to die on. We only control one half of one third of the government. There is nothing we can do.
We should, nay we must wait, until there are 435 republicans in the House of Representatives, 100 republicans in the Senate, have a republican president , and all 9 Supreme Court justices are conservative.
Then we might do something.
“let’s start focusing on common sense policies that will benefit all of us, and not just a few.”
Seeing as how conservatism only benefits a few–those at the very top of the economic ladder–you’ll need to change your ideology if you truly wish to accomplish your stated goal.
Dave,
This is a great opportunity for you to expand on the talking point you just posted, and compare liberal vs conservative policies over the years and prove your assertion. Care to give it a try?
Let me get you started: Obama bailed out the big financial companies and allowed them to hand out huge bonuses to themselves while more people are mired in poverty and receiving government assistance than ever before. Contrast that to Bush who indicted and prosecuted corporate malfeasance; think Enron, global crossing, etc., and whose policies led to 52 consecutive months of economic and job growth.
Now it’s your turn.
Aw c’mon Dave, what’s the matter? Can’t think of any examples of liberal policies that benefited everyone and not just a few? Neither can I, but you’re the liberal so I am sure you can think of some. Right?
Dave, you really need to learn the Rule of Holes.
Yes, the dreaded “income INEQUALITY” that you PL drones bleat about can increase, as economic prosperity increases. Why does this happen? Because successful, productive, people get richer.
DUH.
But then you lie, and claim that the middle and lower classes “stagnate”. Nothing could be a better indicator of the abject ignorance of people like you regarding how business works.
So Mr. GotBucks has less of his property taken away by the State to give to other people. No, he does not bury it in the back yard in a coffee can. He uses it. He invests it in other peoples’ businesses, he invests it in his own business, or he puts it in a savings instrument of some kind. In any case it is working.
If either of the first two options is successful, Mr. GB makes money. But the only way business makes money is to expand, produce more, sell more, etc., which means employing more people.
In a high-employment cycle, such as we saw in so many of the Bush years, there are more jobs than there are qualifed people to fill them. We saw this during this time, when people could just leave a job at will knowing there were plenty more—-it was a common complaint. So the best make more money, because there is more competition for what they have to offer.
The only ones who “stagnate” are the ones with little to offer.
But to people like you, so totally ignorant of how business works, so deeply uneducated about what makes business profitable, so reeking of surly resentment of those who are more productive and successful than you, all that matters is this “income inequality” that has caught your limited attention.
Well, yeah. When competent people with skills in the marketplace are employed in a prosperous economy, they will make more than they used to, while those without much in the way of skill or ambition will be stuck at the same level they always have been.
And you find this an indictment of prosperity. What an idiot.
And no one can “…..explain how benefiting just the very few people somehow means benefiting everybody…..” because the entire theory is a fallacy, and a stupid one at that.
Not taking into account the contradiction inherent in your own statement, you are simply stating a falsehood and then demanding that someone prove it. Yes, we have seen many examples of your circular thinking in the past, but this is quite a corkscrew.
You claim that prosperity benefits only a very few, which is simply wrong. But once you are stuck in that silly lie, everything you build upon it is at least as silly and at least as false.
Dave,
I gave you two specific examples and in return you throw out some emotional based talking point? C’mon – policies that benefit everyone are policies that create equal opportunity and from there, it is the individual’s responsibility to be prepared for that opportunity. Policies that benefit a few are policies that try to create equal outcome, which never work and only stagnate everyone’s growth.
Secondly, Bush properly used the justice department to root out corporate malfeasance, making sure that those at the top play by the rules. Obama has not.
Dave,
You still haven’t provided us with any specific liberal legislation that is aimed at benefiting all Americans, rather than the special interests they pander to. An example of this would be lowering all tax rates across the board, which of course is labeled as “tax cuts for the rich” by people like you, but in reality, everyone received a tax break. Another example would be lowering cap gains taxes which benefit investor regardless of skin color, income level etc.
Rather, you just continue to sit in the cheap seats and feign outrage over some notion of “income inequality”, without any regard to the skills or efforts of those that you feel are victims of this outrageous, eeevil conservative policy.
Tell us Dave, what should be the minimum wage? I know this is where you are headed, so let’s cut to the chase.
