***Official Political Discussion Thread***

rolling stone? heh...

last time i checked it wasn't a sin to keep more of da money you make.

da way ish is being run now isn't doing anyone much help...



here's da Detroit Trump speech in full...
 
Yes, lets shoot the messenger even though they make solid points about Trump's plan. :rolleyes

And Trump is forgetting that Detroit is never coming back because other states have busted unions and manufacturers could move to those states instead of Michigan to produce their products (in this case cars). For example Tennessee.

Unless Trump is going to micro management interstate trade, he is bringing nothing back. Add to that, manufacturing is not as labor intensive as it was before, and as technology advances, will get even less labor intensive.

So if Detroit it ever does "comeback", it will look nothing like the Detroit of old.

Dude is plain and simple lying to people, and only the gullible or ignorant are believing him.

He is trying to run the same game Bush Jr. did in 2000. Turn people away from smart policy by promising them tax cuts.

Trump is not fiscally liberal or conservative. He is fiscally incompetent
 
Last edited:
Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door, Richard Nixon's not walking through that door and Dwight Eisenhower is not walking through that door. And if you expect them to walk through that door, they're gonna be six feet in the ground.
 
da way ish is being run now isn't doing anyone much help...

Critical thinking skills? If so analyze this with your so called 'it's not a sin to keep your own money' theory

http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/donald-trumps-tax-plan-primary/

The Center initially estimates that the Trump plan would decrease tax revenues by $9.5 trillion over 10 years. The Center then increases this estimate to $11.2 trillion to reflect the incremental interest that the US Treasury would pay on the additional $9.5 trillion in national debt — since the Trump plan has no cuts in federal spending.

Could Trump find $9.5 trillion in spending cuts to finance his tax cuts?
He seems to oppose lower benefits for Medicare and Social Security. If entitlement cuts are out of bounds, then he would need to slash all discretionary federal spending by 80%. This means debilitating cuts in defense budgets and key domestic programs like education and research.

I know I know.. darn liberal bias websites such as fortune.com, I mean what do they know?
 
guess what? Clinton aint touching da entitlements either and she's trying to tax even more.

and if u didn't know already know..our economy is in da toilet.

Clinton's running as da 3rd Obama Term...a guy that never passed 3% GDP in 8 years...

raising taxes on people who make da jobs aint exactly screaming "growth & prosperous USA"...
 
**** Rubio btw for that Zika comment :x

Rubio is piece of ****.

He says women shouldn't have abortions, then blames the Democrats for not accepting the GOP's garbage after they pulled this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/16/zika-virus-funding-congress-politics-cdc

For pregnant women for Zika to get help, ACA needs to be repealed, confederate flags need to be allowed in Federal cemeteries, and clean water restrictions must be lifted.

When they couldn't get that nonsense, they brought Planned Parenthood into it.

Mannnn **** the GOP.
 
guess what? Clinton aint touching da entitlements either and she's trying to tax even more.

and if u didn't know already know..our economy is in da toilet.

Clinton's running as da 3rd Obama Term...a guy that never passed 3% GDP in 8 years...

raising taxes on people who make da jobs aint exactly screaming "growth & prosperous USA"...

Do you really want to be embarrassed in an economics debate for the 570645064526059548609857608560795th time.

Like really?

This will only end with your looking silly, and calling people names when you run out of gas.

-If the GOP would stop with the scorched earth BS for a second, and pass a infrastructure repair bill. GDP would tick over 3% easily. The country needs a fiscal stimulus.

Oh btw, your economy was in the toilet when over took over. Not now.
 
Last edited:
[emoji]128564[/emoji] im not interested in your man Obama's failed keynesian economy...

Washington Post already got a article citing Clinton's failed economic/jobs plan as a NY senator.
 
Biblethumpers like Rubio and Cruz are disgusting human beings. I can understand personally being against abortion but these people need to stop forcing their backwards beliefs on everyone else.
I'm glad we've mostly moved past the biblethumping generation over here.
 
[emoji]128564[/emoji] im not interested in your man Obama's failed keynesian economy...

Washington Post already got a article citing Clinton's failed economic/jobs plan as a NY senator.

I bet you have no idea what keynesian really even means :lol .

And your dismissing the policies that help the country recover the great recession. And where the foundation of the New Deal policies that help build America's middle class :{ :lol


pass a infrastructure repair bill.

cuz Obama didn't get this passed once and all da money instead went to pay off da banks...

8o

What is this even suppose to mean?
 
Last edited:
[emoji]128564[/emoji] im not interested in your man Obama's failed keynesian economy...

Washington Post already got a article citing Clinton's failed economic/jobs plan as a NY senator.
This reminded me of a convo in here not to long ago [emoji]129300[/emoji]
 
Mike Pence endorses Paul Ryan, a day after Donald Trump declined to

Ummmm....
 
 
So you just refuse to read up and learn more about the subject in the information I provided?
when your first link is da Huffington post, you can pretty much confirm da slant.

like i said, post 100 links, da conclusion will always be a difference in going forward, one side wants handouts & reparations and policies that pay for things based on identification politics, da other side wants to champion equal education by favoring choice and nurture meritocracy.
Bamma, he posed like 25 links...you don't like Huff Post, fine....read the other 24.
laugh.gif
mean.gif
NPR, Washington post, etc.

start to see da pattern? yea...but let's go personal to emphasize your point
eyes.gif
So when I provided info from the Washington Post to make a point it was dismissed as being apart of a pattern of bias [emoji]129300[/emoji]
[emoji]128564[/emoji] im not interested in your man Obama's failed keynesian economy...

