All of the Presidential Candidates Suck

[4Corners]

The housing market had nowhere to go but up. But if you want to credit Obama for that, can you state which pieces of legislation Obama signed that would show Obama is the one deserving credit for this?

The unemployment rate is a joke. A more accurate metric is the LPR (Labor Participation Rate) which shows the percent of working age Americans actually working. That number is at lows not seen since the Carter 'malaise' years. That's not good at all.



There is no such thing as "trickle down" economics. The term is a political term, not an economics one, invented by politicians.

Now if you disagree, it's easy to prove who is correct. All you need to do is cite JUST ONE economist advocating "trickle down" economics.

As to Bush screwing up, remember, correlation does not imply causation. The housing bubble (which was created long before W Bush took office) happened to burst on his watch, despite the Reps attempting in 2004 to stave off the disaster (I'll post video of the hearings if asked). The Dems opposed any and all new regulations (or even opening the books at Fannie and Freddie!!!) and then when the bubble inevitably burst they blamed Bush!! No offense, but only the economically ignorant (and Party hacks and superfans) still blame Bush for the housing market meltdown.



Would you mind explaining how you arrived at that conclusion?

I'm not about a dude who wants to deport anyone and everyone, nevermind that it will bankrupt us and take decades to accomplish, and says Mexicans here from Mexico are all rapists lol and a dude who says we should block any muslims from coming here. And who thinks immigration is still the hot topic issue.

And Cruz....pretty much the epitome of what I dislike about conservatives at times. He's anti abortion, even in cases of incest and rape. He's opposed to gays getting married. Wants to keep minimum wage low, even though no one can tell me that a single adult can make a realistic living off 8.38 or whatever the minimum wage is where you or anyone else is at. He doesn't believe in global warning, which at this point is laughable.

I just don't agree with their views, personally. But I'm not psyched about any democrat. Bernie I agree with his views, but I'm not so sure his taxes are going to pay for everything, and I'm not sure I want to pay that much more taxes.

Bush did get us involved in 2 wars that set our economy backward as well. He inherited a country that was in a surplus, and we were losing thousands and thousands of jobs a week, and in two of the most ridiculous wars ever by the time he left.

But the real reason I'm not so into politics really is cause when one party has the white house, the other just spends time trying to c*ck block the other, and back and forth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1910344.html

I just don't think giving the rich any tax breaks helps out the overall economy. If anything, the super rich should pay even more. But that's just my opinion. No need to get all bent out of shape or anything man, it's not like anything you say or myself, or anyone for that matter, is going to change anything lol

[1bad65]

I'm not about a dude who wants to deport anyone and everyone, nevermind that it will bankrupt us and take decades to accomplish, and says Mexicans here from Mexico are all rapists lol and a dude who says we should block any muslims from coming here. And who thinks immigration is still the hot topic issue.

Mostly false.

First off, he only wants to deport those here illegally, not "anyone and everyone". FYI, hyperbole is no way to state one's case.

Second, he never said all Mexicans are rapists. Again, more hyperbole.

As for muslims, you are correct. Of course that's pretty common sense policy, so I'm not sure why anyone would oppose it.

Immigration is a hot topic issue. Heck, Trump just won the first primary, and it's a key policy issue in his campaign.

Wants to keep minimum wage low, even though no one can tell me that a single adult can make a realistic living off 8.38 or whatever the minimum wage is where you or anyone else is at. He doesn't believe in global warning, which at this point is laughable.

The Federal Gov't has no business mandating minimum wage, as it's not a duty granted them in our Constitution. Also, who decides what the wage is if not the private sector? A bunch of career politicians who've never worker real jobs??

As for manmade global warming, you have it backwards. It's laughable anyone still falls for the hoax, especially after the pro-warming side openly admitted to using scare tactics, altering and deleting of data, and attempting to hide their data until the FOI Act was invoked. All of that flies in the face of the Scientific Method. Also, the data over a recent 17 year span proves that CO2 does not cause warming as hypothesized. You really need to keep up on science and not take Party talking points as scientific fact.

I just don't agree with their views, personally. But I'm not psyched about any democrat. Bernie I agree with his views, but I'm not so sure his taxes are going to pay for everything, and I'm not sure I want to pay that much more taxes.

That's good you see Sanders for the economically ignorant career politician he is. It's worth noting neither Sanders nor his supporters can tell voters where the money to pay for all his freebies will come from. That's very alarming.

As for voting R or D, I suggest you think deeper. Lots of other choices out there. To be honest, for you personally I'd suggest you look into the Libertarian Party. Socially they agree with your stances on gay marriage and abortion, but I'm not sure exactly where you stand on fiscal issues.

Bush did get us involved in 2 wars that set our economy backward as well. He inherited a country that was in a surplus, and we were losing thousands and thousands of jobs a week, and in two of the most ridiculous wars ever by the time he left.

That is all false.

The economy was not affected by the wars. Now they did increase spending, obviously, but they had no effect on the economy.

As for a surplus, that is another DNC talking point. Total debt went up every Clinton year, which would not be possible if a true surplus was achieved. In short, Clinton used bookkeeping schemes that would get a private sector CEO thrown in prison to try and fool people into believing there was a surplus.

I just don't think giving the rich any tax breaks helps out the overall economy. If anything, the super rich should pay even more. But that's just my opinion. No need to get all bent out of shape or anything man, it's not like anything you say or myself, or anyone for that matter, is going to change anything lol

Well it does. The 1980s showed that very clearly.

