poll:who was best Pres in your lifetime

cawacko said:
I'm sorry you don't understand the big picture involved here which is why you are having these challenges understanding itv
Click to expand...

You're trying to paint a big picture on a canvas the size of a piece of paper.

Lowering the interest rate doesn't magically create demand among borrowers. If it did, then there wouldn't have been a need to reduce lending standards, you friggin tool.
 
cawacko said:
Ahhhh, when all else fails call someone racist. The number one fall back in the liberal playbook. No wonder TTQ64 liked you so much.
Click to expand...

Your opposition to Obama's stimulus tax cuts is rooted only in your personal, snowflakey feelings of embarrassment at having your policies repudiated by the election of a black guy.

It's so fucking lazy and racist.
 
Cypress said:
I am not sure I agree with that.
I could be wrong, but I recall that polling of the time generally showed Reagan to have fair to middling job approval ratings. They ranged from abysmal (when his crimes against the constitution became known, or during his 1982-83 recession), to relatively high at the end of his presidency when nostalgia set in.

Undoubtedly, Reagan was very popular with swaths of the religious right, middle class and working class whites, bible thumpers, et al. My recollection is that he was absolutely loathed in minority communities, the gay community, and disadvantaged communities.

What can be said objectively, is that he easily won two election campaigns against extremely weak Democratic candidates of the time. Carter was never going to recover from the oil shock and the hostage crisis, and Mondale was basically seen as a second term of Jimmy Carter, which a lot of people at the time did not want.
Click to expand...
Other Presidents have have had week opponents but haven’t won by the huge electoral landslides Reagan won by. Certainly certain segments of the population loathed. You don’t win those sort of landslide elections without broad popular support. No President in my lifetime has had the level of popular support Reagan had.

The fact is there hasn’t been a “great US President” since FDR. Most of our Presidents since FDR have, in fact, served our nation and more importantly, the public institution of the Presidency, quite well.

We have been fortunate that the large majority of Presidents have served our nation well and only a handful have not.
 
LV426 said:
You don't know shit about what you're saying. Nothing. Like, less than nothing, if that's even possible.

You'd be better served not knowing anything at all instead of posturing your weak positions on this board.

I asked so many times about this pension crisis you seem to think CA has, only to hear crickets from you about it.

Like, for instance, saying how far out the liability actually goes? It's a pretty simple question; you screech about trillion-dollar unfunded liabilities, but don't know how far out those liabilities stretch! Is it 5 years? 10 years? 100 years? Since pensions are paid by tax revenues, and since tax revenues are notoriously hard to predict, how can you say there's a pension crisis when you don't even know how far out these liabilities you're claiming actually go? The answer, of course, is that you can't because you're just repeating propaganda you heard somewhere else in an attempt to appear like you have serious concerns when the reality is that you know about as much of the pension "crisis' as you do about open heart surgery; which is to say, nothing.

And, as I suspected before, the links you use to support your tragically and comically weak argument use revenues during the height of the Bush Economic Recession as the baseline, which obscures the picture of revenues because you're using a baseline from when revenues were at their lowest, rather than what they actually are now.

It's those not-so-clever rhetorical tricks that you use to try and make your argument sound serious, when it's nothing but a bunch of regurgitated BS.
Click to expand...

Do you know how pensions work? They are promises made to workers today for their retirement. Pensions are continually ongoing. Not all workers retire at one time.
 
cawacko said:
The tax cuts were right out of Keynes playbook so funny you claim to hate them and don't work. Once again you clearly have no clue between the type of tax cuts supply siders support and those keynesians support
Click to expand...

1. So, the tax cuts Obama did were for working people, and were deficit neutral.
2. Even with those tax cuts, it still wasn't enough to make the recovery stronger because when people get tax cuts, they don't spend them. They save them. Particularly the wealthy.
3. If you are trying to recover an economy from a collapse, increasing savings isn't going to reverse the contraction; only spending will.
4. Obama had to put those dumb tax cuts in there to secure the votes of Blue Dog democrats who were still married to that stupid dogma from the 1990's.
5. The direct spending is what created the most jobs out of the stimulus, according to the CBO and the Senate Finance Committee's study of the ARRA after it was done.
6. Shut the hell up forever.
 
cawacko said:
Would you like me to post the same articles laying out the California pension crisis again?
Click to expand...

Dude:

nd, as I suspected before, the links you use to support your tragically and comically weak argument use revenues during the height of the Bush Economic Recession as the baseline, which obscures the picture of revenues because you're using a baseline from when revenues were at their lowest, rather than what they actually are now.
Click to expand...

There's one simple question that can prove whether or not you know what the fuck you're saying:

How far out are these liabilities going?
 
cawacko said:
Do you know how pensions work? They are promises made to workers today for their retirement. Pensions are continually ongoing. Not all workers retire at one time.
Click to expand...

OK, so how far out are you looking when you say there are trillion-dollar liabilities, and what is your revenue baseline from which you're making that determination?

You can't say because you don't know.

