Obama '08?

@hawkeye10,

hawk, The "system" is the economy. It's all inclusive.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

hawk, The "system" is the economy. It's all inclusive.

Under that logic the political system is the people....you fail.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

What are you talking about? The economic system includes the politics. As I already said, it's all inclusive.

Your understanding of these subjects leaves much to be desired. You go into tangents that isn't even the topic under discussion.

Even your so-called logic is misused.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

What are you talking about? The economic system includes the politics. As I already said, it's all inclusive

everything is the same as nothing, using your expansive definition we would lose the ability to say anything at all about the economy. I'll take a pass.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You must pass, because any response you make will only further your trench.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Same as your hope that you will be accepted by the robber barons as one of them.

We already have.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You must pass, because any response you make will only further your trench.

OK, so as well as you being ornery today your comprehension is not working either I see. I am taking a pass from adopting your failed logic, not from my position or stating my position.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawk, I already told you, you'll only dig your trench deeper.

This is what transpired.

Quote:

@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
hawk, The "system" is the economy. It's all inclusive.

You wrote,
Under that logic the political system is the people....you fail.

Now, show me how "system is the economy" has to do with "political system is the people?"

Where is the logic? In what way is your "political system is the people" have to do with "the system is the economy?" Where did I fail in logic?

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Tell me that you're not that naive, Pom. A man who represent himself as depraved and immoral, what position would you expect him to occupy?

0 Replies

Question for all on the Obama thread:
How many koolaid drinkers are still in line for what the Democrats and Obama are still handing out?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Question for all on the Obama thread:
How many koolaid drinkers are still in line for what the Democrats and Obama are still handing out?

Only the uneducated ignorant and the moocher class.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Only the uneducated ignorant

Now that's hilarious, h2oman! What makes it even more hilarious is that it's you replying to Okie.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JT, I'm glad you found someone to read it and explain it to you.
Your ignorance is ******* hilarious!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It only proves you have no idea why revenue trends changed during those periods. It's called myopia and ignorance.

WHAT proves that I, ican, have no idea why revenue trends changed during those periods [see below]?

WHAT proves that you, Cice, do have a valid idea of why revenue trends changed during those periods [see below]?

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Maximum income tax rates decreased from 70% in 1981 to 35% in 2003, and remained at 35% 2003 - 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Federal Receipts during the period 1980 - 2007 increased from $0.517 to $2.568 trillion, and during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased from $2.568 trillion to $2,165 trillion.

Federal Outlays during the period 1980 - 2010 increased from $0.591 to $3.721 trillion.

Federal Deficits during the period 1980 - 2000 decreased from -$0.0738 to +$0.236 trillion, and during the period 2000 - 2010 increased from +$0.236 trillion to -$1.556 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt
Year………Gross Federal Debt
1980.......$0.908 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.602 trillion [REAGAN], average annual increase 1980 - 1988 = $0.2118 trillion
1992......$4.065 trillion [BUSH41], average annual increase 1988 - 1992 = $0.3658 trillion
2000.......$5.674 trillion [CLINTON], average annual increase 1992 - 2000 = $0.2011 trillion
2008.......$10.025 trillion [BUSH43], average annual increase 2000 - 2008 = $0.5439 trillion
2010.......$13.562 trillion [OBAMA], average annual increase 2008 - 2010 = $1.7685 trillion

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Total US Civil Employment during the period 1980 - 2007 increased from 99.3 to 146 million, and during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased from 146 to 139 million.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

You still don't get it.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Do you bother to read what you post?
You are comparing a 27 year span to a 3 year span, and that is incorrect.
You posted...

Quote:

Federal Receipts during the period 1980 - 2007 increased from $0.517 to $2.568 trillion, and during the period 2007 - 2010 decreased from $2.568 trillion to $2,165 trillion

Without doing any research, I am willing to bet that in that 27 years, there were short spans when revenue decreased.

Why dont you wait till 2034, then compare the different 27 year time spans and see what you get.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

ican loves to compare apples and oranges to prove his point. He doesn't understand "consistency" or logic, and tries to use different period numbers that only shows increases or decreases. It doesn't matter if during the 37 year stretch, the increase was based on a different world economy vs the Great Recession since 2007.

That's the reason why I said "he'll never get it." He's a bone-head with sawdust for brains.

0 Replies

Barry's 2012 campaign is on.

Obama to Supporters:
I Understand Your Frustration Over Compromise With GOP

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

GOP plan will punish the poor, Obama tells Facebook friends

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know