Everyone realizes that republicans PURPOSELY have created this massive debt, correct?

[ahole-ic]

"Blame America First?" You really are an idiot. Did you even read my post? I didn't say anything about hating America. I don't hate America. I hate capitalism and what it's DONE to America. I hate corruption and deceit. If you actually read what I say without your idiotic preconceived notions, you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm actually very patriotic, but I'm not delusional. Saying that America isn't #1 in everything is the truth; saying otherwise is not. You have to convince everyone else that you're Mister America, and when anyone says anything against what you're saying, you have to call them unpatriotic... That's a conservative.
My logic is flawed? Seriously? Fairness to me is giving people what they deserve; making wrong things right. Capitalism is flawed, but it's not every wealthy person's fault. Again, you're taking things out of context. I didn't say every wealthy person is bad. I said corrupt people are bad, which I've stated several times now. I'm talking about the super rich who are making bets on the nation's economy. I don't think every wealthy person has billions of dollars like I talked about. I've never said to take money away from the ones who earned it. There's a difference between wealth and greed, but they often go hand in hand. I've seen what money can do to people, and I've seen how people take advantage of everyone around them to get more money. You're not going to tell me I'm wrong, because I'm not. You keep taking things out of context, and it's really exhausting. I'm getting tired of having to tell you over and over what I'm saying because you twist it around to make me the bad one. How am I the bad guy here? Regardless, liberalism is about freedom and fairness, so it's something I must mention. I made several paragraphs about things other than fairness.

You're putting words in my mouth. Am I somehow the whole government? I'm jealous of the rich? I'm a thief because you're an ignorant, greedy fuck?

Saying poor people have failed is only true if you mean they failed to be born with money. It's unbelievably difficult for poor people to become wealthy, and that's another reason capitalism fails. It's hard to melt steel if you've got a Bic lighter. There's nothing poor people can do to become wealthy. The wealthy stay wealthy, and the poor stay poor. Again, I'm not talking about middle class. I'm talking about the children being born in complexes with two other families in a two bedroom apartment because the super rich took over their neighborhood. There are poor employed people, too. That doesn't mean they're not in poverty. That also doesn't mean it's possible for them to cross the poverty line.

Again, this once great country wasn't and shouldn't be about being the richest person possible. It's about equality and fairness. Everyone is supposed to have the same amount of chance to live happy lives. There's a huge gap in wealth, and it's because capitalism is a failure. I'm not rewarding failure. I'm punishing failure.

I read your entire post, and after having done so I replied accordingly. You say you don't hate America, yet you want to ruin it with socialism. Capitalism is what made America the great superpower that it is. History teaches us this and it's not debatable. All other socialist economies have failed or are failing. Only someone who is extremely unintelligent and uneducated would advocate such a collosal failure. It was said by an extremely intelligent woman "The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money." That's exactly what happens. Other people get tired of working hard and not seeing the benefits from it. The rest of the population loves getting a paycheck for not doing anything. Eventually those that work wise up and stop working and.... STILL RECEIVE A PAYCHECK! You have failed to show how that is NOT rewarding failure and punishing success. You can't do it, because it's not possible. That is exactly what it is. Capitalism allows any person to use their own skill and industry to become successful. EVERYONE has the same opportunity from birth. I was born poor. I have been given NOTHING. I put myself through college by working at a crappy job. I got a decent position after that. Then I used what I knew to start my own side businesses etc. I still struggle from time to time but I"m self made. I want nothing from anyone else. You on the other hand have your hand out. You think those like me that make their own way owe people like you something. We don't and we will never stand for it. It's people like me that keep this country running. We will not be slaves to other people's laziness or incompetance. Even if you got a socialist agenda completely enacted here in the US and it was exactly the way you want, we would revolt. That's exactly why the democrats keep trying to take the 2nd amendment away as they get more and more left. It won't work. This is a center-right country. Over 70% of Americans know what is in the socialist obamacare bill and DO NOT WANT it. That's why the Republicans won the last election in everything from the Federal House of Representatives down to local dog catcher. Everyone but you has taken history classes and knows that socialism is an epic fail.... all except for you and alex the retard(prox).