Washington Post already got a article citing Clinton's failed economic/jobs plan as a NY senator.
But now it's cool to cite the Washington Post again to make a point

[emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji]
 
Last edited:
This reminded me of a convo in here not to long ago [emoji]129300[/emoji]



So when I provided info from the Washington Post to make a point it was dismissed as being apart of a pattern of bias [emoji]129300[/emoji]



But now it's cool to cite the Washington Post again to make a point
[emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji]


:rollin
 
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a price tag of $770 billion that ballooned to $830 billion, marked its five year anniversary earlier this year, at which point Vice President Joe Biden declared it a success. However, the numbers haven’t born that out.

In January 2009, the administration projected that passing the bill would bring unemployment to 5 percent by the end of 2013 and ensure that it didn’t surpass 8 percent. But the unemployment was at 8 and 9 percent for much of Obama’s first term. It reached 6.7 percent at the end of 2013 and 6.6 percent in January.

The Congressional Budget Office projected earlier this month that unemployment would be roughly the same by the end of 2014, and will drop to 5.8 percent by 2017.

The stimulus bill was sold largely in 2009 as an infrastructure program. But employment for construction has even declined by more than 500,000 workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statics. Just 10 percent of the stimulus money went to infrastructure, according to the Wall Street Journal.


Further, the nonpartisan Factcheck.org stated in June 2011 that “CBO’s high estimate is still short of the 3.5 million jobs that Obama had said would be created by the end of 2010, so it’s accurate to say the stimulus has failed to live up to initial expectations.”

http://www.wsj.com/news/article_ema...4579387692278347858-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwNzExNDcyWj

yeah.. :lol

like i said...no one interested in another 4 years of failed keynesian economics...8 years of crappy Obamanomics is enough [emoji]128564[/emoji]
 
This reminded me of a convo in here not to long ago [emoji]129300[/emoji]



So when I provided info from the Washington Post to make a point it was dismissed as being apart of a pattern of bias [emoji]129300[/emoji]



But now it's cool to cite the Washington Post again to make a point
[emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji]
:rollin
Ninja bout to take his shot at the gold medal to try and refute da hypocrisy :lol
 
This reminded me of a convo in here not to long ago [emoji]129300[/emoji]



So when I provided info from the Washington Post to make a point it was dismissed as being apart of a pattern of bias [emoji]129300[/emoji]



But now it's cool to cite the Washington Post again to make a point
[emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji]


:rollin

aggregate curation = bias pattern..its not that hard to figure out.

besides u want me posting da NY tines article basically admitting da Media's sense of objective analysis is out to window to destroy Donald Trump? :lol not surprised considering da hacked emails have shown straight collusion...so... [emoji]129300[/emoji]
 
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a price tag of $770 billion that ballooned to $830 billion, marked its five year anniversary earlier this year, at which point Vice President Joe Biden declared it a success. However, the numbers haven’t born that out.

In January 2009, the administration projected that passing the bill would bring unemployment to 5 percent by the end of 2013 and ensure that it didn’t surpass 8 percent. But the unemployment was at 8 and 9 percent for much of Obama’s first term. It reached 6.7 percent at the end of 2013 and 6.6 percent in January.

The Congressional Budget Office projected earlier this month that unemployment would be roughly the same by the end of 2014, and will drop to 5.8 percent by 2017.

The stimulus bill was sold largely in 2009 as an infrastructure program. But employment for construction has even declined by more than 500,000 workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statics. Just 10 percent of the stimulus money went to infrastructure, according to the Wall Street Journal.


Further, the nonpartisan Factcheck.org stated in June 2011 that “CBO’s high estimate is still short of the 3.5 million jobs that Obama had said would be created by the end of 2010, so it’s accurate to say the stimulus has failed to live up to initial expectations.”

http://www.wsj.com/news/article_ema...4579387692278347858-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwNzExNDcyWj

yeah.. :lol

like i said...no one interested in another 4 years of failed keynesian economics...8 years of crappy Obamanomics is enough [emoji]128564[/emoji]

I could shoot the messenger like you, but i won't

You not smart enough to see how this makes me look right, and you silly.

I didn't not say pass a second stimulus, exactly like the last one. I was pass a bill to repair the infrastructure.

Those things are different.

The stimulus was good but had too much tax cuts research spending in it relative to everything else. At the end of the day it was too small. But it was to get our country to recover from recession. Which it helped do.

The reason it fell short of its goals is it didn't have enough immediate short term spending, which infrastructure would fall under

You basically are laughing because you posted and article saying that the stimulus under performed because of its lack of infrastructure spending. When I'm saying we need more infrastructure spending to boost the economy.

Through direct and indirect effects, a decent jobs bill by way of infrastructure spending would take us over your precious 3 percent mark.

-Our infrastructure is crumbling. Fixing it would provide jobs, and boost the economy in many ways (short and long term), would be a wealth transfer program into the private sector (which the GOP loves) and with interest rate so low, it is the cheapest time to do it. But the GOP won't because they put hurting Obama over everything else
 
Last edited:
 
 
This reminded me of a convo in here not to long ago [emoji]129300[/emoji]



So when I provided info from the Washington Post to make a point it was dismissed as being apart of a pattern of bias [emoji]129300[/emoji]



But now it's cool to cite the Washington Post again to make a point
[emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji][emoji]129300[/emoji]

roll.gif
aggregate curation = bias pattern..its not that hard to figure out.

besides u want me posting da NY tines article basically admitting da Media's sense of objective analysis is out to window to destroy Donald Trump?
laugh.gif
not surprised considering da hacked emails have shown straight collusion...so... [emoji]129300[/emoji]
You really gonna pretend like thats why you dismissed it the first time huh
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom