You are as stupid as the rocks in Trumps head strikeout

Posted by moy23 on 11/27/2017 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/27/2017 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Well, that’s sort of true. The recovery was slow because his policies were roadblocked or, at least, had to be implemented in a less optimal way.

A jobs/infrastructure bill would have been a HUUUGE help. But he couldn’t get it through Congress.

Spreading the recovery spending out among people with lower incomes would have been a hell of a lot better than concentrating it on banks.

But that’s what happened. And, without a major world war to jump start demand like we had during the depression, the recovery was slow. But we recovered.

Lol. In 8 years Oblunder outspent the sum of all 43 presidents before him.

What did he say about Bush? "Taking out a credit card in the name of the American people is unpatriotic." And then he goes and almost triples our national debt. What an unpatriotic hypocrite.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/27/2017 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/27/2017 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/27/2017 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/27/2017 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/27/2017 6:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/26/2017 8:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/25/2017 8:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/25/2017 3:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/25/2017 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/25/2017 10:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/24/2017 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/24/2017 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Moy - Explain why pulling back net neutrality and raising the military budget is a good thing please.

Opens the internet up to free market forces and I can afford a 'fast lane'. There will be more structural innovation (i.e, faster WiFi, Fiber, etc) with ISPs in control and with less regulation. The rest of the internet will be just fine without net neutrality.

And a big military is how we show strength as a nation... Unlike that kumbaya, we lead from behind, oblunder bullshit.

It's that strength that buys us our daily freedoms that other countries don't have and it gets us a better seat at the bargaining table when we need it.

I would assume that pulling back net neutrality CLOSES UP the free market, because big companies can structurally block smaller ones. Net neutrality is what is great about the internet! Pulling it back removes the essence of what makes the internet unique.

We DO have a big military, and we do have a lot of strength! I am not complaining that we more than double China's military spending. But isn't it a BIT much when we spend more than the next 10 countries combined? And most of that goes to failed or failing uber-expensive projects that are realistically never actually going to be used. I HATE how much we spend on murder.

There are still laws (not net neutrality laws) that apply to ISPs that protect smaller companies. For instance there are laws regarding collusion, discrimination, etc. The internet was great well before net neutrality. The HUGE gains for removing net neutrality regulations are to the free market competitiveness that will take place for the infrastructure of the internet.... How and how fast it can be delivered, not what's delivered.

I'm all for spending defense money more wisely but if the government pays for anything this is the #1 most important thing to pay for. It's our military that allows us the freedoms we enjoy in this country and like I said earlier it also gets us the best seat at the bargaining table on world issues.

As far as paying more than the next 10 countries combined.... The same could be said about our healthcare spending yet I don't hear you clamoring about that. At least the defense spending is doing it's job, keeping us safe. The same can't be said about healthcare which has only gotten worse. We're ranked #1 in the world for military, #37 for healthcare.

Yeah, but pulling back net neutrality seems like it would give companies easy ways to make monopolies, yes?

Again, I am not complaining that we spend a TON on military. But seriously, raising it? Wouldn't that just enable Congress to splurge on useless stuff because we have so much money to throw away?

I would much rather spend more on healthcare than military. I would rather my country be known as the country that has the highest standard of living in the world over the country with the most fighter planes or something. I am all for spending more WISELY on healthcare. I don't see the relevance of bringing up healthcare in this debate though.

We are known as the country with the highest standard of living in the world.

Finland?

Youth Unemployment Rate in Finland decreased to 20.40 percent in October from 20.50 percent in September of 2017. Youth Unemployment Rate in Finland averaged 20.95 percent from 1988 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 35.70 percent in February of 1994 and a record low of 8.30 percent in September of 1989.




****I'd rather have opportunity over standard of living. American is known as the land of opportunity.

Thanks, Obama!

It's capitalism and free markets... Combined with individual rights and freedoms that make this the land of opportunity. That's much bigger than any president, even those like Obama who prefer this country be more like socialist France.




