It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

In case you haven't noticed (you haven't) or you haven't done the research (you haven't) you'd know that the Earth has been cooling for ten years. You must be one of the few who still believe the biggest worldwide hoax of all time.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zappafan1
 


You got me. I should not have posted a link to Nature. Everybody knows Nature is full of articles written by many of the worst scientists in the world. If you are really into finding the truth, avoid magazines that claim global warming is real like Nature and Science. Instead, you should get your science news from a fair and balanced source like Glen Beck.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Target Earth
well I think at this point we all know, the left has no real knowledge of economics.
right now, I believe that are kicking around the idea of dumping the mortgage tax deduction.


No, we are just so busy swimming in piles of money from the amazing right wing "trickle down" policy that has been enriching all of us lo these 30 years.


REPLY: Well, how many here know that the financial meltdown we and the world are experiencing started with policies put in place by Jimmy Carter? How many people here know that it was Fanny and Freddy that got us to where we are today? How many here know that after the Bush tax rate reductions took place, in two years our economy generated "new wealth" (not redistributed) equal to the entire Chinese economy? How many know that McCain and Bush Jr. together tried 14 times to get congress to see what was happening, and why? Nothing trickles up.... I've never seen a poor guy sign a paycheck. Low tax rates are an economic tool, work every time it is used.... from Queen Elisabeth the 1st, to Kennedy, to Reagan to Bush Jr. Any time you lower the cost of an activity, more people engage in that activity.


Jimmy Carter a???

Damn... I know blaming Bush is old school ala con


Anyhow

Did you know the SOCIALIST OBAMA has lowered the income tax burden more than Bush?

Does that make Obama Conservative?

Like Bush is a Conservative who is actually a liberal


stonecipher.typepad.com...

Damn Conservative Obama!!! $#@$%@#$%



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by zappafan1
 


You got me. I should not have posted a link to Nature. Everybody knows Nature is full of articles written by many of the worst scientists in the world. If you are really into finding the truth, avoid magazines that claim global warming is real like Nature and Science. Instead, you should get your science news from a fair and balanced source like Glen Beck.


No, I wouldn't go to Beck as an only source for anything; I use multiple sources that expand both sides of any given issue I fancy. You are correct in your opinion of Science and Nature magazines. Those scientists are not the worst, but they will say anything to continue their government (taxpayer-paid) grants. Once or twice a week it seems that more and more scientists are coming clean about the MCCC hoax.

Think of this: after 35 years, it was only six weeks ago that scientists admitted they are only now taking the Sun into consideration when doing climate studies / modeling. And notice that water vapor is never taken into consideration when doing climate studies. Gee.... let's leave out the two largest factors in global climate; Yeah... that's the ticket.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


Of course they fail. Their solution to all problems is "raise taxes!!".

Liberals consider everyone outside of DC and California are all looked upon as a source of revenue.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

The reason why the tax burden is down on the average is because people are UNEMPLOYED

You can't pay taxes when you don't have a job.

You also can't pay sales taxes when you don't have any money to buy anything!

This article is a whitewash bunch of utter nonsense.


[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by zappafan1

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Target Earth
well I think at this point we all know, the left has no real knowledge of economics.
right now, I believe that are kicking around the idea of dumping the mortgage tax deduction.


No, we are just so busy swimming in piles of money from the amazing right wing "trickle down" policy that has been enriching all of us lo these 30 years.


REPLY: Well, how many here know that the financial meltdown we and the world are experiencing started with policies put in place by Jimmy Carter? How many people here know that it was Fanny and Freddy that got us to where we are today? How many here know that after the Bush tax rate reductions took place, in two years our economy generated "new wealth" (not redistributed) equal to the entire Chinese economy? How many know that McCain and Bush Jr. together tried 14 times to get congress to see what was happening, and why? Nothing trickles up.... I've never seen a poor guy sign a paycheck. Low tax rates are an economic tool, work every time it is used.... from Queen Elisabeth the 1st, to Kennedy, to Reagan to Bush Jr. Any time you lower the cost of an activity, more people engage in that activity.


Jimmy Carter a???

REPLY: Yes, Carter, with the Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton put on steroids.

Anyhow

Did you know the SOCIALIST OBAMA has lowered the income tax burden more than Bush?

Does that make Obama Conservative?

"Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950." It also pointed out, "That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century…"

Gee..... that couldn't be because of the lower wages and a high of 18% unemployment, could it? Nothing Barry has done will or can lower taxes, despite his promise to not increase taxes on those making under $250,000

I'll give you and others here a clue: Convert everything you have to Gold and Silver. When the Bush tax rate reductions expire, and bank interest rates start going up, it might be worse than the Great Depression ever was. Look up the term "Hyper-Inflation.
You think health care is expensive now? Wait until it's free








posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by zappafan1
 


You got me. I should not have posted a link to Nature. Everybody knows Nature is full of articles written by many of the worst scientists in the world. If you are really into finding the truth, avoid magazines that claim global warming is real like Nature and Science. Instead, you should get your science news from a fair and balanced source like Glen Beck.


I prefer Watt's blog.

Glaciers not melting:
resiliant earth

Climate data from NOAA was faked:
www.americanthinker.com...

Climate data from CRU was faked:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Climate data from AU was faked:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Climate reports in the IPCC were not peer reviewed and faked:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Polar ice cap data was faked:
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

etc.. etc.. etc..


At this point, believing in man made global warming is a religious belief that has absolutely nothing to do with science.




[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Blaming only liberals for something even you admit conservatives are guilty of is beyond ridiculous.


As I see it the problem with hard-line Dem defenders is that they just do not understand that all or even most Reps are not true conservatives...just as all Dems are not liberals. Progressive libs infect and infest both parties. Bush was hardly a true conservative or he would not have run his first campaign as a "compassionate conservative" whatever the hell that meant. True conservatives do not apologize for their beliefs just as true progressive liberals do not apologize for theirs.

We conservatives were as angry at the GOP Congress in '06 as the liberals were, just NOT for the same reason. Liberals do not get offended by excess government spending. We do.

So, Gundy, when you say that conservatives are guilty of wasteful spending you could not be more wrong. The Republicans may have been but definitely not the conservatives. It is antithetical to our very nature.

At any rate, who cares? The GOP has been out of power for 4 years (Bush was a lame duck for his last two...and everything he did on TARP and bailouts was fully sanctioned by the Dem Congress). The Progessive Libs have doubled down on everything since '08. To continually blame Bush (like little 'o' does daily) is pathetic.

S&F for this thread. Nice job!



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

The reason why the tax burden is down on the average is because people are UNEMPLOYED

You can't pay taxes when you don't have a job.

You also can't pay sales taxes when you don't have any money to buy anything!

This article is a whitewash bunch of utter nonsense.


[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]


You missed my point-

My point is to illuminate that Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan in practice,
I did not know you are hyper partisan like Zap is.

I will ask both of you, IF this economy does actually recover, who will be to blame?

Before you say it will never recovery, I suggest to you that the string pullers rather enjoy the entire facade they have set up and will keep this show going world wide.

But I wanna ask again Mnemeth

I want to know how humanity can have institutional laissez faire in a binary age?

Please answer - I have ask many and oddly I keep getting ignored.

Can I create some "money", would be even cooler than the "money" we have now I will admit

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrampsLEn

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Blaming only liberals for something even you admit conservatives are guilty of is beyond ridiculous.


As I see it the problem with hard-line Dem defenders is that they just do not understand that all or even most Reps are not true conservatives...just as all Dems are not liberals. Progressive libs infect and infest both parties. Bush was hardly a true conservative or he would not have run his first campaign as a "compassionate conservative" whatever the hell that meant. True conservatives do not apologize for their beliefs just as true progressive liberals do not apologize for theirs.

We conservatives were as angry at the GOP Congress in '06 as the liberals were, just NOT for the same reason. Liberals do not get offended by excess government spending. We do.

So, Gundy, when you say that conservatives are guilty of wasteful spending you could not be more wrong. The Republicans may have been but definitely not the conservatives. It is antithetical to our very nature.

At any rate, who cares? The GOP has been out of power for 4 years (Bush was a lame duck for his last two...and everything he did on TARP and bailouts was fully sanctioned by the Dem Congress). The Progessive Libs have doubled down on everything since '08. To continually blame Bush (like little 'o' does daily) is pathetic.

S&F for this thread. Nice job!


So Gramps, was the party in power supposed to sit and watch a systemic collapse?

Explain that?

Would you be happy if that was the case?

I am just asking, lets hear it

EDIT

No its not pathetic

Being an ATS member (previous account since 2005ish)

It was the common practice to blame Clinton for Bush's woes til about 07

It natural to protect one's cabal

Plus Zappa blamed Carter, is that less pathetic?

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

So Gramps, was the party in power supposed to sit and watch a systematic collapse?

Explain that?

Would you be happy if that was the case?

I am just asking, lets hear it.


Did I say that, Janky? Please re-read my post. I did not pass judgment on the TARP or the Bush bailout because I, nor you, have all of the facts. I said that the Dem Congress supported Bush's moves. That's all. Thus, I believe, it would have happened under either president because neither one is a conservative (nor McCain either for that matter).

I do not honestly know how bad the collapse would have been if it were allowed to run its course but what may be transpiring now is a delay of the inevitable, a coming double-dipper recession that will make the '10s decade as bad as the '70s or even worse. Every time the guvmint gets involved to this scale it seems the ultimate correction is inherently worse. Like it or not (and I know the progressives do not) we operate under a free-market economy system. Corrections absolutely have to happen in order to maintain the balance. Bubbles come and bubbles burst. They have since the Tulip Mania in the 17th century. The housing bubble began under Clinton and was nurtured by Bush II. Top that off with the derivative bubble and one could say that the US got off pretty easy if we are to believe that all is well in dreamland. I do not. Why? Because we have not really addressed the root problems. And just like not being able to fool Mother Nature you cannot fool the free market system.

As I said I do not know for sure if there would have been a systematic collapse but I do know for sure that a lot of banks and investment trading firms and other favored groups that should have failed in '08 because of their incompetence are fat and happy today while many investors and retirees or future retirees' 401ks still are hurting.

Oh, BTW, Obama promised that he would be a different politician. Remember? So why should he need to protect his cabal? Same old...same old. NWO is alive and well.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrampsLEn

Originally posted by Janky Red

So Gramps, was the party in power supposed to sit and watch a systematic collapse?

Explain that?

Would you be happy if that was the case?

I am just asking, lets hear it.


Did I say that, Janky? Please re-read my post. I did not pass judgment on the TARP or the Bush bailout because I, nor you, have all of the facts. I said that the Dem Congress supported Bush's moves. That's all. Thus, I believe, it would have happened under either president because neither one is a conservative (nor McCain either for that matter).

I do not honestly know how bad the collapse would have been if it were allowed to run its course but what may be transpiring now is a delay of the inevitable, a coming double-dipper recession that will make the '10s decade as bad as the '70s or even worse. Every time the guvmint gets involved to this scale it seems the ultimate correction is inherently worse. Like it or not (and I know the progressives do not) we operate under a free-market economy system. Corrections absolutely have to happen in order to maintain the balance. Bubbles come and bubbles burst. They have since the Tulip Mania in the 17th century. The housing bubble began under Clinton and was nurtured by Bush II. Top that off with the derivative bubble and one could say that the US got off pretty easy if we are to believe that all is well in dreamland. I do not. Why? Because we have not really addressed the root problems. And just like not being able to fool Mother Nature you cannot fool the free market system.

As I said I do not know for sure if there would have been a systematic collapse but I do know for sure that a lot of banks and investment trading firms and other favored groups that should have failed in '08 because of their incompetence are fat and happy today while many investors and retirees or future retirees' 401ks still are hurting.

Oh, BTW, Obama promised that he would be a different politician. Remember? So why should he need to protect his cabal? Same old...same old. NWO is alive and well.



See, here is my problem...

I keep having the conservative bar moved on me- it is like a chameleon Sasquach,

I don't think the legendary "conservative " politician exists, because that would mean doing nothing basically, or just dismantling the current system correct?

However "conservatives" do ALL kinds of things, very busy passing new things, news spending.

You see I believe Gramm- Leach - Blilly, signed by fiscal conservative, Clinton
was a very poor attempt to implement free market principles on a highly regulated
machine. Unfortunately, for some reason, this legislation was exactly what was needed to create the climate to trade and create junk for the conservative love of commerce.
Such an idea is the antithesis of a "progressive" liberal idea, which would have been to
restrain trading further. Unfortunately that admission is never made here, I would like to find some honesty for honesty's sake, oh well.

Many of your conservative friends would argue that this system is not free market all, rather highly regulated BTW, otherwise they would not be posting would they?

I can agree Obama has not behaved like he has promised, I am already ready to call him a conservative like some say of Bush in the other direction.

The banks/firm arrests should have been frozen, redistributed to investors, corporate charter removed and arrests made.