“GotBucks’ riches growing vastly during a period when lower and middle-class wage growth was barely outpacing inflation, ”
All sectors ROSE, that’s the idea Nit J. Wit>
Count, “a rising tide raises all boats”
Some Democrat icon said that………….
Isn’t it funny to see the PL trolls strut their business ignorance for all to see?
Poor silly Dave is so hung up on how much more money Mr. GB makes when his business prospers that he can’t see beyond that silly “income inequity” thing the Left has used as bait to sucker in the stupid and the gullible.
Wanna bet that if Dave goes out to eat, he doesn’t leave a 100% tip in an effort to equalize his income with that of his waitress? That he doesn’t go to his boss and demand that his salary be cut to match that of the janitor, because he just can’t live with the shame of that dreadful income inequality? That he routinely uses the services of people who make less than he does, from the guys at Grease Monkey to the girl asking if he wants fries with that, without a qualm?
Oh,he has qualms, all right, but they are not centered on HIM doing anything to equalize income in his immediate vicinity. We already know he doesn’t own his own business, given his ongoing ignorance of even the most basic of business principles, so he can’t give people raises, but if he really and truly does fret over the idea that the cashier at Safeway doesn’t make as much money as he does, he can change THAT, for that person, anyway.
And set a fine example for other PL trolls. He could start leaving his keys in his car, in case someone “just wants a better ride”, and his front door open when he leaves his home because no doubt someone would like “a better place to live”. He could pick out a couple of people who make less than he does, and equalize their incomes with his.
I repeat my standing invitation to anyone who can explain why income disparity is a bad thing.
Even Krugman is reduced to sputtering about South American revolutions when asked.
If Income inequality is bad; then income equality is good?
Socialism’s shared misery? Howzat workin out fer ya’?
I believe it was the Irish Prime Minister who first used the phrase, “A rising tide lifts all boats” in 1959.
Count, as usual I bow to your vastly greater store of knowledge–but I do believe that John F. Kennedy used the phrase in his plea to the American public for support for his efforts to lower the tax RATE.
More to the point, though, I pointed out that conservative rule means the accumulation of wealth at the top while the lower classes lag behind. You have not managed to rebut this simple fact.
Actually, you didn’t, Dave, and your calling it a “simple fact” doesn’t make it so. You linked to a study about income inequality, but that study never mentions the word “conservative” or “Conservative” — not once. Nor are the words Republican or Democrat found anywhere in the article. The article focuses on 3 causes of income inequality: (1) labor income; (2) capital gains and dividends; and (3) taxes. The President who lowered the capital gains tax the most during my lifetime was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who signed the bill in 1996 lowering the capital gains tax by nearly 29% (from 28% to 20%). Revenue flowed into the federal coffers so fast that the budget was balanced within a year. What’s more, income inequality is a feature of virtually every developed country in the world, not just the U.S.. And your article seems to operate on the assumption that the rich were always rich and never worked. That may be true for people like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, but the vast majority of the wealthy worked very hard to get where they’re at. Anyone who is skilled and fortunate enough to be able to live off the fruits of their labor has already paid taxes on their income once. Taxes on capital gains and dividends is simply a way for the government to tap into their wealth a second time.
I’m with Count; I don’t see the down-side to income equality, nor do I see an up-side to having incomes be equal or more equal. I also can’t find ANYTHING in the Constitution that says the federal government has the power to ensure that everyone has enough and no one has too much, but I can suggest a few countries you might want to move to if that’s the arrangement you’d prefer.
Hey, Dave, you’ve pointed out that “conservative rule means the accumulation of wealth at the top while the lower classes lag behind.”, so why don’t we take a look at what liberal rule means to the lower classes. I mean, it’s only fair to look at the flip side of the coin — right?
Davey still hasn’t put his money where his mouth is…..
Not surprising…..
Again, davey give us credible sourced examples of conservative policy that only benefits a “few” (define few while you’re at it) and give us credible sourced examples of proggy policies that benefit everyone without taking money from a “few” to benefit “everyone”.
You do know the definition of “everyone”, don’t you?
And try to stay away from the dumbed-down regurgitated rhetoric for once……
This must be the third unanswered challenge (by me) in this thread alone…… Something all to familiar.
