Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#40228 Jun 5, 2013
Mr M

Houston, TX

#40229 Jun 5, 2013
martel wrote:
<quoted text> AH, did I touch a nerve bitch? Don't worry about your having to come down here, I'm heading up there for business this weekend. Name the place.
Can i get some of this? I Could use some of your famous bj action, you piece of sorry crap.Mooseface.Even yer mama don't like ya!
Mr M

Houston, TX

#40230 Jun 5, 2013
Sorry Martell! Got you confused with the Martell in Alabama! Boy, is my face red!
Mr M

Houston, TX

#40231 Jun 5, 2013
Omg! Its Martel, not Martell! What have I done??
Mr M

Houston, TX

#40232 Jun 5, 2013
Aaaaaahhhhhhhh! You're givink me ze blues!
Josephus

Houston, TX

#40233 Jun 5, 2013
Wow.What a forum
Josephus

Houston, TX

#40234 Jun 5, 2013
The dude mess with me, I knock him out.
Josephus

Houston, TX

#40235 Jun 5, 2013
As of now, I still exist.
emlu

Dallas, TX

#40236 Jun 5, 2013
Josephus wrote:
As of now, I still exist.
Waco sweetie, stop stealing and using fake names my little beanpole gay pedophile schizoid psychotic. You're not biggerstick, Martin, Mr. M, Josephus and all the other imaginary monikers you're using. Sweetie, just stop trying to cause turmoil on topix because everyone knows who you are and no one likes you. And don't tell people they don't know proper English and that they can't spell because you flunked out of kindergaten sweetie. Tell your husband Butch to give your poo poo hole a break and tell him to stick it down your throat, just like you do with your Boy George doll, plus it'll keep your bipolar mouth shut, sweetie.
TSF

Holly Springs, NC

#40237 Jun 5, 2013
Lets see here Robert: 1. When does the affordable health care law com into effect? Oh. I thought so. So how has that been holding back job growth? I nearly dropped my teeth when you gave Obama credit for slow job growth. Lets see here. Is slow GROWTH better than LOSING 100,000 + jobs per month like was happening under Dubya? Is growth of any kind better than a depression? So Obama isn't growing jobs fast enough to suit the republikans who were loosing 100,000+ jobs per month??
Now Robert, my genius friend, exactly what control does Obama have over the independent federal reserve bank? Seems like I remember back in 1963 that Kennedy got shot just after he announced that he was taking US monetary policy away from the federal reserve bank.
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>You are truly a simpleton! The Federal Reserve has printed multiple trillions of legal counterfeit money in the last five years. Interest rates are essentially zero. Of course the stock market and real estate prices are up. Job growth is still very slow mainly because of Obamacare. The only thing Obama can take credit for is slow job growth. Watch what happens when inflation flares, the Fed turns off the printing presses and decides to mop up all this excess liquidity. It's going to get mighty ugly.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#40238 Jun 5, 2013
TSF wrote:
Lets see here Robert: 1. When does the affordable health care law com into effect? Oh. I thought so. So how has that been holding back job growth? I nearly dropped my teeth when you gave Obama credit for slow job growth. Lets see here. Is slow GROWTH better than LOSING 100,000 + jobs per month like was happening under Dubya? Is growth of any kind better than a depression? So Obama isn't growing jobs fast enough to suit the republikans who were loosing 100,000+ jobs per month??
Now Robert, my genius friend, exactly what control does Obama have over the independent federal reserve bank? Seems like I remember back in 1963 that Kennedy got shot just after he announced that he was taking US monetary policy away from the federal reserve bank.
<quoted text>
You are uneducable. That's stupid to someone of your intellect. You are an Obama supporter simply because he's black which also makes you a racist.
spell checker

Charlotte, NC

#40239 Jun 6, 2013
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>You are uneducable. That's stupid to someone of your intellect. You are an Obama supporter simply because he's black which also makes you a racist.
so are you-learn how to spell EDUCATIONABLE 1st ding bat and then try learning the basics of business 101.
spell checker

Charlotte, NC

#40240 Jun 6, 2013
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>You are uneducable. That's stupid to someone of your intellect. You are an Obama supporter simply because he's black which also makes you a racist.
I too was quick to judge--some say it is a word and some say it's not. A better word would be "not instructive."

