PDA

View Full Version : Governments squander too much money



Rum_Pirate
05-12-2016, 02:34 PM
Governments squander too much money.

This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.


Governments should spend within the budgets. (this probably does not concur with Democrat thinking).

Paul Pless
05-12-2016, 02:37 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/icons/icon3.pngfarthttp://forum.woodenboat.com/images/icons/icon3.png

Norman Bernstein
05-12-2016, 02:39 PM
Governments squander too much money.

This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.


Governments should spend within the budgets. (this probably does not concur with Democrat thinking).

Great.

Since cutting government spending, by definition, means that someone is going to be sucking on the fuzzy end of the lollipop, who would you like to penalize by cutting spending? SOMEONE will be hurt by spending cuts; all you have to do is decide WHO it will be. Let's see... shall we hurt the people who are already short on resources, and barely struggling to get by, or should we hurt the people who are extraordinarily rich?

Which would you think was fair?

BrianY
05-12-2016, 02:40 PM
Governments squander too much money.

This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.


Governments should spend within the budgets. (this probably does not concur with Democrat thinking).

Damned right. Governments shouldn't do things like involve us in pointless endless wars that cost billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on useful things or returned to the taxpayers. (this probably does not concur with Republican thinking)

ccmanuals
05-12-2016, 02:48 PM
Governments squander too much money.

This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.


Governments should spend within the budgets. (this probably does not concur with Democrat thinking).

Try again,

http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png

Rum_Pirate
05-12-2016, 03:04 PM
Interesting to see that the debt is all Republican, even including that by Mr Obama. LOL


Please note I used the word 'squandering' and not 'spending'.

Norman Bernstein
05-12-2016, 03:13 PM
Interesting to see that the debt is all Republican, even including that by Mr Obama. LOL

I'm sure you know how to read a chart... and you can figure out which administrations were frugal... and which ones were spendthrifts.

John of Phoenix
05-12-2016, 03:17 PM
Please note I used the word 'squandering' and not 'spending'.Then maybe you can tell us what we bought with all the money we "spent" in the Middle East.

Waddie
05-12-2016, 08:01 PM
Rum, this thread is a troll, and I should know a troll when I see one. The liberals are correct to say that these wars are an example of squandering the taxpayer's money. Let's give 'em that. And yes, Democrats do squander money, but not at the same rate, at least since Lyndon Johnson covered the cost of Vietnam by putting SS in the general budget. We conservatives should have learned by his bad example; what not to do. Hopefully, we are now finished with foreign adventuring. I think the public is war weary. The budget deficits are still growing; but now mostly because of Medicare, SS and Obamacare. One day soon our whole federal budget will be health care, pensions and defense. With enough left over to pay the interest on the debt.

regards,
Waddie

oznabrag
05-12-2016, 08:56 PM
Then maybe you can tell us what we bought with all the money we "spent" in the Middle East.

We bought enough water to fill the bathtub.

The 9/11 wars were a howling success.

skuthorp
05-12-2016, 10:54 PM
Then maybe you can tell us what we bought with all the money we "spent" in the Middle East.
The MIC and their shareholders and bought politicians did very well, and continue to do so.

slug
05-13-2016, 02:03 AM
I'm sure you know how to read a chart... and you can figure out which administrations were frugal... and which ones were spendthrifts.


Nonsense...And stop talking down to people. Makes you look like a pompous windbag

Clinton inherited a booming economy for his entire term , plenty of tax revenue and no national challenges.

http://s32.postimg.org/5gw3fv2th/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/41uir51q9/full/)
adult image (http://postimage.org/)

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 07:47 AM
Clinton inherited a booming economy for his entire term , plenty of tax revenue and no national challenges.


Read the chart. Clinton ENDED the deficit spending of the Reagan/Bush I era, and from a national economic point of view, was a damn good President.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 07:52 AM
Read the chart. Clinton ENDED the deficit spending of the Reagan/Bush I era, and from a national economic point of view, was a damn good President.


What happened to the previous president being responsible for all the negative things that happen in the current presidency?

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 08:11 AM
What happened to the previous president being responsible for all the negative things that happen in the current presidency?

Sorry, but that dodge won't work.

