Another Racist remark by Harry Reid

[OldTrapper]

AA came about with JFK executive order 10925 strengthened by LBJ eo 11246. known to be democrats. you asked for proof there kt is.

No proof at all unless you want to call Nixon a racist also for expanding affirmative action, and since he was the one who truly strengthen the program if you had read the history I posted. However, since you, and the Tea Boy, have your minds set on only your own propaganda, well, then there is no room for truth.

And so far you have provided no proof that Tea Boys comment has any truth to it. It is all innuendo based on his particular political ideology. I am asking for proof that this comment is true, and so far you, nor he, or any other, has offered any proof it is true.

"Those people are black Democrats, NOT white Conservatives."

Was Kennedy a Black Democrat? Johnson?

 

[OldTrapper]

Well ... Looks like you got me there trap ....

Apparently a whole whopping 3 Republicans did vote against the bill instead of 2!

But, let me be clear .... I am not here to defend the leftist Republicans .... I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the communist left at the moment!

I will not disagree that bills should be voted on as one single bill! I support this whole heartedly!

But, that was not my point to my post. The point was two fold......

One, the fact that Obama can, will and does speak with a negro dialect (as Reid suggested) when he wants to ... when it benefits his racist communist politics of division!

And, two ... the hypocrisy of Obama to race bait the black population of the 9th Ward by insinuating that they did not get Federal money (which they did shortly there after) because they were black when he himself voted against it!

He did not say he voted against the bill!!! He did not offer an explanation of WHY he did not vote for the bill. He race baited the community and insinuated they did no get their money because they were BLACK!

The racism is obvious among the agenda of the communist American LEFT!!!!

No, what you said was he voted against aid for Katrina. What you conveniently ignore is that for him to have done so he would have had to vote for the rest of the garbage. And then you ignore that other liberal extremists also voted against the bill. The hypocrites in this case were the Republicans that voted for more spending on other items just to get the aid for Katrina passed, or perhaps (and more likely to be true) the aid for Katrina was attached to the other garbage to get the garbage passed.

 

[Texas_tea]

No, what you said was he voted against aid for Katrina. What you conveniently ignore is that for him to have done so he would have had to vote for the rest of the garbage. And then you ignore that other liberal extremists also voted against the bill. The hypocrites in this case were the Republicans that voted for more spending on other items just to get the aid for Katrina passed, or perhaps (and more likely to be true) the aid for Katrina was attached to the other garbage to get the garbage passed.

No trap .... what I said was:

Another favorite by the racist, race baiting, communist supporting Reid ....

"a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one"
-Harry Reid

Translation ...... at least Obama ain't one of those nappy-headed, ebonic speaking darkies ....

You gotta love the hypocrisy of the left ...

And, furthermore .... I find it interesting that Harry Reid also said in that statement "unless he wanted to have one"

Here is Obama down in New Orleans race baiting the residents of the 9th Ward just after Katrina using what????

You guessed it .... a home made "negro dialect"!!!!

"Where's "yo" dolla ..... where's "yo" Stafford Act ......"
-B. Hussein Obama

Possibly the most sinister part of this video is that just days before Obama gave this race baiting speech in New Orleans taunting the victims of Katrina by suggesting they were not receiving Federal Aid because they were black, Obama had already voted against Aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

B. Hussein Obama was among 14 Senators who voted against any Federal Aid for Katrina victims, all Democrats with the exception of 2 Republicans and 1 Independent.

But, this really isn't that uncommon among the socialist/communist democrats. Here's Hillary speaking to a black church using her home made "negro dialect"!!!

 

[OldTrapper]

No trap .... what I said was:

Possibly the most sinister part of this video is that just days before Obama gave this race baiting speech in New Orleans taunting the victims of Katrina by suggesting they were not receiving Federal Aid because they were black, Obama had already voted against Aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

B. Hussein Obama was among 14 Senators who voted against any Federal Aid for Katrina victims, all Democrats with the exception of 2 Republicans and 1 Independent.

And then you post proof of what I said you said. Too funny.

 

[TheJPRD]

I would actually like to see some proof for that comment if it is possible.

When members of one ethnic-political group continually blame another ethnic group for every evil that exists, THAT is bigoted and racist. Black Democrats (and white ones too) blame every national ill on white racism. Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) want to cut personal and corporate taxes??? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who hate poor people, especially blacks! Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) want voter identification? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who hate poor people, especially blacks. Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) insist that George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with a gun while being beaten by a black kid? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who profile black kids, and that we should not be allowed to defend ourselves from black violence.