Hey Dave,
Here is a site that can help you out with facts even instead of make believe dribble. But of course you know that the tax cuts of G.W. Bush also let most of the 47% that pay no federal taxes off the income tax hook as well? Well, if we raise it on the rich then I say get rid of all of the cuts.
The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth
“In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth. … What’s more, after the 2003 tax cuts, the rich paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the previous 40 years. … Incidentally, this also means that in 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% paid.”
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm
The link got taken out for some reason, but here ya go: http://factcheck.org/2008/01/the-impact-of-tax-cuts/
Obviously, db, Watty did not read your link. We are to believe watty’s regurgitated talking points rather than the ECONOMISTS cited and data provided.
Gee, Lefty “economists” disagreeing with free market economics. Stop the presses!!! The ANNENBERG FOUNDATION has a study on how reduced tax rates are bad!!! Wow.
We see this kind of thing all the time. Check out Krugman for a course in ridiculous Keynesian economics and claims that a free market economy doesn’t work. It’s all he ever says.
But the rest of us, who live in the real world, look at the reality of what happens when people have less of their production taken from them for redistribution by the State. And inevitably, the economy prospers.
I had no idea facts made you people so angry. My apologies. Good thing you attacked that source instead, then–that way you won’t have to confront those messy facts that anger you so.
Dave did not use a “Talking Point” Only a “Talking” There was no point.
Dave Dave Dave, you really do need to stop regurgitating those tired old Lefty lies.
Conservatism has benefited so many tens if not hundreds of millions of people, in all economic strata, for more than two centuries, it is bizarre to claim that it only benefits, as you claim. “..those at the very top of the economic ladder…”
That statement is not only false, it is so utterly STUPID I am surprised that even you would be caught making it, and let’s face it, you are not one to be ashamed of your own stupidity.
From the pool boy cleaning algae from the pool of a middle-class person who was, just ten years ago, technically one of “THE POOR” but who was able to realize his dreams because of the freedoms fought for by conservatives, to the auto dealer who sold him his new car, to the waitress at the local diner, every single person in the entire line of those who gain employment and income from the multitude of benefits associated with the free market system (an inherent ingredient of conservative political philosophy) would laugh in your face for making such a blatantly stupid and ignorant comment.
Wow, Davy, can you give us specific examples (with the appropriate sources, of course) to back up your claim, rather than regurgitating the same old dumbed down talking points?
tired, don’t hold your breath. Why do you think the PL trolls duck and hide from every effort to get them to defend their political model?
BECAUSE THEY CAN’T. They simply cannot point to a time or place when it has resulted in economic prosperity increased individual liberty.
They would if they could but they can’t so they don’t even try.
They just snarl and spit and drag in Identity Politics.
All this whining about supposedly decreased tax revenues under Bush? Well, unemployment was at record lows, the economy was booming, and they are just PO’d because they think there should have been more OPM available for their redistributionist agendas.
So davey, the answer is NO you can’t give specific and sourced answers to our challenges. You can only give the dumbed down talking points you continue to regurgitate.
Who Is Your Land
A fool sneaked into the King’s house, and said, “I’m not a spider on the wall”
When I get done with your land, you’ll know that I exposed it all.
Secrets here, and pacts made there, I have access to each one,
Don’t give me any advice because I know how it is done.
When I finish with you land, I’ll shut the factories down,
I’ll put the shame upon their lines, and make them feel the frown,
My policies will cause destructive deeds to cover all the land,
cause when I finish in four years, they’ll be eatin’ from my hand.
Enemies will know their secrets cause I shall have the power,
and none shall speak a word to me cause I’m upon my tower.
Lies I’ll speak and action stir a nation that’s asleep
slumber on my child for one day you shall weep!
I don’t need a rep. nor congress for my rules
when I finish with my plans, I’ll have all the fools,
I will have your guns and bind you with my law,
you won’t play the game cause I will have the ball.
And when the battle’s done and victory is mine,
your nation then can weep for I’m thy King divine.
I’m the King who walks the halls of my White House,
And none shall try and usurp my rule for I shall push them out.
Close my gitmo said I would, and loosen all the trials
so that America will pay a lawyer for their smiles.
Then when all is said and done and I h ave taken rule,
this is what they call my land, and then they call thee fool.
