cjhsa
 
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 06:27 am
By Ted Nugent, Texas Wildman

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Before the election, Howard Stern's Sirius radio show conducted interviews in Harlem, N.Y., in which the interviewer, not identified with the show, recited John McCain's economic proposals but portrayed them as Barack Obama's.

Not knowing whose ideas they actually were, these people raved and gave them their full support.

The election of Obama is an example of Americans voting against their own self interest. It's also further evidence of the dumbing down of America.

Trying to explain how our economy works and why lowering taxes is always better for them and America than imposing higher taxes is an economic bridge too far for many of the Obama sheep.

Unfortunately there is no See Spot and the Economy Run book. Many Americans can't balance a check book or spell e-c-o-n-o-m-i-c-s, but they sure know who will give them stuff. The lie is impossible.

Expecting them to have analyzed the tax positions of Obama and McCain and arrived at a decision that truly benefits them and America is wishful thinking.

The reason is that they know zilch about how the economy operates and " worse " they don't care. Obama will take care of us.

They are dunces, products of a failed public education system. That is, if they even bothered to complete high school. They don't read newspapers. Even if they did, I've got $20 that says they couldn't comprehend what they read.

We'll all pay

When President Obama imposes his wrong-headed, punitive tax structure, such stupidity is going to come back to thump these supporters upside their vacuous heads.

Capitalism works in strange and wondrous ways, and has a unique way of severely punishing fools.

As for this economy: These dunderheads have no clue how the economic mess was largely caused by Democrats, including Obama.

But Obama, trusting in the gullibility of the masses, drummed into Americans minds that the economic mess was caused by President Bush and the Republicans.

He promised to 95 percent of Americans a tax cut when 40 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes.

McCain had no marketable answer to Obama's charge because McCain knew that attempting to explain the economy to dumb people is impossible in 30-second commercials.

Clowns like the idea of believing they are getting something for nothing. What they receive, however, is always scraps from the economic table. Stupidity sentences these people to lives of poverty and despair.

The Obama tax plan punishes the producers " the people who employ the majority of Americans. In Joe the Plumber terms, economic excrement will quickly flow downhill and punish the employees " I mean former employees.

Here's a slogan: The result of spreading the wealth around is spreading unemployment around.

The McCain economic plan was based on the type of tax cuts which spur the economy forward, create jobs and raise the standard of living for everyone.

It is pretty simple stuff except for the comfortably ignorant, the easily manipulated and the person who believes someone owes him or her something.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,207 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 06:44 am
@cjhsa,
We just blasted a big hole in the bottom of our boat.
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:04 am
@OmSigDAVID,
So has A2K with this ridiculous tagging feature. It sucks donkey balls.

Maybe I'll just tag everyone's threads with some nasty ass comment until it becomes the most common tag.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:07 am
@cjhsa,
I have never used that feature.
As far as I know, we don 't seem to need it.

I m not sure what the benefit of it is.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:23 am
@cjhsa,
The voters might not know the details of an economic plan, but they are smart enough to know that when something has been shown not to work, you try something else.

Even now, the media has not covered just how bad the economy has been since Bush took office. The "experts" in the major broadcast outlets have universally ignored the reduction of growth which commenced with Bush's taking office in their broadcasts, as well as the flattening of formerly growing Dow. The mass print media has been little better.

Before this year, the "experts" were telling us how we've had a good economy for the past several years, when in fact the most obvious vital signs showed the precise opposite.

The voters might not know various details of each candidate's plan, but they do realize they've been sold a bill of goods the past several years and the way to change things is not to put in the Oval Office someone who has gone along with the present policies, as McCain did. Really, they had no choice.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:41 am
@Blickers,
I would restate that as "they have no clue".
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:16 am
@cjhsa,
I personally believe that we have approached a tipping point in demographics and technology (the internet) to now allow an astute politician to tell the masses a story with a happy ending, so he/she gets elected. That politician will likely be very different, I believe, from politicians of the past. I do not see our President-elect as a unique candidate; I see him as the political Happy Meal for today's demographics. And, he was able to use the current technology (the internet) to his advantage. This might just leave conservatives with the activity of waxing nostalgic.

Rather than win elections, I wonder if conservatives now need to learn how to live conservatively, regardless of who is in office. Sort of like developing a conservative culture, that has its adherents, and live within its culture. Sort of like becoming "clannish conservatives"!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 09:09 am
@Foofie,
Quote:

I wonder if conservatives now need to learn how to live conservatively,
regardless of who is in office. Sort of like developing a conservative culture,
that has its adherents, and live within its culture.
Sort of like becoming "clannish conservatives"!

Liberty is inversely proportional to the domestic power of government.
The US Constitution (the subject matter of the conservation)
is an instrument of liberty, by its crippling of the domestic power
of government, inter alia by its Bill of Rights.
Therefore, conservatives are libertarians.
Liberty means the absence of government interference.
Will living clanishly grant us immunity from the interferences of government ?





David
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 07:56 pm
@cjhsa,
Quote:
I would restate that as "they have no clue".


Well then, you are misstating it.

For at least five years the voters have listened to the "experts" tell them that they were living in a thriving economy, when in fact all the vital signs-available to all those who chose to look-indicated a decidedly subpar economic situation. Year after year this continued until the bottom fell out this year.

The voters had a choice between a candidate who comes from the same party as those who ran the economy into the ground and who agreed with most of their moves, and a candidate who wanted to take the economy in a different direction.