When it comes to the economy, there's a rather unfortunate fact, for conservatives. An examination of EIGHTY YEARS of US economics reveals what is, for some, a startling truth: the economy ALWAYS does far better with a Democratic President, than with a Republican president. This has been extensively studied, and the difference is just incredible....

...and to your point: the studies have included a 'lag factor', on the presumption that the economic health on one administration might have been influenced by the previous administration's policies. Even when accounting for a lag factor, it's still no contest: Democratic presidents have far more successful economic experiences.




Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession)) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations



Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#66cc273967a1 , although I first learned of this from a couple of academic studies which are the basis of the book.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 08:25 AM
Sorry, but that dodge won't work.

When it comes to the economy, there's a rather unfortunate fact, for conservatives. An examination of EIGHTY YEARS of US economics reveals what is, for some, a startling truth: the economy ALWAYS does far better with a Democratic President, than with a Republican president. This has been extensively studied, and the difference is just incredible....

...and to your point: the studies have included a 'lag factor', on the presumption that the economic health on one administration might have been influenced by the previous administration's policies. Even when accounting for a lag factor, it's still no contest: Democratic presidents have far more successful economic experiences.



Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#66cc273967a1 , although I first learned of this from a couple of academic studies which are the basis of the book.


So the past events are always the Republican Presidents fault and and the Democrat Presidents benefit, and nothing to do with House and Senate.

oznabrag
05-13-2016, 08:31 AM
Dunning-Kruger.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 08:33 AM
Dunning-Kruger.


How so?

oznabrag
05-13-2016, 08:42 AM
How so?

Thank you for making my point.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 08:51 AM
Thank you for making my point.


You appear to be one sad, and mistaken, individual.

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 08:53 AM
So the past events are always the Republican Presidents fault and and the Democrat Presidents benefit, and nothing to do with House and Senate.

The record is what it is... we're talking about 80 YEARS of economic history, and not once in those eighty years did the results vary from what has been observed.

And yes, the House and Senate have a great deal to do with it, but the President sets policy, and the house and senate write laws.... so if you don't think those Democratic administrations deserve credit for an unbroken record of economic success, then I suppose perhaps the poor performance of the economy under Republican presidents must be the fault of the house and senate, right?

You can't have it both ways.

I have an interest in ALL issues of national importance, but most especially on economic issues... and I have a reason to want to protect the economy. Yes, it's a selfish reason; I have worked hard for over 40 years to achieve what I have a achieve, economically, and I don't want to see it destroyed in a flash by some carnival barker in the White House who doesn't have a clue as to what he's doing... OR, even worse, relies on the advice of libertarian jerks who care only about the interests of the super-wealthy. You might note that THEY have always done well, even when the rest of the country has suffered through events like the Great Recession, which was a consequence of George Bush's ineptitude at preventing the financial markets from blowing up the bubble.

I have great sympathy for those who might have been retiring, just as their retirement investments went down the toilet in 2008. Thankfully, I was young enough, and still working, and didn't have to start drawing on depressed assets to live... but in a few years, I'll be retired, too... and since I have no pension, the only thing I have to live on will be those assets I've worked hard all my life to save.

oznabrag
05-13-2016, 09:00 AM
You appear to be one sad, and mistaken, individual.

Your opinion of me is immaterial.

It is interesting that you simply can not defend your position, indeed, you don't even seem to UNDERSTAND your position, yet you are perfectly willing to pitch such dreck.

Nah, not all that interesting.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 09:05 AM
You can't have it both ways. Acknowledged and agreed, but the way the posts are made on this forum one would believe that everything positive that happened during Mr Obama's Presidency was to his account and everything positive that happened was due to previous Republican Presidents.



I have great sympathy for those who might have been retiring, just as their retirement investments went down the toilet in 2008. Thankfully, I was young enough, and still working, and didn't have to start drawing on depressed assets to live... but in a few years, I'll be retired, too... and since I have no pension, the only thing I have to live on will be those assets I've worked hard all my life to save. I can similarly identify with that. Although, I will get a SS pension here of +/-US$1,250.00 per month (Income Tax free).
Be thankful that you had the foresight to work hard all your life and save assets (which you have paid tax on) in order to support you in your retirement. Pity that the income from the assets will be taxed. |:(

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 09:06 AM
Your opinion of me is immaterial. Ditto

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 09:19 AM
Acknowledged and agreed, but the way the posts are made on this forum one would believe that everything positive that happened during Mr Obama's Presidency was to his account and everything positive that happened was due to previous Republican Presidents.

No president is perfect; they ALL make mistakes... but some make far bigger mistakes than others. Still, you cannot ignore the history; when it comes to economic affairs, the usual story from the right wing is largely a lie; 'trickle down' economics has been repeatedly tried and failed, and Keynesian economics, for the most part, have worked, and worked amazingly well.


I can similarly identify with that. Although, I will get a SS pension here of +/-US$1,250.00 per month (Income Tax free).

My SS, in combination with my wife's, might amount to around $20K per year, when we decide to take it (not for at least several years, and the payment increases 8% per year if I wait until age 70). However, I didn't work this hard to live on so little. I PAID for it, so I will certainly take it... but it's just a supplement, not a living.


Be thankful that you had the foresight to work hard all your life and save assets (which you have paid tax on) in order to support you in your retirement. Pity that the income from the assets will be taxed. |:(

Paying the tax doesn't bother me, in the least... it's my obligation and responsibility to pay taxes, since I drive on tax-supported roads, get medical care whose research was paid for with tax dollars, will receive Medicare benefits that are tax-supported, and, in general, receive countless benefits that would not be available to me if it were not for taxes. I am constantly amazed at people who protest taxation, while enjoying all of the benefits that those tax dollars provide.

I don't endorse the idea of low taxes, or high taxes.... I endorse the idea of appropriately spent taxes, spent on things that benefit ALL of America, and not just the military industrial complex, or the super-wealthy.

John of Phoenix
05-13-2016, 09:23 AM
Dunning-Kruger.Stole the words right off my keyboard.

:D LMAO :D

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 09:28 AM
No president is perfect; they ALL make mistakes... but some make far bigger mistakes than others. Still, you cannot ignore the history; when it comes to economic affairs, the usual story from the right wing is largely a lie; 'trickle down' economics has been repeatedly tried and failed, and Keynesian economics, for the most part, have worked, and worked amazingly well.



My SS, in combination with my wife's, might amount to around $20K per year, when we decide to take it (not for at least several years, and the payment increases 8% per year if I wait until age 70). However, I didn't work this hard to live on so little. I PAID for it, so I will certainly take it... but it's just a supplement, not a living.



Paying the tax doesn't bother me, in the least... it's my obligation and responsibility to pay taxes, since I drive on tax-supported roads, get medical care whose research was paid for with tax dollars, will receive Medicare benefits that are tax-supported, and, in general, receive countless benefits that would not be available to me if it were not for taxes. I am constantly amazed at people who protest taxation, while enjoying all of the benefits that those tax dollars provide.

I don't endorse the idea of low taxes, or high taxes.... I endorse the idea of appropriately spent taxes, spent on things that benefit ALL of America, and not just the military industrial complex, or the super-wealthy.



SS pension here starts at 62, in UK it is (for me) 67. What age does the SS pension start in the USA?
Is that 8%/pa increase compounded or simple based on original?


I agree, "appropriately spent taxes" and not squandering them as I stated in my OP. Y>

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 09:40 AM
Presently or when Trump becomes president? He's vowed to revamp SS and medicare, so since he's not telling how he's going to "play" with it, I don't have a clue!

I don't think that even Mr Trump knows now, let alone if he became President.

I am just against the squandering of Treasury funds.

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 10:11 AM
SS pension here starts at 62, in UK it is (for me) 67. What age does the SS pension start in the USA?

The regular retirement age here is 66 (there's an exemption for people born before a certain date, when the retirement age was 65). It is possible to retire as early as 62, but with a reduced benefit. For every year that one hold off retiring past 66, until age 70 (or is it 72 now?), the benefit increases by approximately 8% per year (so I guess it is compounded). Many people analyze the trade-off to see whether it's worth holding off, or not... although since no one can predict when they die, it's a questionable analysis.

Most right-wingers don't understand Social Security, calling it a 'Ponzi scheme', or worse.... but it's nothing of the sort. It's basically an insurance product, not all that dissimilar to a life insurance policy, in which you pay a premium in each of your working years, in exchange for a guaranteed payment after retirement, until death.

Ideally, the system should run as a net-zero operation: the SS taxes are used for benefits, with no surplus or deficit. However, changing demographics precludes that. In a stroke of very rare bipartisan agreement back in the 80's, Reagan and Tip O'Neil hammered out a deal, which created the Social Security surplus... it was an increase in SS taxes to account for the eventual retirement of the 'baby boomers', and it extended the life of the program significantly. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite enough, and the system needs anther tweak, or it will begin to fail to provide full benefits by around 2032.

The 'tweak' could be easy... in fact, it's the easiest problem this country faces. Some very minor changes to the cap on SS taxes, the rate of increase in benefits due to inflation, and the retirement age, would secure the program in perpetuity (all of which are opposed by Republicans... no surprise, since the rich don't give a rat's ass about SS).

One economist made an incredibly simple suggestion: if we simply raised the retirement age, by one month, per year, for the next 12 years, the program would be solvent in perpetuity....

....but the Republicans won't even accept THAT barely noticeable fix. It's been a matter if ideology: Republicans have hated Social Security since it was enacted, in 1935.

oznabrag
05-13-2016, 10:16 AM
. . . Republicans have hated Social Security since it was enacted, in 1935.

http://www.strangehistory.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/guillotine.png

ccmanuals
05-13-2016, 10:22 AM
The regular retirement age here is 66 (there's an exemption for people born before a certain date, when the retirement age was 65). It is possible to retire as early as 62, but with a reduced benefit. For every year that one hold off retiring past 66, until age 70 (or is it 72 now?), the benefit increases by approximately 8% per year (so I guess it is compounded). Many people analyze the trade-off to see whether it's worth holding off, or not... although since no one can predict when they die, it's a questionable analysis.

Most right-wingers don't understand Social Security, calling it a 'Ponzi scheme', or worse.... but it's nothing of the sort. It's basically an insurance product, not all that dissimilar to a life insurance policy, in which you pay a premium in each of your working years, in exchange for a guaranteed payment after retirement, until death.

Ideally, the system should run as a net-zero operation: the SS taxes are used for benefits, with no surplus or deficit. However, changing demographics precludes that. In a stroke of very rare bipartisan agreement back in the 80's, Reagan and Tip O'Neil hammered out a deal, which created the Social Security surplus... it was an increase in SS taxes to account for the eventual retirement of the 'baby boomers', and it extended the life of the program significantly. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite enough, and the system needs anther tweak, or it will begin to fail to provide full benefits by around 2032.

The 'tweak' could be easy... in fact, it's the easiest problem this country faces. Some very minor changes to the cap on SS taxes, the rate of increase in benefits due to inflation, and the retirement age, would secure the program in perpetuity (all of which are opposed by Republicans... no surprise, since the rich don't give a rat's ass about SS).

One economist made an incredibly simple suggestion: if we simply raised the retirement age, by one month, per year, for the next 12 years, the program would be solvent in perpetuity....

....but the Republicans won't even accept THAT barely noticeable fix. It's been a matter if ideology: Republicans have hated Social Security since it was enacted, in 1935.

It's worth mentioning that many economists think by simply raising the current cap of $118,000 which is the cap on the income you pay SS taxes on to a higher number would solve our SS fund problems for years to come.

John of Phoenix
05-13-2016, 10:34 AM
"Solving the problem" whether it be Social Security, Medicare or any other public benefit program, has never been the goal of the republican party.

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 10:36 AM
It's worth mentioning that many economists think by simply raising the current cap of $118,000 which is the cap on the income you pay SS taxes on to a higher number would solve our SS fund problems for years to come.

That would work, as well.... but I prefer the method I quoted earlier.

The reason: being completely fair about it, SS is a regressive tax. The benefit is significant, to ordinary Americans, but the tax imposed is significant, as well. The the very wealthy, neither the tax, nor the benefit, is of any significance. The benefit isn't linked to the cap, so raising the cap means that some Americans will pay more, without receiving a corresponding benefit in an increased payment. The Americans who would be most affected by an increased cap would be the lower edge of the upper middle class, and they would get no increased benefit, by increasing the cap.

I think the alternate idea (raising the retirement age by one month, per year, for 12 years) would be the fairest method of insuring Social Security into perpetuity.

ccmanuals
05-13-2016, 10:38 AM
That would work, as well.... but I prefer the method I quoted earlier.

The reason: being completely fair about it, SS is a regressive tax. The benefit is significant, to ordinary Americans, but the tax imposed is significant, as well. The the very wealthy, neither the tax, nor the benefit, is of any significance. The benefit isn't linked to the cap, so raising the cap means that some Americans will pay more, without receiving a corresponding benefit in an increased payment. The Americans who would be most affected by an increased cap would be the lower edge of the upper middle class, and they would get no increased benefit, by increasing the cap.

I think the alternate idea (raising the retirement age by one month, per year, for 12 years) would be the fairest method of insuring Social Security into perpetuity.

I think in addition to raising the cap the benefit should be increased as well. IMHO

I would also add by significantly increasing the cap then the amount of contributions from lower income could be reduced as well.

hokiefan
05-13-2016, 10:38 AM
That would work, as well.... but I prefer the method I quoted earlier.

The reason: being completely fair about it, SS is a regressive tax. The benefit is significant, to ordinary Americans, but the tax imposed is significant, as well. The the very wealthy, neither the tax, nor the benefit, is of any significance. The benefit isn't linked to the cap, so raising the cap means that some Americans will pay more, without receiving a corresponding benefit in an increased payment. The Americans who would be most affected by an increased cap would be the lower edge of the upper middle class, and they would get no increased benefit, by increasing the cap.

I think the alternate idea (raising the retirement age by one month, per year, for 12 years) would be the fairest method of insuring Social Security into perpetuity.

You forget that the folks that need Social Security the most are the ones working low paying, physically demanding jobs. Sometimes just working until you're 62 in those jobs is tough, making it to 67 even more so.

Cheers,

Bobby

ccmanuals
05-13-2016, 10:41 AM
You forget that the folks that need Social Security the most are the ones working low paying, physically demanding jobs. Sometimes just working until you're 62 in those jobs is tough, making it to 67 even more so.

Cheers,

Bobby

I would agree 100%. If you worked your whole like as a brick layer or a roofer then working beyond 62 can almost be cruel. Not so much if you are a lawyer working beyond 62 is probably not a big deal.

Norman Bernstein
05-13-2016, 10:42 AM
You forget that the folks that need Social Security the most are the ones working low paying, physically demanding jobs. Sometimes just working until you're 62 in those jobs is tough, making it to 67 even more so.


Agreed.. but it's also true that people are living and working much longer than they used to. SSDI (Social Security Disability) ought to be the thing that provides benefits to those physically incapable of working to 66. The problem with SSDI: even if you have an iron-clad case, it now takes up to two years to be approved for it.

hokiefan
05-13-2016, 10:51 AM
Agreed.. but it's also true that people are living and working much longer than they used to. SSDI (Social Security Disability) ought to be the thing that provides benefits to those physically incapable of working to 66. The problem with SSDI: even if you have an iron-clad case, it now takes up to two years to be approved for it.

When I was 19-20 I worked summers in the maintenance shop at the local paper mill. It was hard work but I loved it, to the point of considering it an alternative if school didn't work out. At 56 I'm really glad I didn't take that path and can't imagine being able to do that kind of work every day for another 10 years. And I'm reasonably healthy.

Cheers,

Bobby

LeeG
05-13-2016, 11:03 AM
I just don't get the reward for a citizen of St Kitts to identify so strongly with mindless partisan dreck.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 11:09 AM
I just don't get the reward for a citizen of St Kitts to identify so strongly with mindless partisan dreck.

Why should you get that reward? |;)

The OP (have a look) was party neutral and was in regard to 'Governments' in general. :ycool:

Others directed it to the USA direction.:rolleyes:

John of Phoenix
05-13-2016, 11:18 AM
Why should you get that reward? |;)

The OP (have a look) was party neutral and was in regard to 'Governments' in general. :ycool:

Others directed it to the USA direction.:rolleyes:
Opening Post:
Governments squander too much money.

This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.


Governments should spend within the budgets. (this probably does not concur with Democrat thinking).
Do you ever actually feel embarrassed by your lies?

Paul Pless
05-13-2016, 11:31 AM
Do you ever actually feel embarrassed by your lies?

Just last week he claimed he was a liberal. Lol

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 11:31 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4887829#post4887829)Why should you get that reward? |;)

The OP (have a look) was party neutral and was in regard to 'Governments' in general. :ycool:

Others directed it to the USA direction.:rolleyes:




Opening Post:
Governments squander too much money.

This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.





Governments should spend within the budgets. (this probably does not concur with Democrat thinking).Do you ever actually feel embarrassed by your lies?


Where are the lies?

- Why should you get that reward?

- The OP (have a look) was party neutral and was in regard to 'Governments' in general.

- Others directed it to the USA direction.

- Governments squander too much money.

- This results in penalising the taxpayer unduly, by imposing higher taxes to cover the squandering and wastage.

Where are the lies to which you refer ? :confused:

John of Phoenix
05-13-2016, 11:37 AM
That's even past Dunning Kruger. No wonder you're never embarrassed, you don't even recognize the lies.

Psychotic.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 11:43 AM
That's even past Dunning Kruger. No wonder you're never embarrassed, you don't even recognize the lies.

SOP. You are unable to show even one lie, since there aren't any.

In future, suggest that you try to engage your brain before you post meaningless drivel.

Sincere apologies, if you had already engaged it and your post(s) was the result.

Jim Mahan
05-13-2016, 11:43 AM
This thread is mostly about the historical economic difference between Republican and Democratic administrations. The chart of the last eighty years sums that up nicely.

I don't know, and probably won't do the research, though I might decide to read a book on it, how the economic history correlates with the the social programs for the same time period, under the same presidencies. I'm sure there will be some statistical turbulence with regard to the various combinations of the parties of the presidents and congresses.

John of Phoenix
05-13-2016, 11:59 AM
SOP. You are unable to show even one lie, since there aren't any.

In future, suggest that you try to engage your brain before you post meaningless drivel.

Sincere apologies, if you had already engaged it and your post(s) was the result.I showed you once in crystal clear fashion, highlighted it for you, in post #47. You even quoted it.

If you're not capable of understanding it, we'll just add that to your list of impediments.

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 12:02 PM
I showed you once in crystal clear fashion, highlighted it for you, in post #47. You even quoted it.

If you're not capable of understanding it, we'll just add that to your list of impediments.


You failed 100% to show that any of what I wrote was a lie.

I realise that you appear to have engaged your brain, but still churn out garbage. I feel so sorry for you.

John of Phoenix
05-13-2016, 12:09 PM
Good luck with life. You need it.

:D LMAO :D

Rum_Pirate
05-13-2016, 12:11 PM
Good luck with life. You need it.

:D LMAO :D


Apparently not as much as you will. |;)

slug
05-13-2016, 12:13 PM
This thread is mostly about the historical economic difference between Republican and Democratic administrations. The chart of the last eighty years sums that up nicely.

I don't know, and probably won't do the research, though I might decide to read a book on it, how the economic history correlates with the the social programs for the same time period, under the same presidencies. I'm sure there will be some statistical turbulence with regard to the various combinations of the parties of the presidents and congresses.


America is free...you vote for your leaders, you vote for policy. All social economic failures are the responsibility of the voter.


Vote for free stuff and you will certainly produce another failure

vote for any policy that erodes Americas global competitiness and you will certainly produce another failure .

vote for any policy that fails to address immigration and you will certainly produce another failure.

stop blaming politicians.

oznabrag
05-13-2016, 12:22 PM
. . . All social economic failures are the responsibility of the voter.

. . .
stop blaming politicians.

Holy smokes.

oznabrag
05-13-2016, 01:14 PM
I think that's the problem! Not the tobacco I'd use but, it explains a lot.

The most amazing thing about that post was that slug pretended that politicians are pure as the driven snow. Absolute slaves to the will and well-being of their constituents without a shred of self-interest.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, for at least 45 years the RFP has been all about impoverishing not only the vast majority of citizens, but the US Government itself, in the name of drowning it in a bathtub.