Obama outperforms Reagan
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
It's kind of like the mantra, and actual belief, that Obamacare originated as a Republican plan to control medical costs.
"It was in Forbes magazine, a very well respected publication, admired by all."
'
Admired by all?
What makes you think that is even close to reality? I would venture a guess and say that "most" don't read it, let alone "all".
Reagan, Obama, etc, are/were politicians. Generally speaking, they suck. The only comparison is which one sucks worse.
'
Admired by all?
What makes you think that is even close to reality? I would venture a guess and say that "most" don't read it, let alone "all". Reagan, Obama, etc, are/were politicians. Generally speaking, they suck. The only comparison is which one sucks worse.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
"It was in Forbes magazine, a very well respected publication, admired by all."
'
Admired by all?
Reagan, Obama, etc, are/were politicians. Generally speaking, they suck. The only comparison is which one sucks worse.
No matter how much you polish a turd it's still a turd
It only takes the first sentence to indicate a total lack of comprehension of the subject matter being discussed. Behold, the mindset of the low information Obama voter.
Behold: the mindset of the arrogant conservative who resorts to name calling when he has no credible rebuttal.
You're only fooling yourself. But that's something conservatives are particularly good at, I've noticed.
As the article cited points out, that belief is not without reason: Obamacare is very close to the Republican plans of the early 90's. That it's not identical is because no legislation survives without numerous changes en route - the R version wouldn't have, either.
As for the opposition to Obama, the elections of 2012 brought the Tea Party to the forefront, and their sole aim was obstruction of whatever Obama proposed. They filibustered more of Obama's nominees for various positions than the total for all previous presidents combined. That's not representation, it's obstruction. And it ought to be called treason, IMO.
Obamacare, as we have it today is a LIE! Not that is a surprise. YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN IF YOU LIKE IT! BS! CRAP! ONLY FOOLS BOUGHT THAT! Communist crud! All Obamacare did was put MORE people on welfare, make MORE people dependent slaves. HAPPY?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Kind in mind this individual has been suckin' the sauce for so long that he couldn't even bring himself to admit or acknowledge that the US has meddled in the affairs of foreign nations ... committing all sort of immoral acts ...
That's borderline delusional in my book ... or pickled ... lol ...
LOL ... yeah, no kiddin' ...
But it's quite entertaining all the same ...
Sadly, for the radical, ideological extremists of that variety, that would appear to be the case ...
Fortunately, that type of lunacy - live from Wingnut Central™ - is on the endangered species list ...
I don't know, RLENT, it seems the wingnuts have hijacked the Republican party altogether. What they've done in Kansas is just jaw droppingly stupid:
What's the Matter With Sam Brownback? | Mother Jones
A follow up article in the Kansas City Star affirms the story. And adds the hilarious tidbit that one effort to recapture some of the lost income is taxing online sex toy sales.
It's soooo tempting - but I just can't.
I'm as guilty of schadenfreude as the next guy, but there comes a point where what they're doing with the radical conservative lunacy isn't funny anymore, and I think we're past it.
What's the Matter With Sam Brownback? | Mother Jones
A follow up article in the Kansas City Star affirms the story. And adds the hilarious tidbit that one effort to recapture some of the lost income is taxing online sex toy sales.
It's soooo tempting - but I just can't.
I'm as guilty of schadenfreude as the next guy, but there comes a point where what they're doing with the radical conservative lunacy isn't funny anymore, and I think we're past it.
Another take on the misguided belief that simply cutting taxes will encourage growth:
U.S. Bank, for example, chose Overland Park over dozens of locations nationwide when it decided to locate a service center employing 1,100. That followed a $120 million data center the company opened in Olathe in 2009.
The bank received tax breaks, but a top executive said the quality of the county’s labor pool and schools mattered as much, if not more, than tax bills.
Taxes needed to be attractive, said Mark Jorgenson, chief executive and regional president for U.S. Bank.
But he insisted good schools, for example, were critical. Jorgenson said it would be a “huge detriment” to attracting young professionals if the schools were financially starved.
“You have to balance quality-of-life needs against a lower tax structure,” he said. “To the extent that you can’t afford those things that are important to the quality of life that would be attractive for people, that’s when you have a problem.”
This is what conservatives can't or won't admit: cutting taxes cannot create growth or jobs - only demand can do that. Increasing demand for products and services creates more jobs, and demand is increased by increasing the money people have to spend. That would be specifically middle and working class people, the ones who will spend it, rather than just add it to the investment/retirement funds. When they buy new homes, vehicles, appliances, etc, jobs are created.