Many friends are working now to keep me in this power and I shall make in chess the rules and close it in my hour.
I don’t need no Constitution, no rules they’ve made before
cause what I do I own the rules all done behind closed doors.
So now you think you know my name and what I tend to do,
but greed and power tis the name while many will say who.
dbschmidt said, “In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth. … What’s more, after the 2003 tax cuts, the rich paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the previous 40 years. … Incidentally, this also means that in 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% paid.”
This just isn’t true, db. First, federal revenues in real dollars decreased in each year of 2001, 2002 and 2003. It did grow in actual dollars after that, but you are assuming that a dollar in 2000 is equivalent to a dollar in 2008. They are not. $1 in 2000 = $1.25 in 2008.
If you take the actual amount of inflation that occurred between 2000-2008, then for federal revenues to have kept up with inflation, revenues would have had to reach $2.81 billion in 2008. They were only $2.54 billion. In fact, federal revenues failed to keep up with inflation each and every year of the Bush administration. So federal revenues actually decreased every year of the Bush administration.
If you take the actual growth in GDP between 2000-2008, then federal revenues still failed to keep up with GDP. If you consider federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, then it was lower in every single year of the Bush administration than it was when he took office.
If you look at GDP for each presidential administration since World War II, then the Bush administration had the worst record:
GDP under recent presidents:
1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
Federal revenues under President Bush:
2000, $2.025B, 20.6% of GDP
2001, $1.991B, 19.5% of GDP
2002, $1.853B, 17.6% of GDP
2003, $1.782B, 16.2% of GDP
2004, $1.880B, 16.1% of GDP
2005, $2.153B, 17.3% of GDP
2006, $2.406B, 18.2% of GDP
2007, $2.568B, 18.5% of GDP
2008, $2.524B, 17.5% of GDP
Source please
Dave,
In addition to not providing a source, your numbers don’t say whether or not they’re adjusted for inflation. Seeing GDP under Carter increase by 3.25% immediately made all your numbers suspect. Out of the 16 quarters that comprised the Carter budgets, 9 of them were in or very close to recession. Carter’s average GDP growth was 2.69%. You are a very dishonest young man, Dave.
cluster said, “Aw c’mon Dave, what’s the matter? Can’t think of any examples of liberal policies that benefited everyone and not just a few? Neither can I, but you’re the liberal so I am sure you can think of some. Right?”
This is either incredibly dumb or incredibly dishonest. With cluster, probably both.
Let’s start with Social Security and Medicare. Each and every one of you B4V conservatives are either benefiting from these programs, or expect to in the future–and that includes you, Cluster. We know for a fact that RetiredSpook and NeoClown are happily cashing government checks today courtesy the socialist programs they claim to despise.
When you guys are called on it, you lamely claim that you’re merely receiving the benefits you paid for, or it’s too late to change anything in your case. You just wreak of hypocrisy.
You remind me of Mark Edward Noonan, who tells us all that we must make, mine and grow things, and yet he can’t be bothered because–according to him–it’s too late. BS. If you guys are gonna complain about the socialism you yourselves partake in, then have the balls to personally do something about it, like giving the money back. (Yes, as you all have pointed out over and over, you can donate money to the federal government.)
But you won’t. You just want other people to.
wattle, you simply lie. You invent scenarios that probably seem quite realistic in that feverswamp little brain of yours, and then you announce them as if they have any basis in reality.
In fact, you have no way of knowing who will or who will not benefit from Medicare, or Social Security. You just assume that everyone will. And in your tiny little bubble maybe everyone does.
Tell me, as you “know for a fact” that Spook and Neo are benefiting from Social Security—-have they yet taken out more than they put in? What would they have had if they had been able to invest their contributions themselves instead of being forced to let Uncle Sam piddle it away for about 1% interest on that money?
This is THEIR MONEY. It was taken from them, and now some of it is being returned, but in the meantime they have lost the use of that money and the increased return on it anyone but the government would have gotten.
Your entire post is so silly, so convoluted, so lacking in sense or reality, so REEKING (there is no such word as “wreak”) of surly resentment and irrational loathing, it is nothing more than mental garbage.
there is no such word as “wreak”
Actually, there is, but it means “inflict” as in “wreak havoc” not “smell” or “stink” as Watson used it. Let’s face it, is anyone surprised that Watson doesn’t know the meaning of words?