Youth Unemployment Rate in France decreased to 22.50 percent in September from 22.70 percent in August of 2017. Youth Unemployment Rate in France averaged 20.18 percent from 1983 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 25.70 percent in December of 2012 and a record low of 14.50 percent in February of 1983.

Obama wasn’t socialist.

Yes he is. He just doesn't have the balls to say it like Bernie.

If he was actually socialist, he did a really good job of completely hiding it the entire time he was in office.

Republicans have a vise grip on power in Oklahoma, and they are in no imminent danger of losing it.

In a state that gave 65 percent of its vote to Donald Trump a year ago, the GOP controls pretty much everything: the governorship and every statewide office, both U.S. Senate seats, all five House seats. The state legislature is almost laughably one-sided; Republicans have super-majorities of more than 70 percent of the seats in each chamber.

But in the last four months, voters have repudiated those Republicans running in Oklahoma at the polls. Democrats have captured four state legislative seats held by the GOP, two in special elections for the House and two for the Senate. The most recent—and perhaps the most surprising—win occurred last week, when a 26-year-old lesbian Democrat named Allison Ikley-Freeman edged out the Republican candidate by 31 votes in a conservative state House district near Tulsa that went heavily for Trump in 2016. Democrats may have a chance to make an even bigger statement in a few months, when a vacancy caused by the likely Senate confirmation of Representative Jim Bridenstine to be NASA administrator could trigger a special congressional election in the district that includes Tulsa.

Officials in both parties attribute the Democrats’ run in part to the party’s motivation to fight back in the Trump era, scandals that have forced Republican legislators to resign, and the low-turnout quirkiness of special elections. But the overriding factor is likely a budget crisis that has starved funding for Oklahoma’s schools, resulting in a teacher shortage and prompting more than one-quarter of the state’s districts to hold classes only four days a week.

“The people are just not happy,” former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, a Republican, told me in a phone interview. “Government appears dysfunctional, and government officials appear unwilling to solve the problems of the state and the nation. And there will be hell to pay.”

B_L, do you think Forbes is a reputable source on economics?

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/27/2017 8:31:00 PM (view original):
B_L, do you think Forbes is a reputable source on economics?

Eh, they’ve put out garbage plenty of times.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/20/is-president-obama-really-a-socialist-lets-analyze-obamanomics/amp/

This article, for the most part, sums up why I say that Obama is socialist and why I feel that he did a poor job of hiding it. It is an opinion article written with a heavy slant to the right, but the facts that are used are accurate. I don't agree with all of the authors opinions, but I do agree with the majority.

The fact that Obama’s wanted to adjust the progressive tax rates doesn’t make him socialist. That article was a dumpster fire. If you want to make an argument, I’m down to listen, but I’m not going to argue point by point with some link. I’m assuming you’d feel the same way if I linked MotherJones saying Obama wasn’t socialist.

Trump funded Project Veritas proven to be the fake news he's always blathering about.

I have to say though, using the slur Pocahontos in front of the Andrew Jackson portrait was pretty nifty. Well played sir.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/27/2017 4:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/27/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/27/2017 9:47:00 AM (view original):
I don't think a bunch of minimum wage jobs and more regulation, which hampered small business, gave us more opportunity. Thanks Obama for hurting America!

Any economic results we’re seeing now are a result of things Obama did.

Nope. More regulation hurts businesses. We're seeing economic recovery now because his regs are being rolled back. Obama stifled any natural growth.

but if the economy was tanking it would be Obama's fault, right?

DOL Officially Delays Start of Fiduciary Rule

Rep. Gutierrez, longtime advocate for immigration reform, to retire, Fox News confirms

^^^^Thank God!!! This guy was an embarrassment to Illinois (and that's hard to do with how embarrassing this state already is). Now if only madigan and durbin do the same!!