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#40241 Jun 6, 2013
spell checker wrote:
<quoted text>I too was quick to judge--some say it is a word and some say it's not. A better word would be "not instructive."
You're another simpleton.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edu...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edu...
TSF

Middlesex, NC

#40242 Jun 6, 2013
I do not support Obama because he is black but you oppose him for that reason. I do not support him because he is a democrat, but you oppose him for that reason. Obama has led the nation out of straight down economic nose dive . He has leveled off the economy and establish a positive rate of climb. I give him credit for that achievement and appreciate that I and others didn't end up scattered in an unrecognizable economic debris field. You would rather have had us crash completely simply because you could have blamed that on a black democrat and imagine that it would have enhanced the chances of Twitt getting elected.. So instead of giving him credit for that achievement, even with unrelenting republican obstructionism, you whine that it didn't happen fast enough. Face it. Twitt and republikans lost because they are idiots, unable to even understand that to win an election, you have to get the most votes. You don't get votes by attacking and insulting large groups of voters.
Robert Stowe wrote:
<quoted text>You are uneducable. That's stupid to someone of your intellect. You are an Obama supporter simply because he's black which also makes you a racist.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#40243 Jun 6, 2013
TSF wrote:
I do not support Obama because he is black but you oppose him for that reason. I do not support him because he is a democrat, but you oppose him for that reason. Obama has led the nation out of straight down economic nose dive . He has leveled off the economy and establish a positive rate of climb. I give him credit for that achievement and appreciate that I and others didn't end up scattered in an unrecognizable economic debris field. You would rather have had us crash completely simply because you could have blamed that on a black democrat and imagine that it would have enhanced the chances of Twitt getting elected.. So instead of giving him credit for that achievement, even with unrelenting republican obstructionism, you whine that it didn't happen fast enough. Face it. Twitt and republikans lost because they are idiots, unable to even understand that to win an election, you have to get the most votes. You don't get votes by attacking and insulting large groups of voters.
<quoted text>
I oppose him because he is a leftist and he has no respect for the U. S. Constitution which he has admitted. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Exactly what Obama policies have put us into a recovery? Remember, the two articles to which I linked in a recent post. BTW, businesses have to plan which is why they waited to see if Obamacare would stand. They are cutting work hours, reducing the number of employees and eliminating insurance coverage altogether. For large businesses it's cheaper to pay the fine than to provide coverage. But that's the point of Obamacare, to eliminate private insurance and make the government the single payer.
TSF

Middlesex, NC

#40244 Jun 6, 2013
I am unhappy about some recent developments, especially the attorney general claiming that the president has the authority to kill any of us without charges or a trial. The coincidence of that claim along with the attempt to put the US under the UN control of civilian firearms restrictions makes me very nervous. But I am equally nervous about allowing republikans to destroy the economy--- again. I think the time to form a neutral third party, which could actually function to supervise the administration of our government , is here.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#40245 Jun 6, 2013
TSF wrote:
I am unhappy about some recent developments, especially the attorney general claiming that the president has the authority to kill any of us without charges or a trial. The coincidence of that claim along with the attempt to put the US under the UN control of civilian firearms restrictions makes me very nervous. But I am equally nervous about allowing republikans to destroy the economy--- again. I think the time to form a neutral third party, which could actually function to supervise the administration of our government , is here.
What Republican policies put the economy into recession?
TSF