As usual, you are right, JR—I was focused on his wrong usage and spaced out “wreak havoc”.
As an aside, I once knew a mangler of the English language who loved to state that someone had “reaped havoc”. She would also claim that someone had “run rampid” over something.
But as someone who has made something of a big deal about the misuse of homonyms, I stand humbly corrected.
Watson,
Amazona nailed the obvious but let me reiterate. I don’t have a choice but to participate in Medicare and SS, and since both programs are headed towards insolvency, I would say that no, those programs won’t benefit me unless they are reformed of which democrats currently refuse. Secondly, I can do lot better with my own money if you would allow me to keep it.
watson, why do the rats cry bloody murder every time ss reform is brought up. I have paid into ss and medicare my whole life. I will never see a penny from either of these programs. I would love to opt out of both these programs.
Be nice if people like you would let me.
GMB, I think I know why the Left fights SS reform. For one thing, of course, it deprives them of control over all that money, which as we all know does not go into a “lockbox” but is dumped into the general fund where it is used at will, replaced by a bunch of IOU’s.
But the other reason is not only weird, it says pretty much all we need to know about the Left. It was explained to me by an ardent, though typically ignorant, Lefty, who indignantly responded to my question about why he would not want the SS deductions managed so they would have a much greater return. His response was, incredulous that I had not already realized this and been equally outraged by it, that in so doing a lot of people on Wall Street would just get richer.
When I asked if he was really willing to get a 1% return instead of five or six or seven times that much, just to keep stockbrokers from making money, his reply was “Of course!”
Just watch—every time the subject comes up, this is either up-front or just beneath the surface of the surly, resentful, peevish, RRL objections.
waspstooge
You just wreak of hypocrisy.
ROTFLMAO…………pot meet kettle…
“If you guys are gonna complain about the socialism you yourselves partake in, then have the balls to personally do something about it, like giving the money back.”
I am supposed to give my own money back? . I’ll think I’ll wait for Mr. Buffett to just pay the back taxes he owes first before I give you any more of my money. mmmmkay?
I think I’ll wait for Mr. Buffett to just pay the back taxes he owes first
GMB, funny story; my wife and I attended one of those retirement planning dinners the other night. The speaker was pretty dry, and people were on the verge of falling asleep. About a third of the way through his presentation, he said “you all know Warren Buffet, right?” There was no audience response, so I piped up, “well, not personally”, and got the biggest laugh of the evening. The speaker came over to our table afterwards and thanked me for waking the audience up.
We know for a fact that RetiredSpook and NeoClown are happily cashing government checks today courtesy the socialist programs they claim to despise.
Watson, you’re one of the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever come across. Let’s turn your scenario around just a little to put it in the proper perspective. Let’s say that during the 52 years I’ve paid into S.S., that it had been privatized and all the money went into a private account in a bank or investment company. Would you now be suggesting that Neo and I should now tell the bank or investment company that they can just keep the money, because that’s what you’re suggesting that we tell the government.
You see now what the problem is. Leftys like watson have no idea where “gubmint” money comes from. They have no idea that money has to be taken from someone else so it can be given to other people.
Unless you are charge of the federal reserve banking system that is. Then you can print an unlimited supply of worthless paper.
Just think about it. Our founding fathers had no problem loading, aiming, and firing the most modern military grade firearms at representatives of a lawfully instituted government over a relatively small tax on tea.
That and a long train of abuses that is.
Spook, the PL trolls here have no clue. They really see no difference between getting back some of your own money, which has been used by the government at a much lower interest rate than any investment would have offered and without your permission, and taking someone else’s money.
I notice that Dave tries to trivialize very real criticisms of Leftist redistributionist ideology by making fun of it, but all he is doing is reinforcing the observation that he has absolutely no idea of what the ideology of his chosen ‘side’ really is. His alliance is based on such petty and superficial emotion, he has to assume that all political decisions are equally flimsy and whimsical.
My my my….
Look at all those white faces.
http://tiny.cc/isy3fw
All those racist republicans….
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-relents-dc-school-choice-program/605586
GMB
MORE OPM for the 47% who pay for nothing…..
Ubamas claim to fame as a chicago community agitator?