Black and white Democrats continue to claim that Zimmerman had NO right to defend himself from the black hoodlum who waited for him instead of going home, ambushed him, and attacked him with NO physical provocation. They continue to punish a man for not allowing himself to be beaten to death. The Democrat answer to the "problem" is to deny gun ownership to law-abiding US citizens in order to make us easier targets for violence.

Now, many black and white Democrats are telling us that there's an epidemic of black-on-black violence. They want to avoid any discussion of black/white violence at any cost. Many Republicans are buying into the lie that black-on-black violence is a serious problem. The truth is that blacks commit violence against other blacks at a rate that's only slightly higher than white-on-white violence (as percentages of racial populations). Where blacks excel over whites is in their interracial violence. Whereas blacks commit violence against other blacks 51% of the time when they offend, whites commit violence against other whites 97% of the time. White-on-black violence is virtually non-existent! Yet whites are the ones being accused of racial hatred and violence??? Personally, I'm beyond sick and tired of Democrat lies and Democrat race baiters. They won't get free pass any longer when they incite violence against white people!

 

[cashmcall]

difference is I bitched about the ones on the left...you praise them and try to pretend they don't exist.

You have me confused with someone else..

 

[OldTrapper]

When members of one ethnic-political group continually blame another ethnic group for every evil that exists, THAT is bigoted and racist. Black Democrats (and white ones too) blame every national ill on white racism.

<snip>

Personally, I'm beyond sick and tired of Democrat lies and Democrat race baiters. They won't get free pass any longer when they incite violence against white people!

Sounds to me like you just blame others for all the ills of the country.

"Conservatives" want to cut taxes for the wealthy, and corporations (60% of which do not pay any corporate taxes like GE, Google, etc., and the ones that do pay an effective tax rate of 16% like Buffet) simply because they are the ones who profit the most from doing so. When Bush lowered the tax rate for the wealthy, with the lie that it would create more jobs by freeing up more money, how many jobs were created? None. In fact we lost jobs. Then there was the claim that granting the wealthy certain loopholes would create jobs. Again, it created none, just took away jobs, and revenue. What did the repeal of Glass-Steagall get us? What has the importation of cheap labor under the H1B Visa program gotten us?

Now personally, I am sick and tired of the lies of those who call themselves "conservatives", and yet have no idea of what it means to be a conservative. If one believes that Limbaugh, Beck, Ryan, Issa, and numerous others, are "conservatives", well, I have some property in Georgia I would sell you.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/

If the “free-market” theories of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were correct, the United States of the last three decades should have experienced a golden age in which the lavish rewards flowing to the titans of industry would have transformed the society into a vibrant force for beneficial progress.

After all, it has been faith in “free-market economics” as a kind of secular religion that has driven U.S. government policies – from the emergence of Ronald Reagan through the neo-liberalism of Bill Clinton into the brave new world of House Republican budget chairman Paul Ryan.

By slashing income tax rates to historically low levels – and only slightly boosting them under President Clinton before dropping them again under George W. Bush – the U.S. government essentially incentivized greed or what Ayn Rand liked to call “the virtue of selfishness.”

Further, by encouraging global “free trade” and removing regulations like the New Deal’s Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banks, the government also got out of the way of “progress,” even if that “progress” has had crushing results for many middle-class Americans.

 

[cashmcall]

Sounds to me like you just blame others for all the ills of the country.

"Conservatives" want to cut taxes for the wealthy, and corporations (60% of which do not pay any corporate taxes like GE, Google, etc., and the ones that do pay an effective tax rate of 16% like Buffet) simply because they are the ones who profit the most from doing so. When Bush lowered the tax rate for the wealthy, with the lie that it would create more jobs by freeing up more money, how many jobs were created? None. In fact we lost jobs. Then there was the claim that granting the wealthy certain loopholes would create jobs. Again, it created none, just took away jobs, and revenue. What did the repeal of Glass-Steagall get us? What has the importation of cheap labor under the H1B Visa program gotten us





Now personally, I am sick and tired of the lies of those who call themselves "conservatives", and yet have no idea of what it means to be a conservative. If one believes that Limbaugh, Beck, Ryan, Issa, and numerous others, are "conservatives", well, I have some property in Georgia I would sell you.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/

If the “free-market” theories of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were correct, the United States of the last three decades should have experienced a golden age in which the lavish rewards flowing to the titans of industry would have transformed the society into a vibrant force for beneficial progress.

After all, it has been faith in “free-market economics” as a kind of secular religion that has driven U.S. government policies – from the emergence of Ronald Reagan through the neo-liberalism of Bill Clinton into the brave new world of House Republican budget chairman Paul Ryan.

By slashing income tax rates to historically low levels – and only slightly boosting them under President Clinton before dropping them again under George W. Bush – the U.S. government essentially incentivized greed or what Ayn Rand liked to call “the virtue of selfishness.”

Further, by encouraging global “free trade” and removing regulations like the New Deal’s Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banks, the government also got out of the way of “progress,” even if that “progress” has had crushing results for many middle-class Americans.

Sure, Bush made the rich richer.
But Obama has actually redistributed wealth from the middle class to the very richest more than Bush.
Specifically, income inequality has increased more under Obama than under Bush.
Indeed, inequality in America today is worse than it was in Gilded Age America, modern Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, many banana republics in Latin America, twice as bad as in ancient Rome – which was built on slave labor – and worse than experienced by slaves in 1774 colonial America.
A new study shows that the richest Americans captured more than 100% of all recent income gains. As Huffington Post notes: A very Liberal opinion
The top 1 percent of households by income captured 121 percent of all income gains between 2009 and 2011, during the first two years of the economic recovery, according to new research by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. (Saez is a renowned income inequality expertand winner of the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, an award that the American Economic Association gives every year to the top economist under age 40.)

How was the top 1 percent able to capture more than all of the recovery’s income gains? They became 11.2 percent richer while the bottom 99 percent got 0.4 percent poorer, when accounting for inflation, according to Saez.

Saez released the updated figures in late January after finding last year that the top 1 percent had captured 93 percent of all income gains in 2010, the first full year of the economic recovery.

Overall, between 1993 and 2011, the top 1 percent’s incomes surged 57.5 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent grew just 5.8 percent, according to Saez.
One of the reasons why the super-rich are becoming much richer and everyone else poorer is that Obama is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father or Ronald Reagan.
And by pointing out that inequality is skyrocketing, we’re not calling for a redistribution of wealth downward. We’re calling for an end to policies which allow wealth to be concentrated in a few hands.
Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks (they’ve gotten much bigger under Obama), the Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets (most of the quantitative easing has occurred under Obama), and government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation (there’s now more moral hazard than ever before) … things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.
Indeed, crony capitalism has gotten even worse under Obama.
So Bush was a disaster … but Obama is worse. Obama apologists say "at least Obama has created jobs". But some economists argue that unemployment has actually skyrocketed under Obama (and see this).

Given that government policy is ensuring high unemployment levels, that Obama - despite his words - actually doesn't mind high unemployment, that virtually all of the government largesse has gone to Wall Street instead of Main Street or the average American, and that a “jobless recovery” is a redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys.

 

[OldTrapper]

Sure, Bush made the rich richer.
But Obama has actually redistributed wealth from the middle class to the very richest more than Bush.
Specifically, income inequality has increased more under Obama than under Bush.

Obama has made the mistake of not changing any of the Bush policies, and your Republicans (conservatives) have opposed any changes he has sought to make.

Overall, between 1993 and 2011, the top 1 percent’s incomes surged 57.5 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent grew just 5.8 percent, according to Saez.
One of the reasons why the super-rich are becoming much richer and everyone else poorer is that Obama is prosecuting fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father or Ronald Reagan.

Again, it began with Bush, and is a continuation of his policies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-prosecuted-2013-1

The reason there have been no efforts made to criminally investigate is obvious. Former banking regulator and current securities Professor Bill Black told Bill Moyers in 2009 that "Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong."

In the documentary "Inside Job," when asked why there have been no such investigations, economist Nouriel Roubini replied: "Because then you'd find the culprits." Underlying all of that is what the Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin, admitted in 2009: The banks "frankly own the place."

The harms from this refusal to hold Wall Street accountable are the same generated by the general legal immunity the U.S. political culture has vested in its elites. Just as was true for the protection of torturers and illegal eavesdroppers, it ensures that there are no incentives to avoid similar crimes in the future.

Given that government policy is ensuring high unemployment levels, that Obama - despite his words - actually doesn't mind high unemployment, that virtually all of the government largesse has gone to Wall Street instead of Main Street or the average American, and that a “jobless recovery” is a redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys.

You see, you are arguing what I have argued since 2008 when it became publicly known that the bank fraud began in 2005, and whistle blowers were naming names in 2006. However, you want to blame it all on Obama, and the Democrats, and are attempting to jusdtify Bush by saying Obama is worse. Obama is not worse, nor is he better. It is just that the policies that were institutionalized by Bush, and even back to Reagan, are now coming to the forefront, and the people are going to lose simply because they will not vote for men of honor.

 

[TheJPRD]

Sounds to me like you just blame others for all the ills of the country.

The next time you read one of my posts, try to read for comprehension! You claim that I blame others for all of the ills of the country. In my post I addressed ONE issue. That issue was black hatred of and violence against whites. I blamed ONLY one group for causing that problem, that group being black and white Democrat race baiters. If you can list ANY other ills I addressed in my post, or ANY other group on which I placed blame, readers may believe your accusation. UNLESS you back up your accusation with quotes from my post, you’re simply shooting off your mouth!

"Conservatives" want to cut taxes for the wealthy, and corporations (60% of which do not pay any corporate taxes like GE, Google, etc., and the ones that do pay an effective tax rate of 16% like Buffet) simply because they are the ones who profit the most from doing so. When Bush lowered the tax rate for the wealthy, with the lie that it would create more jobs by freeing up more money, how many jobs were created? None. In fact we lost jobs. Then there was the claim that granting the wealthy certain loopholes would create jobs. Again, it created none, just took away jobs, and revenue. What did the repeal of Glass-Steagall get us? What has the importation of cheap labor under the H1B Visa program gotten us?

Don’t attribute the actions of those who pretend to be conservatives to those of us who ARE conservatives! Real conservatives like myself and others here do NOT agree with RINO policies! Many of us prefer to get rid of ALL tax deductions, and institute a flat tax. “Liberal” icon, John F. Kennedy, was a wise man, particularly when it came to economics. When he reduced personal and corporate income taxes in 1962-63, he explained the reasons far better than most of today’s conservatives. The following is a link to an interview Kennedy did with Huntley and Brinkley in 1962. Go to the 6:55 minute point to start, and listen to his eloquent justification for that tax policy. Perhaps you’ll learn something? http://blogs.app.com/politicspatrol...eybrinkley-give-jfk-a-second-shot-at-answers/

If the “free-market” theories of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were correct, the United States of the last three decades should have experienced a golden age in which the lavish rewards flowing to the titans of industry would have transformed the society into a vibrant force for beneficial progress.

Economic policies that Rand and Friedman advocated haven’t existed in this country since before Woodrow Wilson! The failures since then have nothing to do with such policies. They haven’t existed!

 

[OldTrapper]

The next time you read one of my posts, try to read for comprehension! You claim that I blame others for all of the ills of the country. In my post I addressed ONE issue. That issue was black hatred of and violence against whites. I blamed ONLY one group for causing that problem, that group being black and white Democrat race baiters. If you can list ANY other ills I addressed in my post, or ANY other group on which I placed blame, readers may believe your accusation. UNLESS you back up your accusation with quotes from my post, you’re simply shooting off your mouth!

Well big man, seems like you have a problem with reading what you write, or is your hand quicker then your eye:

(Issue One) When members of one ethnic-political group continually blame another ethnic group for every evil that exists, THAT is bigoted and racist.

(Issue Two) Black Democrats (and white ones too) blame every national ill on white racism.

(Issue Three) Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) want to cut personal and corporate taxes??? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who hate poor people, especially blacks!

(Issue Four) Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) want voter identification? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who hate poor people, especially blacks.

(Issue Five) Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) insist that George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with a gun while being beaten by a black kid? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who profile black kids, and that we should not be allowed to defend ourselves from black violence.

You may want to blame all of them on racism, however, they are 5 different issues for which you have only one party to blame. And that is, according to your words (if you can remember them) bigoted, and racist.

Don’t attribute the actions of those who pretend to be conservatives to those of us who ARE conservatives! Real conservatives like myself and others here do NOT agree with RINO policies! Many of us prefer to get rid of ALL tax deductions, and institute a flat tax. “Liberal” icon, John F. Kennedy, was a wise man, particularly when it came to economics. When he reduced personal and corporate income taxes in 1962-63, he explained the reasons far better than most of today’s conservatives. The following is a link to an interview Kennedy did with Huntley and Brinkley in 1962. Go to the 6:55 minute point to start, and listen to his eloquent justification for that tax policy. Perhaps you’ll learn something? http://blogs.app.com/politicspatrol...eybrinkley-give-jfk-a-second-shot-at-answers/

http://blogs.app.com/politicspatrol...eybrinkley-give-jfk-a-second-shot-at-answers/

Already heard it, and have heard it used over, and over, and over, again. Kennedy had the benefit of a growing DOMESTIC economy, and a growing MIDDLE CLASS. That ended beginning with Reagan, and even Reagan had the good sense to understand as his deficit was increasing to close the loopholes given to the wealthy, and also raising taxes on the wealthy. That is something "conservatives" like yourself continuously ignore. Others of your same ilk would destroy the American economy to keep globalism, and corporatism, alive.

Do you even have a clue as to what a "competitive market" is as compared to a "de facto monopolistic market" is?

Economic policies that Rand and Friedman advocated haven’t existed in this country since before Woodrow Wilson! The failures since then have nothing to do with such policies. They haven’t existed!

I think that was the purpose of the article if you had read the entirety, not just the C&P I posted. However, it was those policies that allegedly drove Bush, and then the Tea Party advocates.

http://vincenton.com/ayn-rand-and-americas-tea-party-protests/

 

[TheJPRD]

Well big man, seems like you have a problem with reading what you write, or is your hand quicker then your eye:

(Issue One) When members of one ethnic-political group continually blame another ethnic group for every evil that exists, THAT is bigoted and racist.

(Issue Two) Black Democrats (and white ones too) blame every national ill on white racism.

(Issue Three) Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) want to cut personal and corporate taxes??? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who hate poor people, especially blacks!

(Issue Four) Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) want voter identification? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who hate poor people, especially blacks.

(Issue Five) Why do conservatives (of all skin colors) insist that George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with a gun while being beaten by a black kid? Black and white Democrats will tell you it's because we're racists who profile black kids, and that we should not be allowed to defend ourselves from black violence.

Seriously? The supposed "issues" you listed are ONE issue, "big man"! The "issue" was and is that Democrats attribute every conservative position to our racism and bigotry!!! Those were NOT issues I raised, "big man", they were EXAMPLES of conservative positions that Democrats say are caused by our racism and bigotry. Understand now why I said you need to comprehend what you read???

You may want to blame all of them on racism, however, they are 5 different issues for which you have only one party to blame. And that is, according to your words (if you can remember them) bigoted, and racist.

Your reading comprehension is really poor. I was not blaming those "issues" on racism, "big man". Those issues are examples of positions that we conservatives have taken, and that Democrats attribute to our racism and bigotry. The ONLY issue I addressed was the Democrat race baiting used against conservatives! The ONLY blame I assigned was to Democrats for their despicable race baiting. Get it now, "big man"?

Already heard it, and have heard it used over, and over, and over, again. Kennedy had the benefit of a growing DOMESTIC economy, and a growing MIDDLE CLASS. That ended beginning with Reagan, and even Reagan had the good sense to understand as his deficit was increasing to close the loopholes given to the wealthy, and also raising taxes on the wealthy. That is something "conservatives" like yourself continuously ignore. Others of your same ilk would destroy the American economy to keep globalism, and corporatism, alive.

You've heard the Kennedy interview over and over again, have you, and you still tell us that "Kennedy had the benefit of a growing domestic economy and a growing middle class"??? It appears that your listening comprehension is as poor as your reading comprehension! Kennedy himself said in that interview that the US economy had become sluggish, and that the nation was accumulating a higher and higher deficit. Sound familiar?? He then proceeded to eloquent explain that the REASON was NOT going to be solved unless jobless Americans got back to work. Did you comprehend how he said that jobless Americans would get back to work?? In case this was another example of your inability to comprehend what you hear, I'll tell you. He said that taxes should be reduced so that jobs would be created. With that greatly-expanded working force, he understood that the TOTAL tax receipts would be greater, even though the tax rates were lower.


The next time you want to comment on a post you read or a video to which you listened, do a better job of understanding what you read and heard. Failing to do so could result in further embarrassment for you.

 

[OldTrapper]

Seriously? The supposed "issues" you listed are ONE issue, "big man"! The "issue" was and is that Democrats attribute every conservative position to our racism and bigotry!!! Those were NOT issues I raised, "big man", they were EXAMPLES of conservative positions that Democrats say are caused by our racism and bigotry. Understand now why I said you need to comprehend what you read???

Now your getting boring. You posted five different issues proposed by "conservatives" all of which you then used Black racism as the alleged excuse for the criticism of such positions. Now all you have to do is prove that such is the case. Obviously those who oppose such actions do not believe themselves to be racists.

Your reading comprehension is really poor. I was not blaming those "issues" on racism, "big man". Those issues are examples of positions that we conservatives have taken, and that Democrats attribute to our racism and bigotry. The ONLY issue I addressed was the Democrat race baiting used against conservatives! The ONLY blame I assigned was to Democrats for their despicable race baiting. Get it now, "big man"?

Now all you have to do is prove it is "race baiting" by Democrats. So, shoot off your "big mouth" some more, and show all just how ignorant you can be.

You've heard the Kennedy interview over and over again, have you, and you still tell us that "Kennedy had the benefit of a growing domestic economy and a growing middle class"??? It appears that your listening comprehension is as poor as your reading comprehension! Kennedy himself said in that interview that the US economy had become sluggish, and that the nation was accumulating a higher and higher deficit. Sound familiar?? He then proceeded to eloquent explain that the REASON was NOT going to be solved unless jobless Americans got back to work. Did you comprehend how he said that jobless Americans would get back to work?? In case this was another example of your inability to comprehend what you hear, I'll tell you. He said that taxes should be reduced so that jobs would be created. With that greatly-expanded working force, he understood that the TOTAL tax receipts would be greater, even though the tax rates were lower.

And what was creating that "greatly expanding" work force? I lived during the 60's, and unemployment was not that bad, the economy was growing, and wealth was "equally" distributed. My father raised 7 kids, bought three houses, new cars, etc., on his wage alone. He was making around 8 dollars an hour, and the CEO was happy to take home 40-t0 times what the average worker made. Now you could never live on 8 dollars an hour much less raise a family, and the CEO wants 400-600 times what the average worker receives. Now the work force is growing through illegal, and legal, immigration, not the increase in natural born citizens. Globalism, technology, robotics, all are eliminating jobs for workers, and nothing any President can do will prevent that.

As to lowering taxes to create jobs, was not that done under Bush, and what happened? Jobs were leaving the country as soon as Bush allowed China full membership in the WTO. Hell, after that occurred corporations even moved out of Mexico. Now, should I explain to you how China has consistently violated the terms of the WTO? Need I explain to you how Clinton, with the Republicans, began the destruction of the American economy with NAFTA? Perhaps I should show you how illegal immigration has been allowed by both parties to the detriment of the American worker.

Then we have the spending problem. Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%.
Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%.
Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%.
Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%.
Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.
Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%.
Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.
Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%.

Notice that spending has always increased, and except for Carter, Bush41, and Clinton, has always outpaced revenue.

[/quote]The next time you want to comment on a post you read or a video to which you listened, do a better job of understanding what you read and heard. Failing to do so could result in further embarrassment for you.[/quote]

YAWN.

 

[TheJPRD]

^^^^ One eventually gets tired of beating a dead horse, or a trapper for that matter. You still don't understand the difference between an "issue" and an "example" as used in my post. I can't make you any smarter than you already aren't.

As for the "statistics" you quoted, they're meaningless without the raw numbers, the baselines against which spending increases and revenue increases were calculated, and a detailed explanation of the political and economic conditions existing during each period. Post links to the raw data, and I'll explain how to properly evaluate them. Lefties seem only capable of discussing a single number on a page, so analytical insights into such numbers are too much for them to handle.

The "numbers" you posted overlooked several facts, whether the numbers are correct or not. The Carter administration created the worst inflationary conditions imaginable. The year in which total tax revenue was the highest in US history, even adjusted for inflation, was under George W. Bush!... AFTER the tax cuts by the way.

 

[Texas_tea]

^^^^ One eventually gets tired of beating a dead horse, or a trapper for that matter. You still don't understand the difference between an "issue" and an "example" as used in my post. I can't make you any smarter than you already aren't.

As for the "statistics" you quoted, they're meaningless without the raw numbers, the baselines against which spending increases and revenue increases were calculated, and a detailed explanation of the political and economic conditions existing during each period. Post links to the raw data, and I'll explain how to properly evaluate them. Lefties seem only capable of discussing a single number on a page, so analytical insights into such numbers are too much for them to handle.

The "numbers" you posted overlooked several facts, whether the numbers are correct or not. The Carter administration created the worst inflationary conditions imaginable. The year in which total tax revenue was the highest in US history, even adjusted for inflation, was under George W. Bush!... AFTER the tax cuts by the way.

Welcome the brainwashed diseased brain of liberalism.

Several facts are not "overlooked" .... they are intentionally left out. This is called spin and propaganda, that individuals, i.e. leftist, are incapable of possessing the intellect to see through!

This is the very reason Vladimir Lenin referred to them as "useful idiots"!