ADVERTISEMENT

Why would Dems be against work requirements?

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call myself an elitist. But I worry about the things I can control and don't waste my time with things I can't.

No one wears pleated shorts on my boat. If we're not killing fish, we're throwing back beers (not Bud Light of course) and enjoying the beautiful coast.

I don't doubt that people are struggling. It's up to them to win the struggle.
You asked a question and got class based answers. I don’t give a shit what you worry about … you asked and got an answer

Funny. You and I are probably on the same page when it comes to most things msnbc goes on about.. but you and Rachel maddow agree on things like this
 
I cut it off at the start of WWII, which effectively ended the great depression in the US

Which decades did we see the benefits of those policies - and what were the benefits?

You are given to making sweeping statements without anything to back them up, bc.
Ah yes.. my grandmothers tired argument “the new deal only worked because of war.”

We’ve been bombing other countries continuously since 2001.. why are people living under every bridge in low angeles
 
Ah yes.. my grandmothers tired argument “the new deal only worked because of war.”

We’ve been bombing other countries continuously since 2001.. why are people living under every bridge in low angeles
I wasn't making that argument, simply trying to understand your argument.

The new deal ended during WWII as there was automatically full employment for the war effort. Are you saying you think the new deal started up again after the war?
 
I wasn't making that argument, simply trying to understand your argument.

The new deal ended during WWII as there was automatically full employment for the war effort. Are you saying you think the new deal started up again after the war?
The age of American prosperity man… the years that followed Roosevelt until Buckley v valejo made bribery legal in 1974 .. until neoliberalism was ushered in.
 
The age of American prosperity man… the years that followed Roosevelt until Buckley v valejo made bribery legal in 1974 .. until neoliberalism was ushered in.
So you are saying the new deal made US prosperity possible following WWII?
 
So you are saying the new deal made US prosperity possible following WWII?
where are you going with all this. That you thought a bunch of figures were bullshit, found out that they aren’t and now want to play Socratic method games with your think tank nonsense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdthornb
where are you going with all this. That you thought a bunch of figures were bullshit, found out that they aren’t and now want to play Socratic method games with your think tank nonsense?
A better question is, where are you going with this. You stated, " the comparison is America now vs America in the new deal era", but you cannot even explain what you mean by the new deal era.

Do you know what you mean, or did you just say something that sounded good to you but that you don't understand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1
A better question is, where are you going with this. You stated, " the comparison is America now vs America in the new deal era", but you cannot even explain what you mean by the new deal era.

Do you know what you mean, or did you just say something that sounded good to you but that you don't understand?
It doesn’t sound right to you because you’re propagandized but don’t know you are

“It was the Golden Age of the U.S. economy, the quarter century between 1948 and 1973, when the U.S. reigned supreme, manufacturing flourished and the American middle class prospered”


I shorten it to the new deal era or the era that resulted from the new deal.

I know very well what I’m talking about. You’re the ****in dope go doesn’t understand that 1974 ushered in legalized bribery and the donor class and that to get the Democratic Party nomination in 1968 you needed the uaw’s endorsement and now you need Goldman sachs….
 
A better question is, where are you going with this. You stated, " the comparison is America now vs America in the new deal era", but you cannot even explain what you mean by the new deal era.

Do you know what you mean, or did you just say something that sounded good to you but that you don't understand?

It doesn’t sound right to you because you’re propagandized but don’t know you are

“It was the Golden Age of the U.S. economy, the quarter century between 1948 and 1973, when the U.S. reigned supreme, manufacturing flourished and the American middle class prospered”


I shorten it to the new deal era or the era that resulted from the new deal.

I know very well what I’m talking about. You’re the ****in dope go doesn’t understand that 1974 ushered in legalized bribery and the donor class and that to get the Democratic Party nomination in 1968 you needed the uaw’s endorsement and now you need Goldman sachs….
Case in point. Your link says nothing about campaign finance law or the new deal - or the effects of the new deal.

The uaw and other unions took themselves down by the corruption of their 'leadership' and their absurd labor agreements that resulted in expensive, shoddy vehicles from Detroit, easily surpassed in quality and value by Japanese car manufacturers.

