RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues

RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 3:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Come on jester....how much debt under Obama/Palosi/Reed? Don't change the subject you brought up. How much under Boehner and Pelosi you mean? Dont be a dumbass while you are changing the subject you dont know anything about as usual. Reid doesn't really enter into money discussions.

mnottertail -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 3:11:57 PM)
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm Note the jump in debt at Borrow and Spend Republican takeover.

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 3:47:26 PM)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economic-slowdown-undercuts-obamas-bullish-claims/article/2563811

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 3:50:52 PM)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/29/obama-sequester-budget-house-democratic-issues-conference-boehner-mcconnell/22513925/

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 4:13:16 PM)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366599/inequality-does-not-matter-kevin-d-williamson

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 4:20:13 PM)
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/does-inequality-matter

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 6:04:03 PM)
What you really get from the article is that Hillary's in trouble. It doesn't make one wit of difference if Bill Gates has one billion dollars or sixty five billion dollars. In order for socialist math to work, they assume there is one bucket, or pie, of money. They then assume if Bill takes more, they get less. Which is a crock. What's happening here is that the NYT has just signaled its in the Presidential race. Just a couple of weeks after Hillary. So the rag main stream media is going to talk like the biggest problem in the world is what the Democrats have decided to run on this election cycle. The NYT is signaling Hillary that although they had to print stuff about her taking money for pay to play, theyre optimistic the leftist loonies won't care and they'll carry on with the message over the political season. The amusing part is knowing Hillary doesn't care a fig about income inequality but she'll mouth the party line. Actually, this is just an election season issue. During off season not even progressives discuss it.

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 7:16:47 PM)
Let's see: NYT's 957,00 subscribers. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/business/media/new-york-times-company-q1-earnings.html?_r=0 NOW has 500,000 members http://now.org/faq/how-many-members-does-now-currently-have/ NRA has 3,156,151 members. Why do we even listen to the NYT and its hackney questions only asked of leftist organizations like NOW. Shouldn't the NYT actually ask for information from organizations that really represent the people? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-nra-really-have-more-than-45-million-members/2013/02/07/06047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html Hardly a right wing rag.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 7:45:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nothing could be further from the truth. Kennedy stimulated our economy across a very wide front. Reagan was only concerned with Defense. Kennedy tried to cut taxes across the board. 'Republicans' rejected it. It didnt pass until LBJ. Reagan was only concerned with the highest rates. Kennedy was still in the Tariff era, and wanted to open reciprocal trade. Reagan was a full out free market communist. And the largest move to unfettered military-industrial complex, and monopolization and amoral corporatism took place under Reagan. Actually, to Reagan's credit, he removed a lot of loopholes (of course, over the years, Republicans have been creating new ones). He actually got rid of some very high rates, which no one was paying, which in turn re-patriated some money. Also, his massive borrow-and-spend defense spending, was actually a stimulus program somewhat similar to Obama's. In fact that massive defense spending help explode my own field of Information technology, as defense contractors helped spur development and use of Mini-computers, which in turn led to more Unix development, and 3-tiered client server apps. Not saying he planned that, just that it happened :)

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 7:56:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nothing could be further from the truth. Kennedy stimulated our economy across a very wide front. Reagan was only concerned with Defense. Kennedy tried to cut taxes across the board. 'Republicans' rejected it. It didnt pass until LBJ. Reagan was only concerned with the highest rates. Kennedy was still in the Tariff era, and wanted to open reciprocal trade. Reagan was a full out free market communist. And the largest move to unfettered military-industrial complex, and monopolization and amoral corporatism took place under Reagan. Actually, to Reagan's credit, he removed a lot of loopholes (of course, over the years, Republicans have been creating new ones). He actually got rid of some very high rates, which no one was paying, which in turn re-patriated some money. Also, his massive borrow-and-spend defense spending, was actually a stimulus program somewhat similar to Obama's. In fact that massive defense spending help explode my own field of Information technology, as defense contractors helped spur development and use of Mini-computers, which in turn led to more Unix development, and 3-tiered client server apps. Not saying he planned that, just that it happened :) Okay, I call truth. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/FederalBudget.html So my question is, why do we want to give more power to the Feds?

Sanity -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 8:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nothing could be further from the truth. Kennedy stimulated our economy across a very wide front. Reagan was only concerned with Defense. Kennedy tried to cut taxes across the board. 'Republicans' rejected it. It didnt pass until LBJ. Reagan was only concerned with the highest rates. Kennedy was still in the Tariff era, and wanted to open reciprocal trade. Reagan was a full out free market communist. And the largest move to unfettered military-industrial complex, and monopolization and amoral corporatism took place under Reagan. Actually, to Reagan's credit, he removed a lot of loopholes (of course, over the years, Republicans have been creating new ones). He actually got rid of some very high rates, which no one was paying, which in turn re-patriated some money. Also, his massive borrow-and-spend defense spending, was actually a stimulus program somewhat similar to Obama's. In fact that massive defense spending help explode my own field of Information technology, as defense contractors helped spur development and use of Mini-computers, which in turn led to more Unix development, and 3-tiered client server apps. Not saying he planned that, just that it happened :) Okay, I call truth. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/FederalBudget.html So my question is, why do we want to give more power to the Feds? Actually Reagan did consciously push for technological gains, aka "Star Wars" With Obama we got Solyndra [img]http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/polcartoon_obama_green.jpg[/img]

