goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 01, 2011, 09:50:15 PM

Title: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 01, 2011, 09:50:15 PM
various news sources reporting Bin Laden is dead. 

Rot
In
Hell, p.o.s.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 01, 2011, 10:02:39 PM
"Oh, shiite!  mohammed never said anything about male virgins"
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on May 01, 2011, 10:06:46 PM
Drone. Got is family too.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 01, 2011, 10:13:04 PM
Various news sources now reporting the delay in the WH announcement has to do with getting the teleprompter up and running.   :facepalm:

^^^
not joking, but a joke nonetheless
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 01, 2011, 10:20:37 PM
Various news sources now reporting the delay in the WH announcement has to do with getting the teleprompter up and running.   :facepalm:

^^^
not joking, but a joke nonetheless

Still in mourning over Hubert J. Schlafly Jr's death.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 01, 2011, 10:29:08 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 01, 2011, 10:31:27 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 01, 2011, 10:35:28 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 01, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
Great Theater for the Sheeple.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 01, 2011, 10:47:52 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 01, 2011, 10:49:05 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.

keep your fingers crossed, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  every skoal chewing hillbilly down here is ready to tattoo the words Barry Obama on their flabby biceps. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 01, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.

keep your fingers crossed, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  every skoal chewing hillbilly down here is ready to tattoo the words Barry Obama on their flabby biceps. 

Its the economy, stupid.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 01, 2011, 10:51:03 PM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 01, 2011, 10:55:33 PM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

Its the economy, stupid.


Its also bedtime, stupid.



 :zzz:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 01, 2011, 10:59:49 PM
The head freedom fighter was killed by dirt-bag U.S. military douche bags thet don't deserve to live.   :cry:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 01, 2011, 11:07:16 PM
The head freedom fighter was killed by dirt-bag U.S. military douche bags thet don't deserve to live.   :cry:

very true.

but Hussein is a great man, love him.  Couldn't have done this without him.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: theKSU on May 01, 2011, 11:24:15 PM
Congrats to all the non-retards who are celebrating tonight. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: jtksu on May 01, 2011, 11:33:25 PM
If it had been a pred strike, I could have told you like 5 minutes after it happened.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 01, 2011, 11:41:42 PM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

Its the economy, stupid.


Its also bedtime, stupid.



 :zzz:



It's I-t-apostrophe-s, stupid.

Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 01, 2011, 11:43:58 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: slackcat on May 02, 2011, 05:26:27 AM
Evidence????

 :dunno:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 02, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey respect, every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.



The economy is finally starting to recover from the recession that Bush put us in, you pig-faced c*nt. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: CNS on May 02, 2011, 09:09:22 AM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

To be fair, the gun shot/hell yeah prob happens often down there right? 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OK_Cat on May 02, 2011, 09:10:44 AM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

To be fair, the gun shot/hell yeah prob happens often down there right? 

well yeah, but normally it's followed with "eff niggers!" or "boomer!"
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 02, 2011, 09:14:48 AM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

Its the economy, stupid.


Its also bedtime, stupid.



 :zzz:



It's I-t-apostrophe-s, stupid.



Its the internet, stupid, not a rough ridin' doctoral thesis.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 02, 2011, 11:07:14 AM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey respect, every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.



The economy is finally starting to recover from the recession that Bush put us in, you pig-faced c*nt. 

It is?  :confused:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 02, 2011, 11:14:33 AM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

Its the economy, stupid.


Its also bedtime, stupid.



 :zzz:



It's I-t-apostrophe-s, stupid.



Its the internet, stupid, not a rough ridin' doctoral thesis.


lol @ using that as your fallback when you can't remember super basic rules of grammar that take literally less one second to execute. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 02, 2011, 11:17:24 AM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

Its the economy, stupid.


Its also bedtime, stupid.



 :zzz:



It's I-t-apostrophe-s, stupid.



Its the internet, stupid, not a rough ridin' doctoral thesis.


lol @ using that as your fallback when you can't remember super basic rules of grammar that take literally less one second to execute. 