Instead of trying to explain whatever it is you think you are trying to say, you simply accuse people of being 'propagandized' if they don't agree with your wild, unsupported statements. You are like @BNIBoiler calling everybody a fool who doesn't agree with him no matter how convoluted his statements are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1
The ones who have to compete against the trans girls. I think that's very compassionate of you. I mean I couldn't care less about those girls, they should stop whining IMO. Life aint fair, so get over and and move on. But it's good to know that you care so much. Kudos.
Trans girls are still boys. Biologically, physiologically, usually anatomically, just not mentally.
So, despite closing your eyes and clicking your heals 3 times, a boy cannot become a girl…no matter how hard they wish for it.
 
Trans girls are still boys. Biologically, physiologically, usually anatomically, just not mentally.
So, despite closing your eyes and clicking your heals 3 times, a boy cannot become a girl…no matter how hard they wish for it.
And?
 
yeah everyone knows social security and public works programs ended in 1939.
Your oink post was the high point of your contributions to this forum, obviously. You'll never be able to reach that intellectual height again, so why don't you hang it up while you still have that fond memory of personal triumph.

Truly, there is no chance you can top that one as a precise condensation of your wit and intellect. You've done all you can on this forum.

The only way you could possibly top it is to join Bob in his virtue mission to Ukraine, which I urge you to undertake at your earliest opportunity. Make us proud.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bonefish1
Your oink post was the high point of your contributions to this forum, obviously. You'll never be able to reach that intellectual height again, so why don't you hang it up while you still have that fond memory of personal triumph.

Truly, there is no chance you can top that one as a precise condensation of your wit and intellect. You've done all you can on this forum.

The only way you could possibly top it is to join Bob in his virtue mission to Ukraine, which I urge you to undertake at your earliest opportunity. Make us proud.
I suppose memorizing everyone's posts on here is easier for you than actually ever learning something.

I feel incredibly sad for you.
 
Congrats on being so wrong about the original topic that you have to move the goalposts or just change the topic entirely. I'm also sorry you got bullied into changing your favorite Hunter photo.
And I'm sorry I made you feel incredibly sad.

On the plus side, I hope I have given you a new purpose in life by my suggestion for you to join Bob.
 
PS, I was trying to show Bob how easy it is to change avatars, but he hasn't responded yet - hopefully because he is on his way to Ukraine to prove that his avatar was not mere virtue signaling from the safety of his couch. With you joining him, he may feel braver about his mission - especially if you oink loudly to scare Russian soldiers. You two need each other.
 
Case in point. Your link says nothing about campaign finance law or the new deal - or the effects of the new deal.
I explained it to you.

A guy was elected to four terms he was so popular. His policies ushered in the golden era of American prosperity.. or what I call “the new deal era.”

In 1974, the landmark case of Buckley v valejo legalized bribery.

Carter was our first neoliberal president but Reagan and Clinton were the first who were truly effective at damaging the middle class with policies like NAFTA. Reagan pushed it .. but as with most policies that hurt the working class badly (as Thomas frank says) it takes a Democrat.

what you see around you decades later, you know… when you actually leave Carmel, is the rot created by those policies.

Sorry you need a link for the info above to not break your brain
 
On the contrary, you bring me nothing but joy. I feel bad for you
Just a few posts above you said I made you feel sad. Now you say I bring you joy.

The only possible explanation for the sudden change, other than that you are hopelessly confused about what you think, is that my suggestion to join Bob in Ukraine has brought you the joy of finding purpose in what must otherwise be a miserable and meaningless existence.

So of course you feel bad for me knowing that I will not join you two in your mission of virtue, as I think the latest Euro war has nothing to do with the US. Still, I applaud your virtue.

You're welcome.
 
I explained it to you.
Right, you think you explained it in the same way bni thinks he explains things by calling everybody a fool who doesn't agree with him.
A guy was elected to four terms he was so popular. His policies ushered in the golden era of American prosperity.. or what I call “the new deal era.”
That's what you, a BC fanatic, call it but who else does? Nobody of that I can find, except maybe Ted the oinker. I have always heard it called the post-war economic boom.
In 1974, the landmark case of Buckley v valejo legalized bribery.
Please, you act like that was the beginning of wealthy industrial interests buying US elections. You better stick with the BC era, when they didn't have elections.
Carter was our first neoliberal president but Reagan and Clinton were the first who were truly effective at damaging the middle class with policies like NAFTA. Reagan pushed it .. but as with most policies that hurt the working class badly (as Thomas frank says) it takes a Democrat.
I agree it was a bad policy for the working class, as was pushing China's entry into the WTO...and leaving our borders wide open to supply cheap labor for big ag and others.
what you see around you decades later, you know… when you actually leave Carmel, is the rot created by those policies.
Never been to Carmel. I live in a small city that is 70% minorities.