WAR ZONE: 7 Killed, Dozens Wounded During Obama Visit to Chicago…
More killed in Chicago this year than in Afghanistan…
black panthers beware…………BLOWBACK and it aint pretty
dearborn Michigan
Screaming Anti-Islam Protesters Taunt Muslims With Pig’s Head: ‘You’re Going to Melt in the Fires of Hell!’
How many times is this waddy-jerk going to post the same discredited numbers?
How many times does he get to cut-n-paste without understanding the issues?
He says, “ federal revenues in real dollars decreased in each year of 2001, 2002 and 2003.”
Gee, you suppose that’s the reason they’re called the 2003 Tax Rate Reductions that caused “it did grow in actual dollars after that,” The 2001 rate reductions created the new 10% rate affecting the lowest paid taxpayers. Hence the limited effect until the 2003 rates.
Then he goes on to prattle “If you take the actual amount of inflation that occurred between 2000-2008,”
Since Bush didn’t take office in 2000, I’ll use inflation from 2001 – 2007 which was 2%/year; a very good record. In 2006 Dimocrats took over Congress and 2007-2008 Inflation rose to almost 4%. Interesting you want to use the 2008 inflation for your calculation from 2001 to 2007. Just a liar?
“Actual growth” in revenues during the period exceeded inflation unless you apply 2008 inflation to 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006 & 2007. Nice accounting trick, but you’d fail my class using such liberal logic.
His ignorance in full bloom he then declares; “GDP under recent presidents:”
And pastes a chart from a website he doesn’t understand;
Wrong! That should read “GDP annualized growth”, and by that standard, Obama’s Growth is negative; Odd isn’t it he left off the last line in that article;
”2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), -2.6%” That’s a minus, or an actual contraction. But, it’s only gotten worse for the Socialist in office; up to 2011 Obama is running around 1.2%
You also neglected to list the TOP FIVE in GDP growth over a five year period. :
1950, 8.7%, Harry Truman
1951, 7.7%, Harry Truman
1955, 7.2%, Dwight Eisenhower
1959, 7.2%, Dwight Eisenhower
1984, 7.2%, Ronald Reagan
To label waddy a half-wit is giving him twice the credit he deserves.
count
To label waddy a half-wit is giving him twice the credit he deserves
LOL
Latest Gallup Poll says that 66% of Americans are still blaming Bush for todays economy. And that includes 50% of all Republicans.
Well, this bears out Dave’s theory that if you say a lie often enough someone will believe it.
Hmmm, gallup also has Mitt and barky tied at 46% each and since gallup has a history of over sampling donkrats, who knows what the real percentages are.
Nice try john.
BTW, “john” will you please link us to the poll? I am curious to see the phrasing of the question. Is it “Who do you think is responsible for today’s economy?” or “Do you agree that Bush is responsible for today’s economy?” or something in between?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – About two-thirds of Americans believe Republican former U.S. President George W. Bush is responsible for the nation’s struggling economy, with a smaller percentage blaming Democratic President Barack Obama, a Gallup poll showed on Thursday.
About 68 percent of the more than 1,000 adults surveyed nationwide said Bush, who left office in January 2009, deserves a “moderate amount” or a “great deal” of the blame for the U.S. economic woes compared to 52 percent who pointed to his successor Obama, the poll found.
The results were released as Obama prepared to give a major economic speech later on Thursday as part of his campaign to win re-election on November 6. He is seeking to convince voters that his economic remedies are working and that his Republican rival Mitt Romney’s policies would trigger an economic crisis.
Poll respondents who identified themselves as Republicans were split, with 49 percent saying Bush deserved a moderate amount or great deal of the blame while 51 percent said Bush deserved not much of the blame or none at all. They expressed even more blame for Obama, however, with 83 percent holding him largely responsible for the state of the economy, the poll found.
Among Democrats, 90 percent blamed Bush for the weak economy and only 19 percent said Obama should carry much of the blame, according to the poll, conducted by telephone June 7 to 10.
“Republicans, in short, are significantly more willing to blame their most recent Republican president than are Democrats willing to blame Obama,” Gallup said.
