Someone forgot to tell the Nobel-Prize winner that the 1950’s world economy (or at least what was left that wasn’t a smoking crater) isn’t really comparable to 2012’s world economy (with an extra couple billion people or so competing for the same jobs and unprecedented portability)
It’s the same thing with the idiots who want to go back to the tax-rate under Clinton, because things were so great back then. Uh, yeah, because of the tech-boom and the early part of the housing-bubble, neither of which had a thing to do with increased tax-rates. They depend on you to be stupid and/or have no memory of these things.
He references the power the unions had at that time… but ignores that they’ve continued to grow,and their demands from them are part of the reason why we have economic troubles today.
The guy is a buffoon. An ideologue masquerading as an economist.
…and 41% more liberal than Joe. Don’t believe NASCAR BOY was right about the true liberal intentions toward the 2nd amendment either.
Let’s say the tides are rising and hurricanes becoming everyday events as global warming doomsayers say, then why waste my tax dollars so idiots living close to the shore can use federal funds to rebuild time after time? Pass the KELLY-GORE ACT: a residence can not be built within 30 miles of the Atlantic Ocean.
“It’s the same thing with the idiots who want to go back to the tax-rate under Clinton, because things were so great back then.”
C’mon Laura. Even Conservative economists are saying that there are no negatives to returning to the Clinton tax rates.
Raising taxes on those who genuinely can’t afford it to protect the tax rates of those who can afford it (or to spite the Democrats) is foolish and even sane, rational Republicans know that. And they know the American people are going to blame the Republican Party at the next election if we go off the fiscal cliff.
The point is that it’s a dishonest argument. Clinton did not have his economy because he raised taxes, and liberals depend on people being stupid enough to believe it.
I and Blue expect to be named in his accemptence speech with the rest of you covered by “the little people Lang the way”
Any strategy that involves “depending on people to be stupid enough to believe it” has worked quite well in human history. #justsayin
RUMOR: the Doctor of Truth, the great Johnny $ was taken off the list because of a protest meltdown by Tommy Christopher requiring his sedation.
Yep. Like “We can have government healthcare, and only the rich people will pay for it!”. 😉
“The point is that it’s a dishonest argument. Clinton did not have his economy because he raised taxes, and liberals depend on people being stupid enough to believe it.”
I agree. But Republicans do themselves a HUGE disservice when they send emails, during the campaign, to business owners suggesting that they should suggest their employees will be fired if Obama wins. And it also does a huge disservice when businesses actually do fire people solely because they didn’t get their desired result in the election.
The whole premise of not raising taxes on the wealthy is that they’re the “job creators” … yet they’ve gotten tax cuts since day one of this Obama Administration and aren’t doing so and, furthermore, are firing employees (there are more than a few stories on this) because Romney didn’t win. That does not, in any way, help their message that they’ll create jobs if they get their tax cuts extended.
Americans aren’t stupid.
It’s just like this crap with Obamacare. I’ve had several business owners tell me, personally, that other people are overreacting to it because the talk show radio hosts are exaggerating the affect it has on business owners.
Is it government healthcare if my health insurance is provided by a private corporation who subsidizes my healthcare through a self-funded insurance program who outsources the implementation to a health insurance management company and I go to a physician employed by a for-profit corporation who sends me to get tests at a private healthcare facility and then buy prescriptions from a private pharmacy whose parent company is listed on the NYSE? Cuz that’s the govt healthcare you are getting.
“The whole premise of not raising taxes on the wealthy is that they’re the ‘job creators'”
Yeah, talk about a tax policy that requires people to be stupid to believe. Trickle-down as been thoroughly discredited.
“Thoroughly discredited” by an ideology that can be convinced that raising costs to business doesn’t affect job creation.
They’re not the job creators? STOP trickling down your stupidity on me.
I agree, the Clinton boom did not happen BECAUSE of higher tax rates (that would be a ridiculous supposition), but we weren’t hurt by them and it made a big difference in the debt. It certainly didn’t stifle innovation either.
Besides, if reducing taxes would magically fix the economy, why did the economy decline in the Bush years? There is a law of diminishing returns at work here.
No, rich people are not job creators. DEMAND is the only job creator.
Larry, If you believe that crap, your are gonna live on the crumbs of the wealthy for the rest of your life. Good luck with that.
Personal income tax rates have a very, very limited affect on business costs and even then only on specific corporate structures.
Bush came in with a recession caused by the pop of the tech bubble. His policies got the unemployment rate back down until the housing bubble blew everything to hell at the end of his second term. Elle, stop regurgitating every piece of crap liberal talking point because other than Fritz, you aren’t talking to stupid people here.
I accumulated my savings living off the crumbs of the wealth with a 37 year career and retired at 59. It’s called the American Dream. Liberals would destroy it.