Sorry you need a link for the info above to not break your brain
No, I need someone who can translate your lefty babble into intelligible English. It is not worth the time for me to do it any longer.
 
Just a few posts above you said I made you feel sad. Now you say I bring you joy.

The only possible explanation for the sudden change, other than that you are hopelessly confused about what you think, is that my suggestion to join Bob in Ukraine has brought you the joy of finding purpose in what must otherwise be a miserable and meaningless existence.

So of course you feel bad for me knowing that I will not join you two in your mission of virtue, as I think the latest Euro war has nothing to do with the US. Still, I applaud your virtue.

You're welcome.
Keep posting through it. I love the fantasies you create about all the people on this board that live in your head rent-free.
 
Keep posting through it. I love the fantasies you create about all the people on this board that live in your head rent-free.
You'll never top your oink post, Ted, but the brilliant originality of your "rent-free" retort is a nice try.

I wouldn't be surprised if it catches on across the internet, like @BNIBoiler 's Faux News. You two should form a team to make some money from your creativity.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
Oil production was cut because profit margins were going down, yes.
Trump did nothing to keep them at $1.85, they got there under his leadership. Could he have kept them there?
The prices jumped from $1.85 to $2.50.
Why are prices so hi now? Who wouldn't take $2.50 gas prices now?
You didn’t answer. Did trump cut oil production?

The reduction in profits was not the cause of the reduced oil production, it was the result. Oil production was cut because demand dropped off during vivid. This is Econ 101.

Trump’s leadership? Trump was president when demand, production, and prices all fell. That’s it. Covid happened on his watch. Was that his leadership too?

And again, US production doesn’t set WORLD prices of a barrel of oil.

Why are prices higher now? Really?

Capacity?

You’ll notice that 2022 production was only slightly lower than the record levels in 2019. Did Joe turn the spigots back on?

Russia supplies are tight. China’s demand is surging. Uncertainty about the economy. Oil companies are paying investors instead of investing in new wells. Global demand will set a new record this year. The shale oil boom is peaking or is already in decline, depending on who you believe.

Point is there are an abundance of factors that affect oil prices. The president is one very minor part.

But hey, you want to give credit to the president? We’ll choke on this.

 
No, I am disputing your statement that 70% of working Americans make 50k a year or less.

According to the income distribution table in your link, the correct percent is 40%, which would mean the system is working considerably better than you thought, right?
Tell me you don’t know how to read graphs without telling me you don’t know how to read graphs.
 
You didn’t answer. Did trump cut oil production?

The reduction in profits was not the cause of the reduced oil production, it was the result. Oil production was cut because demand dropped off during vivid. This is Econ 101.

Trump’s leadership? Trump was president when demand, production, and prices all fell. That’s it. Covid happened on his watch. Was that his leadership too?

And again, US production doesn’t set WORLD prices of a barrel of oil.

Why are prices higher now? Really?

Capacity?

You’ll notice that 2022 production was only slightly lower than the record levels in 2019. Did Joe turn the spigots back on?

Russia supplies are tight. China’s demand is surging. Uncertainty about the economy. Oil companies are paying investors instead of investing in new wells. Global demand will set a new record this year. The shale oil boom is peaking or is already in decline, depending on who you believe.

Point is there are an abundance of factors that affect oil prices. The president is one very minor part.

But hey, you want to give credit to the president? We’ll choke on this.

After Joe's policies resulted in record high prices, guess what.
Choke on this.

Why is gas still at over $1.00 per gallon higher than under Trump when demand was higher?
Maybe it has to do with transitory inflation?
Yea, new cars have decreased in price after their initial increases, ha!
Consumer prices have decreased after record high inflation, NOT.
Are we replenishing the Strategic Oil Reserve?
And US production leads the world so why wouldn't US production impact prices dramatically?
Especially in the US.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT