|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 18, 2010 6:37:39 GMT -8
Incidentally, I have seen him, in person, mentally disrobing a tea party imbecile. It was fun. Yep it is fun. I have had the same problem for years. Anytime I see a darn good looking woman, I always mentally disrobe her. They look so much better that way. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2010 6:58:23 GMT -8
I lost track of what this was about, but does anyone dispute that with 40 Million on food stamps and the rise in the number of those below the poverty line under Obamanomics, that Obama and his policies are a failure and getting worse? The significance of those rats crawling around on those people went over my head. The idea that liberals do want our guns and a much larger chunk of our money to inefficiently spread around does not go over any thinking persons head nor does the connection between poor cities and Democrats. It is about 44 million poor. If you will remember, this recession is George Bush's. Obama is cleaning up after him. That is what the polls say most people think. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091602698.html?hpid=topnewsObama owns this economy and every move he makes just deepens the problems. He is himself and has surrounded himself with economic nitwits. Neither Obama nor many of his advisers have ever run business or worked a job. The only poll that really counts is about 45 days away. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2010 7:03:02 GMT -8
Incidentally, I have seen him, in person, mentally disrobing a tea party imbecile. It was fun. Yep it is fun. I have had the same problem for years. Anytime I see a darn good looking woman, I always mentally disrobe her. They look so much better that way. If I get what you are saying correct, that guy Inslee is a little light in the loafers. Do you think that is what Waztec was alluding to? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 18, 2010 7:14:15 GMT -8
Obama owns this economy and every move he makes just deepens the problems. He is himself and has surrounded himself with economic nitwits. Neither Obama nor many of his advisers have ever run business or worked a job. The only poll that really counts is about 45 days away. We are just going to have to disagree on this one, my friend. Obama has worked to fix the problem during the last year and one half , but the Republicans would rather refer to him as some kind of neo-anti colonial foreigner than help fix the crisis. The fact of the matter is, Bush caused this with his extensive deregulation regime. His tax plan helped make income more unequal and actual wages went down during his administration. The economic condition we face was set in motion during the reign of "old twenty mule team borax spokesperson" thirty years ago. Obama can hardly be expected to fix such a longstanding economic problem when the opposition insists on running for office while failing to help govern. Fixing our current economic mess and getting people back to work is a bi partisan issue. Lets stop talking about masturbation without love and start doing something about our economy. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 18, 2010 7:36:58 GMT -8
Yep it is fun. I have had the same problem for years. Anytime I see a darn good looking woman, I always mentally disrobe her. They look so much better that way. If I get what you are saying correct, that guy Inslee is a little light in the loafers. Do you think that is what Waztec was alluding to? Nice try. The Tea party emperors have no mental clothes and the exposure has damaged them. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 18, 2010 7:40:23 GMT -8
Incidentally, I have seen him, in person, mentally disrobing a tea party imbecile. It was fun. Yep it is fun. I have had the same problem for years. Anytime I see a darn good looking woman, I always mentally disrobe her. They look so much better that way. You are better off than I. All I think when I see a nice young thing is: "Forget it, if she calls you grandpa its gonna feel like Lake Michigan in January"  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2010 8:00:14 GMT -8
Obama owns this economy and every move he makes just deepens the problems. He is himself and has surrounded himself with economic nitwits. Neither Obama nor many of his advisers have ever run business or worked a job. The only poll that really counts is about 45 days away. We are just going to have to disagree on this one, my friend. Obama has worked to fix the problem during the last year and one half , but the Republicans would rather refer to him as some kind of neo-anti colonial foreigner than help fix the crisis. The fact of the matter is, Bush caused this with his extensive deregulation regime. His tax plan helped make income more unequal and actual wages went down during his administration. The economic condition we face was set in motion during the reign of "old twenty mule team borax spokesperson" thirty years ago. Obama can hardly be expected to fix such a longstanding economic problem when the opposition insists on running for office while failing to help govern. Fixing our current economic mess and getting people back to work is a bi partisan issue. Lets stop talking about masturbation without love and start doing something about our economy. You are right! We will never agree on this item. I think we will have trouble on your last paragraph as well. I don't want to talk about it even with love. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2010 8:01:03 GMT -8
If I get what you are saying correct, that guy Inslee is a little light in the loafers. Do you think that is what Waztec was alluding to? Nice try. The Tea party emperors have no mental clothes and the exposure has damaged them. Just having a little fun! |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 18, 2010 8:06:05 GMT -8
Nice try. The Tea party emperors have no mental clothes and the exposure has damaged them. Just having a little fun! I know. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 18, 2010 13:20:18 GMT -8
>>>But my intelligent, stubborn friend, bull$#!+ is alive and personified in the corporeal form of Angle, O'Donnell, Payloins, Miller, Paul, etc. They are walking, talking piles of it. Mice have been engineered to have human brains, you know. The civil rights act is wrong and should be repealed. British Petroleum was horribly abused and intimidated to clean a mess that was everyone's fault but theirs. Its very naughty to flog your dolphin unless you are in love with it. Do away with the Department of Education! I can see Russia from here and they fly over, don't you know. It was supposed to stink! I got a degree from Farley Dickinson about 17 years ago. By any standard, any standard mind you, the statements above are either outright lies or absolutely and painfully stupid.<<< WE AGREE!!! The statements are yours, and they are exactly as you describe. e.g.www.slate.com/id/2200155/blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/01/adiz-zy-about-sarah/print/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005512-503544.html |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 18, 2010 15:58:23 GMT -8
res ipsa loquitur:  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 18, 2010 17:31:15 GMT -8
res ipsa loquitur: All that is is confirmation that the Obama administration has continued the spending programs started by the Bush administration in an effort to try to spend the economy back to solvency. It did not work for Bush and it is not working for Obama. That spending is of no worry. The money comes out of nowhere and it can disappear into nowhere if we ask the FED to forgive the debt. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 18, 2010 19:56:26 GMT -8
res ipsa loquitur: Just to be difficult, I might suggest that Bush's deficits are a fact and they resulted during an expansion of the economy. Currently we are recovering from a terrible slowdown, where one might reasonably expect higher deficits. The main point I want to make, though, is that Obama's deficits have not yet occurred. What you posted is a maybe. I realize it is a small difference. Excoriate him when the deficits occur. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 19, 2010 15:49:36 GMT -8
>>>The main point I want to make, though, is that Obama's deficits have not yet occurred. What you posted is a maybe. I realize it is a small difference. Excoriate him when the deficits occur.<<<waztec Nice dodge, but I'm sure a genius like you would be aware of the fact that deficits from FY'08 onward are the responsibility of the Demagogue Congress. I've said it before, and I will enthusiastically join you in condemning the evil Booosh for not wielding his veto pen after the douche-bag became speaker and got control of that part of our governing class where all spending authorization originates. Do you think "The One" is going to become fiscally responsible and put a stop to the reckless spending? I've not seen one scintilla of evidence that he will. And by the way.... where are all the protesters? You know, the anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-Patriot Act, anti-gummint surveillance, anti-Gitmo, anti-rendition, anti-everything Booosh did, while "The One" has doubled down on all that stuff? (crickets) They don't give a crap about any of that stuff. Never did. All they ever cared about was getting politicians in office who will promise to give them "free stuff". And all the politicians care about is preserving their power and perks. (here is what a douche-bag looks like):  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 20, 2010 16:26:24 GMT -8
>>>The main point I want to make, though, is that Obama's deficits have not yet occurred. What you posted is a maybe. I realize it is a small difference. Excoriate him when the deficits occur.<<<waztec Nice dodge, but I'm sure a genius like you would be aware of the fact that deficits from FY'08 onward are the responsibility of the Demagogue Congress. I've said it before, and I will enthusiastically join you in condemning the evil Booosh for not wielding his veto pen after the douche-bag became speaker and got control of that part of our governing class where all spending authorization originates. Do you think "The One" is going to become fiscally responsible and put a stop to the reckless spending? I've not seen one scintilla of evidence that he will. And by the way.... where are all the protesters? You know, the anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-Patriot Act, anti-gummint surveillance, anti-Gitmo, anti-rendition, anti-everything Booosh did, while "The One" has doubled down on all that stuff? (crickets) They don't give a crap about any of that stuff. Never did. All they ever cared about was getting politicians in office who will promise to give them "free stuff". And all the politicians care about is preserving their power and perks. (here is what a douche-bag looks like): My mother was the genius. I am an excellent example of regression to the mean. (Or it was the old man! ) It amazes me how we can be having this discussion given the fact that we went through this in the thirties and the Republican response sucked the greenie wienie then too. Republicans like to repeat the same solutions for every problem. It does not matter whether they work or not. But, actually fixing a problem has never been their goal, has it? Bush could have vetoed anything he didn't agree with. He did not do that. The fact of the matter is that his tax cuts and wars are what did us in. And he did do us in. Budget cutting now will put more people out of work and reduce demand. Which, not surprisingly, will lower the tax receipts and increase the deficit. It should come as no surprise that the downturn reduced tax receipts. Not to worry though. The Republicans will stone wall extension of the middle class portion of the tax cuts in an attempt to continue their "hand job" to the rich (O'Donnell, the gift that keeps on giving!) and we will all end up paying higher rates. And that is probably the right result, anyway. That will help the deficit more effectively than cutting government services and entitlements. And, given the in-elasticity of demand accompanying high income earners, it will not significantly stifle demand. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 20, 2010 16:48:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 23, 2010 10:39:46 GMT -8
The reason we didn't explode out of this recession like we did the rest is due to the government. The government could have spent much less and got much better results. But they wanted to create government jobs and not private sector jobs. All the money they spent was unleveraged. That is the problem. The incredible amount of money they spent also squeezed out small business from getting capital, and their other polices created uncertainty. Spending much less money but using leverage and creating a stable tax and regulation base, the economy would be not only recovered by now but booming.