If you want to reward success, you'll get the government out of people's way so they can get out there and take risks, succeed and hire others.

Calling me ignorant and greedy goes against everything I've said in this thread. I would contend that it is you who is greedy. You are wanting to steal the wealth from those that have earned it and give it to those that have not. THAT is greed. You see someone else has something and you want it. Ignorant? You said you want everyone to "just want to help each other". THAT is ignorant. If everyone was encouraged to get out there and succeed, and rewarded for their success nobody would NEED help anymore, except for the disabled and elderly, which are the only people the government should help..... and veterans. That's it. Nobody else has an excuse.

You admitted you are a left wing lune when you stated you think everyone should just set their goals on helping others and not their own needs or wants. Do you honestly think that exists in a civilized world with modern technologies? Does it exist anywhere other than in places living as a third world country? Isn't it pretty obvious that mentality is what keeps them living as a third world country? I think we can help people a lot better with our modern technology we have for medicines and healthcare. I think our communications allow us to get help to people much faster. Our vehicles allow us to transport much more efficiently. I look at places like Europe, who openly practices socialism. They have horrible healthcare. People have to wait in lines and just die waiting. Women have to have babies at home because there is no room in the hospital. Their country is so far in debt from their socialist policies that they can't see the light of day. Since obama came into office, we have borrowed and spent ourselves into more debt than anyone has had in the history of the world. We did this to try stimulus, bailouts, and other socialist programs. They lied about a "recovery" yet unemployment never came up. Housing never came up, etc. We tried socialism and PROVED that it doesn't work. We did our experiment. It failed. Time to go back to what we know works. That's capitalism. All one has to do is say, are we better off now than when obama came into office? Nobody can say yes. This proves it.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

I read your entire post, and after having done so I replied accordingly. You say you don't hate America, yet you want to ruin it with socialism. Capitalism is what made America the great superpower that it is. History teaches us this and it's not debatable. All other socialist economies have failed or are failing. Only someone who is extremely unintelligent and uneducated would advocate such a collosal failure. It was said by an extremely intelligent woman "The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other people's money." That's exactly what happens. Other people get tired of working hard and not seeing the benefits from it. The rest of the population loves getting a paycheck for not doing anything. Eventually those that work wise up and stop working and.... STILL RECEIVE A PAYCHECK! You have failed to show how that is NOT rewarding failure and punishing success. You can't do it, because it's not possible. That is exactly what it is. Capitalism allows any person to use their own skill and industry to become successful. EVERYONE has the same opportunity from birth. I was born poor. I have been given NOTHING. I put myself through college by working at a crappy job. I got a decent position after that. Then I used what I knew to start my own side businesses etc. I still struggle from time to time but I"m self made. I want nothing from anyone else. You on the other hand have your hand out. You think those like me that make their own way owe people like you something. We don't and we will never stand for it. It's people like me that keep this country running. We will not be slaves to other people's laziness or incompetance. Even if you got a socialist agenda completely enacted here in the US and it was exactly the way you want, we would revolt. That's exactly why the democrats keep trying to take the 2nd amendment away as they get more and more left. It won't work. This is a center-right country. Over 70% of Americans know what is in the socialist obamacare bill and DO NOT WANT it. That's why the Republicans won the last election in everything from the Federal House of Representatives down to local dog catcher. Everyone but you has taken history classes and knows that socialism is an epic fail.... all except for you and alex the retard(prox). If you want to reward success, you'll get the government out of people's way so they can get out there and take risks, succeed and hire others.