Not surprisingly they chose the candidate who wanted to take the economy in a different direction.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:11 pm
@Blickers,
Are you suggesting, Cjhsa, that the right to vote should be restricted to those who have a clue? Who would ascertain that? You?
Seriously, do you think there should be some kind of test to be eligible to vote?
cjhsa
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:12 pm
@Blickers,
You mean in a socialist direction. Say what you really mean.

**** Obama. He's no president. He's a premier at best. And **** the idiots who voted for this muslim socialist pig.
cjhsa
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:14 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Seriously, do you think there should be some kind of test to be eligible to vote?


Yes. Speak English? What does the 2nd Amendment guarantee? What does it protect? Who is the current president? What is your father's name?

Can't pass that - you can't vote.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:21 pm
@cjhsa,
Quote:
You mean in a socialist direction. Say what you really mean.


I AM saying what I really mean.

But here's a little test for YOU in economics. Let us see is you have even the slightest economic knowledge at all.

A) Please give us the average annual rate of growth of the GDP from 1950-2000.

B) Now give us the average annual rate of growth of the GDP from January 2001 through the present-Bush's term.

Two little numbers that tell a big big story. If you have any economic knowledge at all you will produce these numbers in a few minutes.

C'mon cjhsa. You sneer at people for their lack of economic knowledge.

Let's see if you have any.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:22 pm
@cjhsa,
shooter, you shoulda heard the McCain crap broadcast in KS at the last minute to motivate the stupid and rouse the rabble...

ignorance is rampant on both sides.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:46 pm
cjsha wrote:
**** Obama. He's no president. He's a premier at best. And **** the idiots who voted for this muslim socialist pig.


I have always considered Obama to be a very intelligent individual, capable of leadership and worthy of respect, but now that cjsha has opened my eyes I wonder how I could have been so wrong.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:48 pm
@Blickers,
Year 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Gross domestic product 293.8 339.3 358.3 379.4 380.4 414.8 437.5 461.1 467.2 506.6 526.4 544.7 585.6 617.7 663.6 719.1 787.8 832.6 910.0 984.6 1,038.5 1,127.1 1,238.3 1,382.7 1,500.0 1,638.3 1,825.3 2,030.9 2,294.7 2,563.3 2,789.5 3,128.4 3,255.0 3,536.7 3,933.2 4,220.3 4,462.8 4,739.5 5,103.8 5,484.4 5,803.1 5,995.9 6,337.7 6,657.4 7,072.2 7,397.7 7,816.9 8,304.3 8,747.0 9,268.4 9,817.0 10,128.0 10,469.6 10,960.8 11,685.9 12,421.9 13,178.4 13,807.5

Seems to me GDP went from $9817B to $138o7B in those years.

Here are the year over year numbers, 1950-2007, % change in GNP

1.0
7.4
15.1
7.8
3.9
-0.9
-5.3
-0.7
0.7
5.2
9.4
14.2
8.5
8.6
6.4
2.2
5.6
4.7
8.3
8.4
1.7
6.5
-4.1
-6.4
3.7
12.5
11.7
8.9
10.9
0.7
3.1
11.1
-0.6
2.2
-4.0
3.3
8.7
8.0
9.9
9.9
5.1
4.7
2.3
6.3
5.9
8.6
6.3
10.6
5.8
7.2
3.1
12.4
7.4
10.0
12.9
13.1
4.8
7.1

These are from the BEA: http://www.bea.gov/

Not sure where you get your numbers from.
cjhsa
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 08:49 pm
@gustavratzenhofer,
gustavratzenhofer wrote:


I have always considered Obama to be a very intelligent individual, capable of leadership and worthy of respect...


Good for you pitchfork. Follow him off the cliff.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 09:35 pm
@cjhsa,
Thanks for the data, but you still didn't answer the questions.

A) Please give us the average annual rate of growth of the GDP from 1950-2000.

B) Now give us the average annual rate of growth of the GDP from January 2001 through the present-Bush's term.

Two little numbers that say a great deal. Do you know what they are?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 12:24 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Two little numbers that say a great deal. Do you know what they are?



This sounds more like a straight line in the vaudeville comedy between strip acts.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 06:30 pm
@Blickers,
Cjhsa:

It's been about 24 hours since I asked those two questions, and you have not replied.

We are patiently waiting here for you to demonstrate the economic knowledge which compels you to express such contempt for Obama voters who cannot give the details of his economic plan.

They teach about the importance of the GDP in junior high school textbooks, cjhsa. It is basic knowledge which everyone should know-not some obscure figure for those in the field.

If you need more time to tell us those two numbers, please tell us why.

If you feel the question is unfair or not important, please tell us why.

Otherwise, I eagerly await your answer to the following questions:

A) Please give us the average annual rate of growth of the GDP from 1950-2000.

B) Now give us the average annual rate of growth of the GDP from January 2001 through the present-Bush's term.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Kiss Your Gas Goodbye - Discussion by cjhsa
Why I Have A Gun - Discussion by cjhsa
Pravda: Ameericans, Keep Your Guns - Discussion by gungasnake
I'm at War - Discussion by cjhsa
Obama on Guns and Concealed Carry - Discussion by cjhsa
The New American Greeting - Discussion by cjhsa
The ACLU Let Me Down - Discussion by JoeBruno
 
  1. Forums
  2. » We'll All Pay
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:23:02