How long does it take to type "than"?


Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 02, 2011, 11:19:11 AM
i literally heard someone shoot a gun outside and yell "hell yeah, we love you barrak hussein!"

sorry, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  4 more years of Hussein!

Its the economy, stupid.


Its also bedtime, stupid.



 :zzz:



It's I-t-apostrophe-s, stupid.



Its the internet, stupid, not a rough ridin' doctoral thesis.


lol @ using that as your fallback when you can't remember super basic rules of grammar that take literally less one second to execute. 

How long does it take to type "than"?




 :lol: Boom, roasted.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 02, 2011, 11:19:43 AM
Quote
How long does it take to type "than"?


4x longer than it takes to type an apostrophe.    :cheers: to you for noticing my error, and  :cheers: to me for manning up and admitting that was a simple mistake instead of being all, "Totally, I know how to do it in real life, I just don't because it's the internet! Totally!"
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: kougar24 on May 02, 2011, 01:30:38 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey respect, every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.



The economy is finally starting to recover from the recession that Bush put us in, you pig-faced c*nt. 

:facepalm:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Bookcat on May 02, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Drone. Got is family too.

nope.

Call of Duty first person shooter type mission.

Man, those guys rock.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 02, 2011, 01:47:24 PM
Quote
How long does it take to type "than"?


4x longer than it takes to type an apostrophe.    :cheers: to you for noticing my error, and  :cheers: to me for manning up and admitting that was a simple mistake instead of being all, "Totally, I know how to do it in real life, I just don't because it's the internet! Totally!"

I just didn't feel like doing it.  That's why I went to bed moments later.

It's probably not 4 times longer.  T-H-A-N are much easier keystroke reaches than ', especially the way I type.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dave Wooderson on May 02, 2011, 04:31:57 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey respect, every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.



The economy is finally starting to recover from the recession that Bush put us in, you pig-faced c*nt. 

:facepalm:

This on so many levels.  Economically challenged they are on the liberal side of things. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2011, 06:08:42 PM
seems like Barack Hussein just locked up 4 more years.   :emawkid:

Mods, can we rename the politics board to "4 More Years of Barry" or something like that?  TIA

Its the economy, stupid.

hey respect, every gun-slinging redneck republican is prepared to guzzle Barry's balls tonight.  He's a lock for 4 more years.

Its the economy, stupid.



The economy is finally starting to recover from the recession that Bush put us in, you pig-faced c*nt. 

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There isn't one credible economist/financier/high school educated person who believes this.  But if BMW says so. . .   :facepalm:

Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 02, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
Maybe if you Republican retards didn't limit yourselves to right wing radio and simply regurgitate the same old sh*t every day in your echo chambers, you'd realize that the economy is steadily improving.  


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events)

Quote
Sales increased for the third consecutive quarter, profit margins continued to improve and the number of economists whose firms increased spending over the previous quarter held steady. Nearly all of the 72 economists surveyed, about 94 percent, now expect the economy to grow at least 2 percent in 2011.


And let's not forget that it was your dumbf*ck of a president (Bush) who got us into this entire mess in the first place.  A freshman taking Econ 101 could have done a better job running the economy than Bush.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: jtksu on May 02, 2011, 06:11:58 PM
An a freshman taking econ 101 would know that the president doesn't run the economy.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 02, 2011, 06:19:00 PM
An a freshman taking econ 101 would know that the president doesn't run the economy.


 :facepalm:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: pike on May 02, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
Maybe if you Republican retards didn't limit yourselves to right wing radio and simply regurgitate the same old sh*t every day in your echo chambers, you'd realize that the economy is steadily improving.  


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events)

Quote
Sales increased for the third consecutive quarter, profit margins continued to improve and the number of economists whose firms increased spending over the previous quarter held steady. Nearly all of the 72 economists surveyed, about 94 percent, now expect the economy to grow at least 2 percent in 2011.


And let's not forget that it was your dumbf*ck of a president (Bush) who got us into this entire mess in the first place.  A freshman taking Econ 101 could have done a better job running the economy than Bush.