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:18:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nothing could be further from the truth. Kennedy stimulated our economy across a very wide front. Reagan was only concerned with Defense. Kennedy tried to cut taxes across the board. 'Republicans' rejected it. It didnt pass until LBJ. Reagan was only concerned with the highest rates. Kennedy was still in the Tariff era, and wanted to open reciprocal trade. Reagan was a full out free market communist. And the largest move to unfettered military-industrial complex, and monopolization and amoral corporatism took place under Reagan. Actually, to Reagan's credit, he removed a lot of loopholes (of course, over the years, Republicans have been creating new ones). He actually got rid of some very high rates, which no one was paying, which in turn re-patriated some money. Also, his massive borrow-and-spend defense spending, was actually a stimulus program somewhat similar to Obama's. In fact that massive defense spending help explode my own field of Information technology, as defense contractors helped spur development and use of Mini-computers, which in turn led to more Unix development, and 3-tiered client server apps. Not saying he planned that, just that it happened :) Okay, I call truth. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/FederalBudget.html So my question is, why do we want to give more power to the Feds? Actually Reagan did consciously push for technological gains, aka "Star Wars" With Obama we got Solyndra [img]http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/polcartoon_obama_green.jpg[/img] I was right in the middle of that. Lord I had people coming to the city where I ran O&M and promising the holly grail. I was particularly interested in a company developing new battery technology. I wanted the technology to work because I live off the grid. All of the guys coming to me were Phd phsiscists who lost there jobs in nuclear physics when Reagan shut done the Soviet regime and nuclear bombs were no longer vogue. No more nuke programs. It all went bust. All of the money Obama poured into it went to his leftist constituents. And nothing came out because the physics just isn't there no matter what the leftists proclaim.

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:22:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nothing could be further from the truth. Kennedy stimulated our economy across a very wide front. Reagan was only concerned with Defense. Kennedy tried to cut taxes across the board. 'Republicans' rejected it. It didnt pass until LBJ. Reagan was only concerned with the highest rates. Kennedy was still in the Tariff era, and wanted to open reciprocal trade. Reagan was a full out free market communist. And the largest move to unfettered military-industrial complex, and monopolization and amoral corporatism took place under Reagan. Actually, to Reagan's credit, he removed a lot of loopholes (of course, over the years, Republicans have been creating new ones). He actually got rid of some very high rates, which no one was paying, which in turn re-patriated some money. Also, his massive borrow-and-spend defense spending, was actually a stimulus program somewhat similar to Obama's. In fact that massive defense spending help explode my own field of Information technology, as defense contractors helped spur development and use of Mini-computers, which in turn led to more Unix development, and 3-tiered client server apps. Not saying he planned that, just that it happened :) Okay, I call truth. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/FederalBudget.html So my question is, why do we want to give more power to the Feds? Actually Reagan did consciously push for technological gains, aka "Star Wars" With Obama we got Solyndra [img]http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/polcartoon_obama_green.jpg[/img] I was right in the middle of that. Lord I had people coming to the city where I ran O&M and promising the holly grail. I was particularly interested in a company developing new battery technology. I wanted the technology to work because I live off the grid. All of the guys coming to me were Phd phsiscists who lost there jobs in nuclear physics when Reagan shut done the Soviet regime and nuclear bombs were no longer vogue. No more nuke programs. It all went bust. All of the money Obama poured into it went to his leftist constituents. And nothing came out because the physics just isn't there no matter what the leftists proclaim. Frankly, I still think the battery technology would have been benificial to me living off grid. But then system failed with the whole Obama weird Keynesian spending thing. Leftist economic theory just does not work....ever.

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:39:38 PM)
But, all that aside. This is a pathetic post designed by the rag main stream media to bolster the leftist political agenda while Hillary, reigning heir,is flagging in the polls. It keeps people like jester and mrrogers hard while adding nothing to the public discourse.

cloudboy -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:48:32 PM)
You guys have veered so far off the topic that your golf ball has left the course entirely. The OP is about facts. Try to keep your eye on the ball. Stop the googling (in an effort to find friendly sources) and try doing some day-to-day reading on social and economic news. If you want get serious, buy a book written by Joseph Stiglitz (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.) Curious if any of you even posses a library card.

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy You guys have veered so far off the topic that your golf ball has left the course entirely. The OP is about facts. Try to keep you eye on the ball. Stop the googling (in an effort to find friendly sources) and try doing some day-to-day reading on social and economic news. If you want get serious, by a book written by Joseph Stiglitz (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.) Wow, didn't like facts. Didn't prove yourbpointnof view?

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy You guys have veered so far off the topic that your golf ball has left the course entirely. The OP is about facts. Try to keep your eye on the ball. Stop the googling (in an effort to find friendly sources) and try doing some day-to-day reading on social and economic news. If you want get serious, buy a book written by Joseph Stiglitz (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.) Curious if any of you even posses a library card. So, jimmy carter, al gore and Ovama all receives a noble prize right along with Asser Arafat (sp) for being socialists and we should agree?

cloudboy -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:54:53 PM)
I could ask you to stop posting gibberish, and I could also ask a bumble bee to fly in a straight line.

HunterCA -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (4/30/2015 9:56:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I could ask you to stop posting gibberish, and I could also ask a bumble bee to fly in a straight line. Yes, you could and you're intellectual effort would be the same. Light to minuscule.

Sanity -> RE: Income Inequality is costing the US on Social Issues (5/1/2015 5:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I could ask you to stop posting gibberish, and I could also ask a bumble bee to fly in a straight line. Rather than bemoan the natural thread drift... Why not try to defend the copy & paste propaganda you got from that dying, gasping left wing rag you like so much Tell us again how much you and your propaganda organ hate the USA for being a lazy stupid backwater third world country Because we have failed to go communist

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875