There is a point where increasing the tax rates lowers the governments income. That is the laffer curve. Especially during a recession we should be on the left side of the peak. Business is the way to make jobs and prosperity - not government. We need leaders who will let business do it, instead of tying them up with excess taxes and regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 23, 2010 18:26:40 GMT -8
The reason we didn't explode out of this recession like we did the rest is due to the government. The government could have spent much less and got much better results. But they wanted to create government jobs and not private sector jobs. All the money they spent was unleveraged. That is the problem. The incredible amount of money they spent also squeezed out small business from getting capital, and their other polices created uncertainty. Spending much less money but using leverage and creating a stable tax and regulation base, the economy would be not only recovered by now but booming.
There is a point where increasing the tax rates lowers the governments income. That is the laffer curve. Especially during a recession we should be on the left side of the peak. Business is the way to make jobs and prosperity - not government. We need leaders who will let business do it, instead of tying them up with excess taxes and regulations. I disagree with you - totally, completely and beyond any convincing otherwise. Did any of you people take any of the outstanding economics classes offered at SDSU? Business is sitting on tons capital they won't spend, because there is no demand. Government had to step in to create demand, because your heroes will not do it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 23, 2010 20:03:21 GMT -8
The reason we didn't explode out of this recession like we did the rest is due to the government. The government could have spent much less and got much better results. But they wanted to create government jobs and not private sector jobs. All the money they spent was unleveraged. That is the problem. The incredible amount of money they spent also squeezed out small business from getting capital, and their other polices created uncertainty. Spending much less money but using leverage and creating a stable tax and regulation base, the economy would be not only recovered by now but booming.
There is a point where increasing the tax rates lowers the governments income. That is the laffer curve. Especially during a recession we should be on the left side of the peak. Business is the way to make jobs and prosperity - not government. We need leaders who will let business do it, instead of tying them up with excess taxes and regulations. I disagree with you - totally, completely and beyond any convincing otherwise. Did any of you people take any of the outstanding economics classes offered at SDSU? Business is sitting on tons capital they won't spend, because there is no demand. Government had to step in to create demand, because your heroes will not do it. You are completely wrong. No one will invest when you have an unstable government in power. Business would be crazy to expand till tax, fiscal and monetary policies are stable and government spending is reined in. Government spending is too inefficient to do much good. When it appears certain that Congress will turn Conservative and Obama will be neutered, you might see some improvement in the economy led by the private sector. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2010 20:51:23 GMT -8
The reason we didn't explode out of this recession like we did the rest is due to the government. The government could have spent much less and got much better results. But they wanted to create government jobs and not private sector jobs. All the money they spent was unleveraged. That is the problem. The incredible amount of money they spent also squeezed out small business from getting capital, and their other polices created uncertainty. Spending much less money but using leverage and creating a stable tax and regulation base, the economy would be not only recovered by now but booming.
There is a point where increasing the tax rates lowers the governments income. That is the laffer curve. Especially during a recession we should be on the left side of the peak. Business is the way to make jobs and prosperity - not government. We need leaders who will let business do it, instead of tying them up with excess taxes and regulations. I disagree with you - totally, completely and beyond any convincing otherwise. Did any of you people take any of the outstanding economics classes offered at SDSU? Business is sitting on tons capital they won't spend, because there is no demand. Government had to step in to create demand, because your heroes will not do it. So government has stepped it to the tune of a trillion dollars and guess what? Still no demand. By your own measure, Obama's policies have failed. What next? Another trillion? How about 5 trillion. How about raising the tax rate to 75% on all income above $75K in order to "pay" for it? Maybe you need to go back to your economics books and figure out what "demand" is. |
|