And don't forget about those butt holes Greenspan and Bernanke who set the interest rate by rolling dice. There a huge reason for the mess we're in.

End the Fed  :ck:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 02, 2011, 06:24:04 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.







Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 02, 2011, 06:27:47 PM
Maybe if you Republican respects didn't limit yourselves to right wing radio and simply regurgitate the same old sh*t every day in your echo chambers, you'd realize that the economy is steadily improving.  


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events)

Quote
Sales increased for the third consecutive quarter, profit margins continued to improve and the number of economists whose firms increased spending over the previous quarter held steady. Nearly all of the 72 economists surveyed, about 94 percent, now expect the economy to grow at least 2 percent in 2011.


And let's not forget that it was your dumbf*ck of a president (Bush) who got us into this entire mess in the first place.  A freshman taking Econ 101 could have done a better job running the economy than Bush.

And don't forget about those butt holes Greenspan and Bernanke who set the interest rate by rolling dice. There a huge reason for the mess we're in.

End the Fed  :ck:



Bush's fiscal policy along with two wars had a lot to do with the recession.  There's simply no denying it. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 02, 2011, 06:30:15 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: pike on May 02, 2011, 06:33:27 PM
Maybe if you Republican respects didn't limit yourselves to right wing radio and simply regurgitate the same old sh*t every day in your echo chambers, you'd realize that the economy is steadily improving.  


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events)

Quote
Sales increased for the third consecutive quarter, profit margins continued to improve and the number of economists whose firms increased spending over the previous quarter held steady. Nearly all of the 72 economists surveyed, about 94 percent, now expect the economy to grow at least 2 percent in 2011.


And let's not forget that it was your dumbf*ck of a president (Bush) who got us into this entire mess in the first place.  A freshman taking Econ 101 could have done a better job running the economy than Bush.

And don't forget about those butt holes Greenspan and Bernanke who set the interest rate by rolling dice. There a huge reason for the mess we're in.

End the Fed  :ck:



Bush's fiscal policy along with two wars had a lot to do with the recession.  There's simply no denying it. 

Well yeah, and it still does. LOL at anyone who preaches "balance the budget" and "let's fight a trillion dollar war" at the same time *cough* Tea Party *cough*

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

But this hardly worked, just as the bank bailouts were used by the banks to cover their asses on other assets instead of freeing up the credit market like they were supposed to  :chainsaw:

Barry's economic policies have been abysmal as well, which further proves that there really is no choice for who runs our country anymore
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 02, 2011, 06:36:42 PM
Maybe if you Republican retards didn't limit yourselves to right wing radio and simply regurgitate the same old sh*t every day in your echo chambers, you'd realize that the economy is steadily improving.  


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events)

Quote
Sales increased for the third consecutive quarter, profit margins continued to improve and the number of economists whose firms increased spending over the previous quarter held steady. Nearly all of the 72 economists surveyed, about 94 percent, now expect the economy to grow at least 2 percent in 2011.


And let's not forget that it was your dumbf*ck of a president (Bush) who got us into this entire mess in the first place.  A freshman taking Econ 101 could have done a better job running the economy than Bush.

2% growth is miserable while we still have 9.5% reported unemployment. We need to be in the 5-7% range to make any progress.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 02, 2011, 06:37:39 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

There was only the bail out prior to Barry taking office, and Democrats and Barry supported that fully.  Prior to the Democrats taking control in 2006 they were on both floors of Congress shrieking about budget deficits and mounting debt, and they accelerated it a near exponential rate upon taking control.

The current administrations method of "stimulus" is to ensure that the military-industrial-intelligence complex gets funded at record levels, while more Americans than ever live off the government dole.







Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 02, 2011, 07:07:41 PM
Yeah, 'Pad, that's exactly why the Democrats wanted to cut the defense budget, while the Republicans wanted to cut funding for things like NPR and Planned Parenthood. 