Calling me ignorant and greedy goes against everything I've said in this thread. I would contend that it is you who is greedy. You are wanting to steal the wealth from those that have earned it and give it to those that have not. THAT is greed. You see someone else has something and you want it. Ignorant? You said you want everyone to "just want to help each other". THAT is ignorant. If everyone was encouraged to get out there and succeed, and rewarded for their success nobody would NEED help anymore, except for the disabled and elderly, which are the only people the government should help..... and veterans. That's it. Nobody else has an excuse.

You admitted you are a left wing lune when you stated you think everyone should just set their goals on helping others and not their own needs or wants. Do you honestly think that exists in a civilized world with modern technologies? Does it exist anywhere other than in places living as a third world country? Isn't it pretty obvious that mentality is what keeps them living as a third world country? I think we can help people a lot better with our modern technology we have for medicines and healthcare. I think our communications allow us to get help to people much faster. Our vehicles allow us to transport much more efficiently. I look at places like Europe, who openly practices socialism. They have horrible healthcare. People have to wait in lines and just die waiting. Women have to have babies at home because there is no room in the hospital. Their country is so far in debt from their socialist policies that they can't see the light of day. Since obama came into office, we have borrowed and spent ourselves into more debt than anyone has had in the history of the world. We did this to try stimulus, bailouts, and other socialist programs. They lied about a "recovery" yet unemployment never came up. Housing never came up, etc. We tried socialism and PROVED that it doesn't work. We did our experiment. It failed. Time to go back to what we know works. That's capitalism. All one has to do is say, are we better off now than when obama came into office? Nobody can say yes. This proves it.

You're so well versed in taking everything I say out of context. I'm an uneducated communist bastard, and you are America's hero. End of story.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

If those are the choices we're all going to be poor.

Right, obviously everyone can't be rich. But what would just little old you rather be?

We didn't. WW2 is what got us out. You have lied about this and I proved you wrong on this before so you challenged the wiki FACT. Lol!!

Unemployment was still decreasing and GDP was growing rapidly. Although I was wrong about taxes, they weren't as high as I seemed to recall. They were still 63%-79% though, so with still such high taxes, how did our economy slowly begin to recover (even if WWII is what ended it completely, thanks to socialist government stimulus Keynesian spending, of course)? Also, taxes WERE more than 90% until the 60s. And only on the measly sum of $200k (of course that was worth a lot more then). Why didn't our economy collapse then? further more, why did you economic troubles only get bad when tax rates were slashed to what they are today? If I ever get an educated, logical answer from you I'll send picture of myself ***** to anyone who wants them with "BCFosheezy is the master of the universe" written in pink lipstick on my ass.

Data: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

 

[ahole-ic]

Right, obviously everyone can't be rich. But what would just little old you rather be?


Unemployment was still decreasing and GDP was growing rapidly. Although I was wrong about taxes, they weren't as high as I seemed to recall. They were still 63%-79% though, so with still such high taxes, how did our economy slowly begin to recover (even if WWII is what ended it completely, thanks to socialist government stimulus Keynesian spending, of course)? Also, taxes WERE more than 90% until the 60s. And only on the measly sum of $200k (of course that was worth a lot more then). Why didn't our economy collapse then? further more, why did you economic troubles only get bad when tax rates were slashed to what they are today? If I ever get an educated, logical answer from you I'll send picture of myself ***** to anyone who wants them with "BCFosheezy is the master of the universe" written in pink lipstick on my ass.

Data: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

The answer is that those tax hikes made it worse. In your graphs and data you can see that. THAT is what you wanted editted because FDR had two budgets. Once he claimed to balance, and the other one was where he dumped all of the excessive spending. He never balanced a budget. He merely played a smoke and mirrors game. Also, the unemployment numbers didn't go down. Look at right now, they were showing them going down yet nobody was finding work. How did that happen? The number of people at the unemployment office LOOKING for work went down, so the jobless claims went down. People gave up. If you look right now you will find people projecting the REAL unemployment numbers closer to 15%.