“How much are George W. Bush and Barack Obama to blame for today’s economy?” In 2010, 80 % assigned some blame to Bush, but in 2011 that had dropped to 69%—and it is not broken down as to how much blame is assigned. On the other hand, blame for Obama rose from 32% in 2010 to 53% in 2011.
Gallup found a substantially wider gap in public perceptions of how much responsibility Bush and Obama each bore for the economy when it first asked the question in July 2009, the sixth month of Obama’s presidency. That narrowed by March 2010, caused mainly by a jump in the percentage blaming Obama a great deal or moderate amount, and has since changed relatively little. However, the results from a new Sept. 15-18 USA Today/Gallup poll are the first showing a majority of Americans, 53%, assigning significant blame to Obama. Forty-seven percent still say he is “not much” (27%) or “not at all” (20%) to blame.
In other words, the poll does not say what “john” says it does.
We will pause here for astonishment and surprise to run their course…..
No, what the poll says is that Republicans are far more honest and objective and less biased and partisan, willing to admit that Bush played some role (even a “moderate” role) in the economy we have today. The poll either never asked for more detail or has chosen not to reveal what it found.
And it says that Dems, at least those chosen for the poll, are gullible and undiscerning, merely accepting what their minders tell them, and being ruled by BDS and Obamamania.
Latest Gallup Poll says that 66% of Americans are still blaming Bush for todays economy. And that includes 50% of all Republicans.
Well, that settles it; I won’t be voting for that SOB Bush in November.
Spook, we should start a pool on how long the Left is going to run against Bush again this year.
ROTFLOL
Well you know John Gallup can’t be trusted unless they are saying something negative about Obama. These guys used to parrot Rasmussen poll numbers until they didn’t fit their ideological bent 100% of the time.
All those reporters interrupting Ronald Reagan. How could that ever be? Unless Ronald Reagan was black that is.
GMB
RR black?
I thought that was slic willy…the adulterous, perjurer drug head.
The “first black president”?
Latest Gallup Poll says that 66% of Americans are still blaming Bush for todays economy. And that includes 50% of all Republicans. – John
John, please tell me what the point of your post is. I get the stats and don’t necessarily disagree with them, but am curious as to even why you made the post, please elaborate.
Seems Dave has left the building.
Oh, he’ll be back. His schtick is to start off marginally sane, to draw people into what might be a discussion, and then to get deeper and deeper into the weeds, craving nothing but attention, which he evidently is used to getting by being outrageous and stupid rather than by having something of value to offer.
He gets his knuckles rapped, he slinks off, and then he resurfaces again with more silliness and more “LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!!” He seems to find it important to believe that people become angry and over-emotional at his comments, which is of course ridiculous as his comments are so fatuous and inane they couldn’t possibly prompt anything more than mild annoyance, and usually just an eyeroll before going on to something worthwhile.
The major pain has also slunk off after being challenged, on another thread:
Please do expand upon your concept of the powers of the presidency, for two reasons. One, I would like to see what you think the nation should look like under a Liberal president with the powers you think he should have, and two, I would like to put your answer into an archive so I can go back to it when you freak out about President Romney issuing a proclamation or executive order you don’t like.
You may have noticed the reluctance to actually commit to a specific form of government by these PL trolls, who much prefer to keep everything vague and airy, concentrating on generalities and attacks on a Right they understand as poorly as they do their own beloved Left.
Because once someone commits to an ideology, one has to explain it and defend it, which means examining its successes and failures objectively and not just by regurgitating tired old talking points.
The PL trolls don’t do this, preferring to just dart in with snarls and insults and the occasional reference to some slanted Lefty screed.
And the major pain knows that if she were to outline the powers she would like her beloved Obama to have, she will be up a tree when he is replaced and she is in the position of ranting and railing at far less egregious uses of presidential powers by his successor.
Because once someone commits to an ideology, one has to explain it and defend it, which means examining its successes and failures objectively and not just by regurgitating tired old talking points.
It used to be humorous, a couple hundred times ago, when the claim would be made that conservative governance (or rule as Dave described it) resulted in economic damage to the working class. While Detroit, as JR notes, is the poster child for the economic damage inflicted on the working class by Progressive economic policies, in truth, the poorest American cities have all been under Democrat control for decades.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
dave bloman
name them, give us their demographics, tell us what major city’s are with in them……or else your allegations are pure BS