You've been posturing this entire time because you're a lying idiot who wants to feel smarter than you actually are.
 
cawacko said:
Do you know how pensions work? They are promises made to workers today for their retirement. Pensions are continually ongoing. Not all workers retire at one time.
Click to expand...

So great! So you can't say the liabilities are unfunded since you're not even establishing an "end date" by which you're claiming they are, nor are you answering what you're using as your revenue baseline.

Wow.

You're the biggest fucking idiot I've seen on these boards in a long, long time. And a latent racist. And lazy as fuck.
 
LV426 said:
1. So, the tax cuts Obama did were for working people, and were deficit neutral.
2. Even with those tax cuts, it still wasn't enough to make the recovery stronger because when people get tax cuts, they don't spend them. They save them. Particularly the wealthy.
3. If you are trying to recover an economy from a collapse, increasing savings isn't going to reverse the contraction; only spending will.
4. Obama had to put those dumb tax cuts in there to secure the votes of Blue Dog democrats who were still married to that stupid dogma from the 1990's.
5. The direct spending is what created the most jobs out of the stimulus, according to the CBO and the Senate Finance Committee's study of the ARRA after it was done.
6. Shut the hell up forever.
Click to expand...

how the hell were the FICA tax cuts deficits neutral?
 
LV426 said:
So great! So you can't say the liabilities are unfunded since you're not even establishing an "end date" by which you're claiming they are, nor are you answering what you're using as your revenue baseline.

Wow.

You're the biggest fucking idiot I've seen on these boards in a long, long time. And a latent racist. And lazy as fuck.
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot because you don't understand how pensions work? Let me help you with the basics You start a job with the government. Part of your compensation is a pension at retirement which you receive for as long as you live. Now imagine this happening with tens and hundreds of thousands of workers.


You don't understand the question you keep asking. Pensions are due when a person retires for as long as they live. People retire on a daily basis. People die on a daily basis. It's an ever fluid situation. Again, not a difficult concept.
 
cawacko said:
how the hell were the FICA tax cuts deficits neutral?
Click to expand...

FICA tax cuts weren't in the ARRA, you stupid fucking idiot.

This is what I mean when I say you run your fat, dumb mouth about things without knowing anything at all.

That's why I told you to shut the hell up forever; you're an embarrassment.
 
LV426 said:
FICA tax cuts weren't in the ARRA, you stupid fucking idiot.

This is what I mean when I say you run your fat, dumb mouth about things without knowing anything at all.

That's why I told you to shut the hell up forever; you're an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

El Oh El, you're the one differentiating. I asked how they were deficit neutral as you claim.
 
cawacko said:
I'm an idiot because you don't understand how pensions work?
Click to expand...

No, you're an idiot because you are buying into a phony pension crisis, then playing make believe.

Do you know how liabilities work? Because a liability establishes an end date for when that liability is due, otherwise, it's just a moving target which is a nice way of saying a goalpost shift.

You won't even answer what revenue baseline you're using to determine that there even are liabilities in the first place. And you won't answer that because you can't.

Why?

Because the whole pension crisis you're exaggerating is just meant as a superficial concern to set yourself up as some thoughtful thinker, when you're everything but that.
 
cawacko said:
You don't understand the question you keep asking. Pensions are due when a person retires for as long as they live. People retire on a daily basis. People die on a daily basis. It's an ever fluid situation. Again, not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

The question I am asking is very simple and speaks to how uninformed you are; and that you're just regurgitating propaganda because you think it makes you sound smart.

Yes, people die and retire. What I'm asking you is that you're claiming there's some unfunded liability, but you won't say how far out that liability extends. You'll say how much of a liability it is, and it's increasingly clear you're just pulling that number out of thin air because, as you admitted before, it's a moving target since people retire and die at different times. So you can't actually say there is any amount of liability simply because you don't know what the liability actually is, and have presented it as a moving target. That's by design too, to allow yourself maximum room within the parameters for you to shift your argument.

You won't even say what your baseline revenue is that is determining what these liabilities are.

That's because all you're doing is regurgitating things on the board for no other purpose than to make yourself sound smarter than you really are.
 
LV426 said:
No, you're an idiot because you are buying into a phony pension crisis, then playing make believe.

Do you know how liabilities work? Because a liability establishes an end date for when that liability is due, otherwise, it's just a moving target which is a nice way of saying a goalpost shift.

You won't even answer what revenue baseline you're using to determine that there even are liabilities in the first place. And you won't answer that because you can't.

Why?

Because the whole pension crisis you're exaggerating is just meant as a superficial concern to set yourself up as some thoughtful thinker, when you're everything but that.
Click to expand...

It's amazing, I created this fake pension crisis in California. It's not a real thing because a kid in Atlanta said so.


Democrats running for California governor need to stop talking about Trump and start talking about public pensions


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...ornia-pension-liabilities-20180118-story.html





The funniest thing is I'm not even posting from right wing sites. These are straight out of the state's major publications. I'll let you in on a secret. The people running the state wish they could blow this crisis off as easily as you do. Unfortunately the real world isn't as easy as an anonymous internet chat board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top