Maybe only because the greedheads haven't figured out how to outsource the labor, yet, but we can still create more jobs.
Just not by cutting taxes.
U.S. Bank, for example, chose Overland Park over dozens of locations nationwide when it decided to locate a service center employing 1,100. That followed a $120 million data center the company opened in Olathe in 2009.
The bank received tax breaks, but a top executive said the quality of the county’s labor pool and schools mattered as much, if not more, than tax bills.
Taxes needed to be attractive, said Mark Jorgenson, chief executive and regional president for U.S. Bank.
But he insisted good schools, for example, were critical. Jorgenson said it would be a “huge detriment” to attracting young professionals if the schools were financially starved.
“You have to balance quality-of-life needs against a lower tax structure,” he said. “To the extent that you can’t afford those things that are important to the quality of life that would be attractive for people, that’s when you have a problem.”
This is what conservatives can't or won't admit: cutting taxes cannot create growth or jobs - only demand can do that. Increasing demand for products and services creates more jobs, and demand is increased by increasing the money people have to spend. That would be specifically middle and working class people, the ones who will spend it, rather than just add it to the investment/retirement funds. When they buy new homes, vehicles, appliances, etc, jobs are created.
Maybe only because the greedheads haven't figured out how to outsource the labor, yet, but we can still create more jobs.
Just not by cutting taxes.
I think you answered your own question. We already outsourcing labor in many places when the
demand picks up. Look at the auto industry.
Cutting taxes is promoted because of all the government waste. That is both parties wasting it. Cutting taxes is only part of the issue. Spending is a much larger issue. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be carrying a 17 almost 18 trillion dollar debt. Have to get the spending under control before you worry about any of the stuff.
"Cutting taxes is promoted because of all the government waste"?! That's odd, because if waste is the problem, I'd expect them to be finding it, and getting rid of it. That makes perfect sense.
Spending is the problem, alright, because there's too much for things they don't like [welfare, food stamps, environmental & consumer protections - basically, anything they have no use for] and not enough to keep the infrastructure from collapsing.
It's too easy to cut spending by targeting those who can least afford it, [but are equally the least likely to complain, or expect to be heard if they do], without ever proving that it's 'waste'. Apocryphal stories about people buying lobster with food stamps don't count, either, but that's about all they have to support their claims. Because the numbers of people in need don't prove anything, except that more people need help - cutting the budget is not the way to address the problem.
Identifying the root causes is a good start, instead of using terms like "entitlement mentality" [classic case of transference, that one - nobody feels 'entitled' like the wealthy], and blaming the people who can't find a job that supports them, because people in third world countries will do it for a fraction of the cost.
Cutting taxes only benefits the wealthy, which would be fine, if they invested the windfall in new jobs, but they don't - they invest it in their offshore accounts instead. It hurts the poor and the middle class, and when we lose the middle class, we are toast, end of story.
They're hardly apocryphal stereotypes when reporters & journalists have provided countless examples, which they have. Dave is right about both parties being at fault, but there's just one party [maybe just the lunatic fringe that seems to be calling the shots the past few years] that is insisting on less government, regulation, & taxes as the solution.
When they mention specifics, such as eliminating the Department of Education, and battling the new Consumer Protection Agency, the voters don't agree with them, so they hire marketing experts to repackage the rejects. Because it's not their philosophy that's wrong, it's the public perception, right? If they present it differently, people will agree with them. Right. Their "Family Values" agenda was a great example: it failed, big time. Or they just skip the voters and get their pet politicians to put forth the legislation, and if it ends up in court, [like same sex marriage & abortion clinic restrictions], hey - that's what we pay taxes for, right? [Talk about wasting money!]
Sam Brownback just showed what's wrong with their reasoning - it would be great to think they're paying attention, but I doubt it.
When they mention specifics, such as eliminating the Department of Education, and battling the new Consumer Protection Agency, the voters don't agree with them, so they hire marketing experts to repackage the rejects. Because it's not their philosophy that's wrong, it's the public perception, right? If they present it differently, people will agree with them. Right. Their "Family Values" agenda was a great example: it failed, big time. Or they just skip the voters and get their pet politicians to put forth the legislation, and if it ends up in court, [like same sex marriage & abortion clinic restrictions], hey - that's what we pay taxes for, right? [Talk about wasting money!]
Sam Brownback just showed what's wrong with their reasoning - it would be great to think they're paying attention, but I doubt it.