Also, the tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush boomed the economies. The Reagan tax increase you like to refer to was democrats in congress told Reagan if he'd sign that bill, they would give him more tax decreases in the future. It never happened. The loony left has spun that ever since. You simply can't show or explain how high tax rates have improved the economy. I can show and back up my claims that less taxes boom the economy and explain how. I don't want to see you *****.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

I don't want to see you *****.

I do. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

The answer is that those tax hikes made it worse.

You're gonna need more evidence than "because I said so".

THAT is what you wanted editted because FDR had two budgets. Once he claimed to balance, and the other one was where he dumped all of the excessive spending. He never balanced a budget. He merely played a smoke and mirrors game.

FDR publicly stated early on that he had a a "regular" budget and an "emergency" budget that dealt with the great depression and funded works programs that helped, in fact saved, the country. This was from the beginning of the FDR four term presidency. ie 1932. In 1936 he came close to balancing the budget, or at least came much closer than before. These are the ACTUAL DEFICITS, calculated from the REAL PUBLIC DEBT before and after the year. There are no smoke and mirrors. FDR reduced spending in 1936. He reduced his works programs. And then it resulted in a double dip depression. These are facts.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

Also, the unemployment numbers didn't go down. Look at right now, they were showing them going down yet nobody was finding work. How did that happen? The number of people at the unemployment office LOOKING for work went down, so the jobless claims went down. People gave up. If you look right now you will find people projecting the REAL unemployment numbers closer to 15%.

They measured REAL unemployment during the great depression. The U-3 calculated rate, that excludes people not looking for work (ie lower than it should be), was NOT used 80 years ago. Your argument has failed. Take a look at this: http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/unemploymentratemint2.jpg

Besides, you forget the entire other side of my argument that FDR's policies were working despite super high taxes (compared to now). The GDP. It was steadily increasing at one of the higher GDP growth rates we've ever seen.

Of course during the war it was even higher because the Keynesian socialist stimulus government spending went even higher.

Also, the tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush boomed the economies.

Again, it's not true just because you say it. There is no evidence that suggest this. If it boomed the economy, how did Bush lead us into the worth economy since the Great Depression?

I can show and back up my claims that less taxes boom the economy and explain how.

I'd love to see that. I really would. I take back the ***** thing. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, I can't show that higher taxes improve the economy because they don't. However, they fund programs and policy that does.

 

[ahole-ic]

You're gonna need more evidence than "because I said so".


FDR publicly stated early on that he had a a "regular" budget and an "emergency" budget that dealt with the great depression and funded works programs that helped, in fact saved, the country. This was from the beginning of the FDR four term presidency. ie 1932. In 1936 he came close to balancing the budget, or at least came much closer than before. These are the ACTUAL DEFICITS, calculated from the REAL PUBLIC DEBT before and after the year. There are no smoke and mirrors. FDR reduced spending in 1936. He reduced his works programs. And then it resulted in a double dip depression. These are facts.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

They measured REAL unemployment during the great depression. The U-3 calculated rate, that excludes people not looking for work (ie lower than it should be), was NOT used 80 years ago. Your argument has failed. Take a look at this: http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/unemploymentratemint2.jpg

Besides, you forget the entire other side of my argument that FDR's policies were working despite super high taxes (compared to now). The GDP. It was steadily increasing at one of the higher GDP growth rates we've ever seen.

Of course during the war it was even higher because the Keynesian socialist stimulus government spending went even higher.

Again, it's not true just because you say it. There is no evidence that suggest this. If it boomed the economy, how did Bush lead us into the worth economy since the Great Depression?

I'd love to see that. I really would. I take back the ***** thing. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, I can't show that higher taxes improve the economy because they don't. However, they fund programs and policy that does.

That was a pretty little graphic that actually proved you wrong... anyone that can read a graph can actually see that. Anyways: FDR's Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, told his fellow Democrats, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"

Most telling, the U.S. Census reported only one year of double-digit unemployment between 1900 and 1931, followed by 10 consecutive years greater than 14 percent with highs of 25 percent in 1933 and 19 percent in 1938, the 10 years of FDR's massive government intervention. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows only two years of double-digit unemployment in the years since FDR's death. Yes, FDR prolonged the Depression and a strong case can be made that without FDR there wouldn't have been a Great Depression.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

That is not a Conservative source. UCLA is not known for Conservatism. It is research showing that the new deal prolonged economic recovery.

If you'll recall, the United States practiced isolationism. We supplied the allies with much of their weaponry, goods, and equipment. This injected foreign money into our economy. It required lots of production and labor. That is not our government providing the stimulus. It's the private sector.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

That was a pretty little graphic that actually proved you wrong... anyone that can read a graph can actually see that.

Hm, so you think that arguments works? ...in that case...

Your pretty little post actually proves you wrong. Anyone that can read the English language can see that.

BOOM. HEADSHOT.

If you're just going to ignore things I say, then I'll just ignore you. You're a true idiot.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Hey eCrack //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif

Why do you post over here if you have your own site?

 

[ahole-ic]

Hey eCrack //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif
Why do you post over here if you have your own site?

I didn't realize when you owned your own site you could only post on that site. That's weird.

 

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 PM ----------

 

Hm, so you think that arguments works? ...in that case...
Your pretty little post actually proves you wrong. Anyone that can read the English language can see that.

BOOM. HEADSHOT.

If you're just going to ignore things I say, then I'll just ignore you. You're a true idiot.

Lol no the graphic says one thing. You said another. I didn't ignore what you said. I proved it wrong.... but I understand you wanting to ignore that.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

I didn't realize when you owned your own site you could only post on that site. That's weird. 

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 PM ----------

 

Lol no the graphic says one thing. You said another. I didn't ignore what you said. I proved it wrong.... but I understand you wanting to ignore that.

The fact that you didn't point out how the graph proved him wrong proves to everyone here that you have no real proof. Just saying, "Lol, you're wrong." doesn't make someone wrong. If you can prove him wrong with facts and examples rather than heresay, then so be it. I haven't seen you prove him wrong, and one article proves nothing. Find me five articles from five different universities, and you've got proof. Articles make outlandish claims all the time.

 

[ahole-ic]

The fact that you didn't point out how the graph proved him wrong proves to everyone here that you have no real proof.

If you can read the graph... that's my proof.

Just saying, "Lol, you're wrong." doesn't make someone wrong.

No the graph they provided does

If you can prove him wrong with facts and examples rather than heresay, then so be it. I haven't seen you prove him wrong, and one article proves nothing.

Yeah it did prove him wrong.

Find me five articles from five different universities, and you've got proof. Articles make outlandish claims all the time.

I can provide five but then you'll say ten, etc. It's not the number of articles. It's what's contained within. You are showing your quality.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

If you can read the graph... that's my proof.

It's obvious that you're interpreting the graph differently, and if you really want to win the argument instead of just piss everyone off by spewing your nonsense, you'll show him where he's wrong.

No the graph they provided does

According to him, the graph proved him right. There's some sort of discrepancy here, and just claiming that he's an idiot because you don't think they say the same thing just makes you look stupider.

Yeah it did prove him wrong.

Again, your posts can't solely consist of, "You're wrong."

I can provide five but then you'll say ten, etc. It's not the number of articles. It's what's contained within. You are showing your quality.

It's not "what's contained within." Like I said, two scholars discussing one thing and coming to a conclusion doesn't make their agreement fact. All academic articles contain are theories. Theories can be made fact if they're validated. You're getting defensive, and you aren't providing shit. You should just accept that you've lost this battle. You should start calling him un-American so you look good again.

Did you see how his links were to actual information? If you can provide some sort of statistic to prove that you're right, then you're right. Until then, you're wrong. There's no other way to look at it.