 :jerk:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2011, 07:38:09 PM
Maybe if you Republican retards didn't limit yourselves to right wing radio and simply regurgitate the same old sh*t every day in your echo chambers, you'd realize that the economy is steadily improving.  


http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135507366/survey-economy-improving-despite-global-events)

Quote
Sales increased for the third consecutive quarter, profit margins continued to improve and the number of economists whose firms increased spending over the previous quarter held steady. Nearly all of the 72 economists surveyed, about 94 percent, now expect the economy to grow at least 2 percent in 2011.


And let's not forget that it was your dumbf*ck of a president (Bush) who got us into this entire mess in the first place.  A freshman taking Econ 101 could have done a better job running the economy than Bush.

2% growth is miserable while we still have 9.5% reported unemployment. We need to be in the 5-7% range to make any progress.

This, 2% is terrible.  I can't believe beems put that in his post, what a rough ridin' buffoon.  Not to mention the 2% growth projection is YOY.  :epicfail: on his part.


Questions for BMW and anyone like him whose mind is too small to comprehend simple economics: 
1. What's the logic behind blaming W for "this entire mess"? 
2. Do you really think W unilaterally caused the subprime mortgage crisis?  Was it a partisan effort?
3. What exactly is "this entire mess"?  Sounds like a whole lot of stuff, please list a few things?
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 02, 2011, 09:07:15 PM
Never mind that Bush tried to stop the conditions that led to the housing bubble, but was stopped by guys like barney "should be in an orange jumpsuit" fwank.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 02, 2011, 09:41:39 PM
Never mind that Bush tried to stop the conditions that led to the housing bubble, but was stopped by guys like barney "should be in an orange jumpsuit" fwank.

You know that was just a racist attempt to keep minorities from purchasing homes.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2011, 09:48:19 PM
D.C.'s own Congressional Madame
http://www.american-buddha.com/pervert.sexsoldcongressmanapartment.htm


Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: theKSU on May 03, 2011, 12:19:04 PM
Both parties contribute to the Debt--the one side likes spending, the other side likes tax cuts, in the end they just do both. 

The debt shouldn't become a big issue until unemployment drops below 5%, though.  At that point you can raise taxes, cut services and start reducing the deficit.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: kougar24 on May 03, 2011, 12:48:09 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: kougar24 on May 03, 2011, 12:49:21 PM
End the Fed
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dave Wooderson on May 03, 2011, 02:56:04 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 04:22:16 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)



What did you need help with?


 :confused:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 04:27:03 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: EllToPay on May 03, 2011, 04:33:36 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: EllToPay on May 03, 2011, 04:51:27 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 03, 2011, 06:23:47 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.

economists, not idealogues posing as economists.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 06:47:30 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.



Do you understand the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy?     
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2011, 08:07:59 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

Obama cut taxes in a recession

Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2011, 08:18:34 PM
BMW, please stop.  I can't believe you are serious, because all you have done is post the exact opposite of what is actually a fact.

I have come to the following conclusion:  You are either a) playing your usual jedi mind tricks, or b) so uneducated on these matters that you actually don't know how ridiculous everything you're posting is.

Whichever it is, please stop.  You are severely damaging the perceived value of a ku education, for yourself and all other graduates.  You don't want to do that do you?

TIA, your pal,

Sugar Dick
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2011, 08:33:31 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

Wow, those are fabulous.  :love:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: EllToPay on May 03, 2011, 09:56:06 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.



Do you understand the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy?     

Don't be a dumbass.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 10:15:44 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.  

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.  

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.  

Obama cut taxes in a recession





We're no longer in the heart of the recession, and the main reason why President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts was to show that he's willing to compromise with the Republicans.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 10:35:17 PM
Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass. 


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially. 

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008. 


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later. 


 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: pike on May 03, 2011, 10:55:02 PM
Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass. 


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially. 

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008. 


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later. 


 :thumbsup:


Ron Paul, 2012
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2011, 11:04:53 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.  

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.  

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.  

Obama cut taxes in a recession





We're no longer in the heart of the recession, and the main reason why President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts was to show that he's willing to compromise with the Republicans.