You know what raises costs on businesses? Healthcare costs which have out paced inflation for 30 years. Commodity prices – that makes a huge difference. Labor prices – screw the labor unions, I’m talking university educated people, perhaps some with advanced degrees in math, engineering, and science that don’t come cheap. Good luck “innovating” without those people.
But the costs in a business don’t mean squat if nobody is buying what you are selling.
“Elle, stop regurgitating every piece of crap liberal talking point because other than Fritz, you aren’t talking to stupid people here.”
Really, only one idiot in the whole bunch? I would beg to differ. If I were you, I would let Laura do the talking since she articulates conservatism far more compellingly.
“I accumulated my savings living off the crumbs of the wealth with a 37 year career”
Sucker. Ever tried self-respect?
I don’t live off crumbs. I feast on my own bread.
There’s a show on PBS called The Dust Bowl. Maybe it’s just me, but nothing makes you reconsider the things that you complain about quite as well as seeing how these people lived.
I have to say that I don’t entirely disagree with him. His representation of the “strategists” is completely on-point. They make money no matter what, they got the candidate that they wanted, the one they insisted was “electable”. There are reasons why Rush Limbaugh is a problem, but if our candidate can’t deal with that, maybe that’s the problem.
It’s yet another example of this campaign and its flacks lamely attempting to blame the loss on anything but the candidate himself. If the conservative base actually believed that he meant what he said, he might have won. He certainly would have gotten more votes. If “moderates” believed the “moderate” stuff that he said, he might have gotten more of those votes.
Bottom line: No one believed or knew what he stood for, The various media figures, with their various dumb-ass comments are just part of the circus, and don’t necessarily attach themselves to a candidate who has a strong presence. He, unfortunately, didn’t.
The “rich” founders of my company a hundred years ago made their fortunes together with the likes of Edison and Westinghouse electrifying this country. Rather than begrudging them their wealth, I was proud to have worked for their heirs and to have been valued for my skills making my life a good one and guaranteeing a financially comfortable retirement as long as I may live. “MODLIB”? I think not. I earned my self-respect. A government didn’t give it to me.
Bottom line: No one believed or knew what he stood for..
I might have mentioned this here. A hundred times. #justsayin
Do you want a cookie?
Okay, so we all just got gamed by Twinkie-bakers, right?
Mediaite’s group of the 13 best reporters is a real liberal group. Several are cited for their anti-FOX News stories.
Idiocy meets a pathetic slide into irrelevancy. The governor of Jersey goes on a New York show to quote The Boss. It’s called “lifting spirits”, you morons, and I have no doubt many New Eglanders did just that in response.
Bill O’Reilly was extremely rude and nasty to Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams as he demanded an answer as to why people voted for Obama in the segment after his commentary.
Not surprised that segment was not added to FOXNews.com
Short answer: More people thought it would be a better idea to see what Obama could accomplish with another term than turn it over to some flip-flopping douchebag who disdains a large segment of the country he wanted to run. This isn’t complicated, Billo.
^I guess more people are a glutton for severe disappointment then…
When I was a boy, the religious significance of Cristmas was hardly lost on me. It was as much making the holiday wonderful and exciting as the more secular aspects. Today, the liberals have helped shoved religion so far in the corner it is treated as something to be ashamed of. I guess that is the true aim of atheism.
Romney didn’t lose because of the low income bracket. This bracket always votes for Democrats…this is nothing new. Take a look at the previous exit polls and you’ll see that this is the norm. In fact, the percentage decreased this election.
The Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections because they have alienated so many groups of people…Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Singles, Youth, etc.
Just think about for a second. Bush almost won half of the Hispanic vote. They were voting for Bush regardless of their financial situation. Even though Democrats were offering so called gifts back then, they still voted for Bush in huge numbers. However, since that time, Republicans have alienated them and demonized Hispanics with standard and irregular fear-mongering tactics over the last 6 years. Their income hasn’t changed one bit but their attitude towards the Republican Party has drastically changed because of the alienating that has taken place during this time. In 8 years, the Hispanic vote for Democrats went from 53% all the way to 71%.
As with the Asians, who have the highest median income of any race, have had a change of heart as well. Again, this has nothing to do with their financial situation. After these last 6 years of fear-mongering of Chinese, immigrants, etc, their attitude towards the Republican Party has drastically changed. In 8 years, the Asian vote went from 56% all the way to 73%.
Why did 55% of postgraduates vote for Obama vs 42% for Romney? Were they looking for gifts as well?
The reason why those making under $30,000 voted for Obama is because the vast majority of them are Young and Single…and we know that Obama won both demos easily.
These are some of the reasons why Young and Single people voted for Obama:
-He’s for Equal pay for Women
-He’s for Gay Marriage
-He’s for Gays serving openly in the Military
-He’s for Universal Healthcare
-He’s for Climate Change regulation
-And, because he’s cool…lol.
One other factor is because they look at the Republican Party as a bigoted Party who only cares about the filthy rich.