Middlesex, NC

#40246 Jun 6, 2013
Economists Agree: Obama Is Right On the Economy
1) The Stimulus Was a Success
The Univ. Of Chicago asked a panel of leading economists, Republican and Democrat, if the Recovery Act lowered unemployment. Nearly all of them, 92 percent, said that it had.
That's right, 92 percent of the most lauded, frequently consulted economists in America said the stimulus succeeded in reducing unemployment!
Job growth went from -800,000 per month under Bush to an average net gain of 160,000. That's a turnaround of nearly 1 million jobs per month! A historic achievement that gives tangible meaning to change we can believe in.
2) Building on Success: Economists Support the American Jobs Act
Moody’s Analytics estimated the American Jobs Act would create 1.9 million jobs and add 2% to gross domestic product.
The Economic Policy Institute estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an addition 1.6 million existing jobs.
Macroeconomic Advisers predicted it would create 2.1 million jobs and boost GDP by 1.5 percent.
Goldman Sachs also predicted it would add 1.5% to GDP.
3) Economists say Don't Stop Now: More government spending is needed, not less.
Policy advisers to Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, Nobel prize winners, IMF and World Bank analysts, private forecasters, Goldman Sachs, Forbes...The Consensus is clear: our economy needs MORE Federal spending, not LESS. The UN's top economists warn austerity policies are pushing the world economy toward disaster.“Unemployment depends very much on demand. If you have no demand, you need government to step in with a huge program to stimulate the economy.”
4) Economists and Obama: US job 1 is repairing and upgrading America's crumbling infrastructure.
Bold, far-sighted government spending built the America we know today. Highways and airports, roads, bridges and waterways, levees and dams, waterways and seaports, phone lines and power lines, new sources of energy and a new power grid to deliver it. Our standard of living and decades of prosperity were built on that foundation. Today that foundation is crumbling.
5) Lower Tax Rates on Top Incomes – The Problem, Not the Solution
Tax cuts on top incomes likewise produce no return. A study by the Congressional Research Service reviewed tax, investment and growth data beginning in 1945, the first year for which they're available. Their analysis showed tax reductions on top incomes do not increase investment or growth.
In fact, growth has consistently been more robust during periods when top tax rates were higher.
Instead of making the economic pie larger, the CRS found, reductions on top tax rates change how the pie is sliced, concentrating income at the top.
6) Obama Is Right: Our Economy Grows More When We're Growing Together.
The effect of income inequality on economic growth is negative. That's the conclusion of a number of studies that have closely examined this issue, including studies by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD (a body representing the world's wealthiest countries), and leading academic economists.
The world's greatest authority on the subject is Nobel prize winner and former Clinton adviser Joseph Stiglitz, who writes:
“Inequality is now far higher than just 30 years ago. The top 1 percent today gets around 20 percent of the nation’s income — twice what it did two decades ago. The top 0.1 percent’s share has almost tripled. Disparities in wealth are even greater.
“But inequality, especially of the U.S. variety, is bad for growth. The country grew faster in the decades after World War II — when it was also growing together, with all groups seeing increases in income. But those at the bottom were growing the most.
“By comparison, growth since 1980 has been slower, as the share of the bottom and middle has diminished.
justasayin

Greer, SC

#40247 Jun 6, 2013
Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it
is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP
increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was
1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relation
ship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of su
ch data suggests the reduction in the top tax
rates have had little association with saving, inve
stment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how
the economic pie is sliced
"CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Taxes and the Economy: An Economic
Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945
Thomas L. Hungerford
Specialist in Public Finance
September 14, 2012"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lexington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Brunswick County sheriff asks for help finding ... Aug 10 daffy duck 1
July 2 142 Jackson blvd home invasion Aug 10 Armednow 1
How do you get rid of a freeloader?? (Mar '07) Aug 8 icg1759 81
men who cheat and liars (Jun '13) Aug 7 Leslie 21
Trump's outbursts prove he's unstable (Aug '16) Aug 1 Fulol 3
southern hospitality Jul 27 cil 1
News Pritchard to be paroled (Jun '07) Jul 25 Curious 74

Lexington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lexington Mortgages