Oh no, he cut taxes AND extended Bush era tax cuts.  He's reminded us about 50,000 times that he cut taxes for the "middle class".  There's the "making work pay" credit, expanding the child tax credit, a savings credit, and on and on.  He did this all with a majorities in both houses and a supermajority in the Senate for a good part of the time.  It's as close to unilateral partisan action as this country has seen in a long time.  The repubs actually had no control over the policy implemented for a good period of time.  These are the facts you must deal with.

You have no excuse.  You know nothing of fiscal or monetary or economic policy.  You are a sophomoric parrotting lib.  You hear and you regurgitate.  You are probably this way because your 10th grade civics teacher told you that you were smart for agreeing with everything he said.  You are incapable of independent thought.  You are a democrat.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dirty Sanchez on May 03, 2011, 11:10:09 PM
Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass. 


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially. 

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008. 


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later. 


 :thumbsup:


Ron Paul, 2012

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_eh0jgrX2BFw%2FSYjwWvu4cZI%2FAAAAAAAAFFs%2F_wby93h3mUI%2Fs400%2FRuPaul.jpg&hash=0dde833a791793c97e8552ffd03fe856e64f6384)
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 03, 2011, 11:17:42 PM
Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass.  


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially.  

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008.  


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later.  


 :thumbsup:


What's the deficit this year?  How about last year?  I thought you were a keynesian, shouldn't all this spending be driving the economy into a furious boom?  What percent of the budget is entitlement spending?  Who takes credit for all the entitlement spending?  Weren't you in favor of the war in Afganistan?

If cutting taxes reduces tax revenues, explain this graph

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.topgunfp.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Ffederal-receipts-chart.png&hash=bc2bfa92d67b585e53f878aa9872c9de6c511b09)

You probably can't, because you won't be able to understand it in the first place, and even if you could you won't be able to make sense of it because you know nothing of tax policy, so you won't know which dates to look at.  Regardless, your too stupid to understand anything other than the marginal rate.  Nevermind actual revenue.

/thread

Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 03, 2011, 11:57:58 PM
Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.






It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.  

Educate yourself, Keynesian. (http://econstories.tv/2010/06/22/fear-the-boom-and-bust/)
Make sure it sinks in. (http://econstories.tv/2011/04/28/fight-of-the-century-music-video/)

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.



All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.  

Yes, it is.



No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.  

Obama cut taxes in a recession





We're no longer in the heart of the recession, and the main reason why President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts was to show that he's willing to compromise with the Republicans.

Oh no, he cut taxes AND extended Bush era tax cuts.  He's reminded us about 50,000 times that he cut taxes for the "middle class".  There's the "making work pay" credit, expanding the child tax credit, a savings credit, and on and on.  He did this all with a majorities in both houses and a supermajority in the Senate for a good part of the time.  It's as close to unilateral partisan action as this country has seen in a long time.  The repubs actually had no control over the policy implemented for a good period of time.  These are the facts you must deal with.

You have no excuse.  You know nothing of fiscal or monetary or economic policy.  You are a sophomoric parrotting lib.  You hear and you regurgitate.  You are probably this way because your 10th grade civics teacher told you that you were smart for agreeing with everything he said.  You are incapable of independent thought.  You are a democrat.



Middle class tax cuts created the largest budget surplus in United States history during the Clinton administration.  You are nothing more than a scum of the Earth, pig-faced c*nt, and if you need proof look no further than your username/signature.  95% of this board hates you, with the exception of fellow mouth-breathers jeffy and Dirty Sanchez.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: jtksu on May 04, 2011, 12:00:29 AM
Sniff, sniff.  I smell an account deletion.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 04, 2011, 12:02:34 AM
Sniff, sniff.  I smell an account deletion.