OR

Gave the money that was used for bailouts to each tax payer evenly, for the purpose of eliminating debt, thus rectifying the OVER leveraging + arrests (socialist option?
)



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Throughout history for as long as we have used debt based notes called fiat currency the economies of all nations are created and destroyed by those who create the currency called the Central Bank.

First money is made available in the form of low interest loans creating an illusion of a strong economy and overconfidence.

The Central Bank then tightens the availability of money making
money scarce, and then collects the collateral of these loans
through the obligation of their contracts.

The cycle is then repeated.

This is Economics 101 and has absolutely nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

See, here is my problem...

I keep having the conservative bar moved on me- it is like a chameleon Sasquach,

I don't think the legendary "conservative " politician exists, because that would mean doing nothing basically, or just dismantling the current system correct?

However "conservatives" do ALL kinds of things, very busy passing new things, news spending.


OK. Now we are back to my original post. Progressives just do not understand conservatives or the conservatism movement. That was my gist before it got derailed. Why? Because Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow and a whole host of MSM do not understand it either and ply the airwaves and print media with what they think they know which is not much.

Just because a legislator has an 'R' next to his name does not mean he is a conservative. Just because he/she has a 'D' next to their name does not mean that they are liberal. This is what the MSM wants you to believe. Conservatives do not "pass" new (wasteful) spending or pork. The Rs might have but then they are not acting as a conservative. The 'bar' hasn't moved...just the players.



You see I believe Gramm- Leach - Blilly, signed by fiscal conservative, Clinton
was a very poor attempt to implement free market principles on a highly regulated
machine. Unfortunately, for some reason, this legislation was exactly what was needed to create the climate to trade and create junk for the conservative love of commerce.
Such an idea is the antithesis of a "progressive" liberal idea, which would have been to
restrain trading further. Unfortunately that admission is never made here, I would like to find some honesty for honesty's sake, oh well.


Clinton was not a fiscal conservative. Ever. He is a smart politician though. He moved to the center only when the GOP took control of Congress. Obama probably cannot do this because he is an idealogue.

That 'junk' has been around for a long time if you are talking about derivatives. I can remember a fellow by the name of Nick Guarino ranting and raving about it in the mid '90s. If you are talking about 'affordable housing' and Fannie and Freddie missteps then you must lay that at the feet of the Progressives most notably Dodd and Franks and this was allowed to happen by a GOP with little to no cojones (so what else is new?). Or are you referring to something else? I am not sure by your post.



The banks/firm arrests should have been frozen, redistributed to investors, corporate charter removed and arrests made.

OR

Gave the money that was used for bailouts to each tax payer evenly, for the purpose of eliminating debt, thus rectifying the OVER leveraging + arrests (socialist option?
)


To this we agree. But look at what you have written. "...to each TAX PAYER evenly". That is not the Progressive way. They would have given the money to the non-taxpayer, most of whom are the leeches of our society.

Love the discussion but gotta go.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by GrampsLEn]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 



Originally posted by brainwrek

It;s doubtful liberals could even run a successful lemonade stand, let alone any other business given their ignorance about economics.


Agreed. And when their lemonade stand fails, they will blame it on big corporate lemonade stands, and demand a government bailout.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


You have hit the nail on the head. The systemic risk comes from the current economic "system", (the central banking system), which was designed to fail. For an entire decade now, interest rates have been historically low, and the fiat curreny floodgates have been wide open.

Now, Bernake is talking about raising rates, and thus choking off this flood. Guess what will happen then? Massive defaults, and the death of Main Street, while the banks collect all the collateral. Its End Game time.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


Interesting article and research. The differences were massive too.


Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.


I actually believe Progressives are less in intelligent in general.. they always appear to me to have very little grasp of economics, history, law interpretation or basic common sense. Which is ironic that Progressives are the most vocally powerful groups in America, and have completely altered our society in the past 20 years. And by Progressive I do not mean Liberal or "Left Wing" .. I mean nut job Progressives on the PC side of the spectrum, the ultra left wing "lets dissolve the borders and cap corporate pay" type of people. It's even more concerning for me that I live in a very Progressive region, where their laws, taxes and general attitudes often make absolutely no logical sense what so ever.


How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.


[edit on 6/9/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by signal2noise
reply to post by guohua
 


Of course they fail. Their solution to all problems is "raise taxes!!".

Liberals consider everyone outside of DC and California are all looked upon as a source of revenue.


Thank You.
Truer words have yet to be typed.
I want to thank every one, Yes, The post was leaning to the right.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by guohua]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join