It's quite simple, actually. We have an economy driven mainly by consumer spending. Tax cuts allow the consumers to keep more of the money they earn, and thus they have increased buying power. They buy more, and jobs must be created to produce more goods/services for the increased consumer dollars. It's VERY simple common-sense, real world economics really.

This quote explains it very well:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.” – John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963

[1bad65]

And yes, any of the assertions made in my above post can and will be sourced if asked.

All I ask you be specific in which, if any, you want me to source.

[1bad65]

How many times did I tell you to stop talking to me?

I don't obey orders from those incapable of comporting themselves as adults.

As long as you answer, I'll continue to toy with you. It's more fun at this point. Debating guys like yourself preps me for face-to-face debates I tend to have, and especially for those who are only capable of spewing DNC talking points. It's like sparring, albeit with a very poorly skilled sparring partner.

I don't ever respond to your random posts, because I have absolutely no interest in what you have to say.

Yet here you are, responding....

Stop responding to my posts randomly.

I'll do as I please, thank you.

I have absolutely no interest in anything thing you have to say.

Your actions say otherwise.

But please keep going. I love checking your pathetic, childish replies when I get into work. Nothing like starting the day with a good laugh.

[4Corners]

Lol Bush tried the same thing though, giving tax breaks to the wealthy as well, and it hurt. Idk man.

We must be hearing and reading from different things man. I saw this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-c...deficit-2013-1

And Trump did say they aren't sending us good people, they are sending us thieves and rapists, as if Mexico is sending us people lol mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, aren't near the biggest problem in this country. There's just a part of this country that believes so, for obvious reasons I don't really think we need to get into.

I don't think denying muslims access to come here is the answer at all lol that goes against everything this country is supposed to be about bro

As far as increased spending on defense, dont we spend like more on defense than the 10 countries below us combined??? I certainly think we could decrease that. I'm just tired of the idea that we have to be the world's police.

We can agree to disagree on global warming. I think it is a naturla process, that is surely being sped up by humans. I remember reading something like 95 or 97% of scientists agree global warming is our fault.

[Enayze]

I'm not about a dude who wants to deport anyone and everyone, nevermind that it will bankrupt us and take decades to accomplish, and says Mexicans here from Mexico are all rapists lol and a dude who says we should block any muslims from coming here. And who thinks immigration is still the hot topic issue.

And Cruz....pretty much the epitome of what I dislike about conservatives at times. He's anti abortion, even in cases of incest and rape. He's opposed to gays getting married. Wants to keep minimum wage low, even though no one can tell me that a single adult can make a realistic living off 8.38 or whatever the minimum wage is where you or anyone else is at. He doesn't believe in global warning, which at this point is laughable.

I just don't agree with their views, personally. But I'm not psyched about any democrat. Bernie I agree with his views, but I'm not so sure his taxes are going to pay for everything, and I'm not sure I want to pay that much more taxes.

Bush did get us involved in 2 wars that set our economy backward as well. He inherited a country that was in a surplus, and we were losing thousands and thousands of jobs a week, and in two of the most ridiculous wars ever by the time he left.

But the real reason I'm not so into politics really is cause when one party has the white house, the other just spends time trying to c*ck block the other, and back and forth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1910344.html

I just don't think giving the rich any tax breaks helps out the overall economy. If anything, the super rich should pay even more. But that's just my opinion. No need to get all bent out of shape or anything man, it's not like anything you say or myself, or anyone for that matter, is going to change anything lol

Minimum wage jobs were never intended for a person to make a living off of, those are introductory jobs... Do you people forget that America became the wealthiest country on earth with a much lower minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), and much less government intervention? If you raise the minimum wage all that will do is force companies to lay off employees to even out costs, or resort to more machinery to replace man labor, in order to save costs as well.

[devildg]

John McAfee 2016

[Build That Wall]

War Ruuuuuuuubio!!!!!!!

[1bad65]

Lol Bush tried the same thing though, giving tax breaks to the wealthy as well, and it hurt. Idk man.

How did it hurt? For Bush's first 6 years the unemployment rate was below 5%. that's extremely impressive.

We must be hearing and reading from different things man. I saw this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-c...deficit-2013-1

They didn't cite TOTAL debt. My source does. That's what the false assertion there was a surplus counts on, not using TOTAL debt. The link below explains the accounting gimmicks used to fool folks like yourself:

Source:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

And Trump did say they aren't sending us good people, they are sending us thieves and rapists,....

So he did not claim they were "all" rapists as you initially claimed.

I don't think denying muslims access to come here is the answer at all lol that goes against everything this country is supposed to be about bro

The country was never about letting everyone in.

And this is hardly the first time we've excluded groups. The Irish, the Jews, and the Chinese have all been specifically marked in a similar way over the course of our history.

As far as increased spending on defense, dont we spend like more on defense than the 10 countries below us combined??? I certainly think we could decrease that. I'm just tired of the idea that we have to be the world's police.

Completely agree, and again, that's a stance the Libertarian Party takes.

Did you look them up as I suggested you do?

We can agree to disagree on global warming. I think it is a naturla process, that is surely being sped up by humans. I remember reading something like 95 or 97% of scientists agree global warming is our fault.

We can agree to disagree, but the fact is I have the unaltered data on my side, and thus the debate really is over.

As for the 97% assertion, that's another DNC talking point not rooted in fact. In short, that's based on a VERY small sample size, and many of those scientists contacted on that survey did not even respond. And yes, I can source that as well if asked.

Please, take my advice and do not continue to parrot political Party talking points as fact. No offense, but it shows a serious ignorance, and indicates you lack the ability to think independently.

[1bad65]

From my source:

"So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

[The table is not compatible with this forum, so you must visit my link to see it]

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."