Account deletion?  I just owned Sugar Dick like a $2 whore.  By the way, everyone on this board hates you as well.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: jtksu on May 04, 2011, 12:17:04 AM
I think it's especially sad that you get some sort of feeling of self worth based on what internet people think of you.  The NW was probably not a great place to move for you as the suicide rate is especially high there.  Oh, and sugar dick has made you look like a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) for this entire thread.  So much so that you were forced to resort to personal insults. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 04, 2011, 06:33:57 AM

You have no excuse.  You know nothing of fiscal or monetary or economic policy.  You are a sophomoric parrotting lib.  You hear and you regurgitate.  You are probably this way because your 10th grade civics teacher told you that you were smart for agreeing with everything he said.  You are incapable of independent thought.  You are a democrat.


 95% of this board hates you, with the exception of fellow mouth-breathers jeffy and Dirty Sanchez.

^truth
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Dave Wooderson on May 04, 2011, 09:42:02 AM
Beems:  Everytime I post in reply to economics I notice you seem to ignore what I say because you have been schooled in things you can't understand and comprehend.  You want a debate, I'm your huckelberry.  But know this:  You have no chance at winning an economic debate against someone well schooled.  You will lose...badly.  Bring it.  I'm not afraid of your pathetic little talking points that come from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Huff Post, Media Matters or whatever stupid commy effing show or website you are watching/reading.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: wetwillie on May 04, 2011, 10:00:54 AM
Beems:  Everytime I post in reply to economics I notice you seem to ignore what I say because you have been schooled in things you can't understand and comprehend.  You want a debate, I'm your huckelberry.  But know this:  You have no chance at winning an economic debate against someone well schooled.  You will lose...badly.  Bring it.  I'm not afraid of your pathetic little talking points that come from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Huff Post, Media Matters or whatever stupid commy effing show or website you are watching/reading.

you may be smarter, but beems will run circles around you BBS'ing. 
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 04, 2011, 11:21:30 AM
Beems:  Everytime I post in reply to economics I notice you seem to ignore what I say because you have been schooled in things you can't understand and comprehend.  You want a debate, I'm your huckelberry.  But know this:  You have no chance at winning an economic debate against someone well schooled.  You will lose...badly.  Bring it.  I'm not afraid of your pathetic little talking points that come from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Huff Post, Media Matters or whatever stupid commy effing show or website you are watching/reading.

you may be smarter, but beems will run circles around you BBS'ing. 

True.  Good thing beems has the multi-million dollar trust fund, 'cause there's no money to be made in bbsing. You can also tell the stinky blonde dreadlocks in Portland are giving him new talking points.  :bigtoke:
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: kougar24 on May 04, 2011, 03:22:09 PM
jfc, it's like BMW attended Econ 101 just long enough to collect the syllabus before dropping out. he memorized the terms without ever bothering to look up what the eff they mean.

pretty entertaining watching him toss out buzzwords like a geyser, i have to say.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: OregonSmock on May 04, 2011, 05:41:40 PM
jfc, it's like BMW attended Econ 101 just long enough to collect the syllabus before dropping out. he memorized the terms without ever bothering to look up what the eff they mean.

pretty entertaining watching him toss out buzzwords like a geyser, i have to say.



What did you need help with?  I'd be glad to educate.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 04, 2011, 07:26:10 PM

Middle class tax cuts created the largest budget surplus in United States history during the Clinton administration.  You are nothing more than a scum of the Earth, pig-faced c*nt, and if you need proof look no further than your username/signature.  95% of this board hates you, with the exception of fellow mouth-breathers jeffy and Dirty Sanchez.

BMW,

If I were a pig-faced c*nt you'd be actively seeking a romantic relationship with me.
Title: Re: R.I.H.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on May 04, 2011, 09:34:15 PM

Middle class tax cuts created the largest budget surplus in United States history during the Clinton administration.  You are nothing more than a scum of the Earth, pig-faced c*nt, and if you need proof look no further than your username/signature.  95% of this board hates you, with the exception of fellow mouth-breathers jeffy and Dirty Sanchez.

BMW,

If I were a pig-faced c*nt you'd be actively seeking a romantic relationship with me.

Oh man, total zinger!!!!    :excited: