[late]

Interesting you chose to show your intelligence with only a personal attack. Project much.

You just blamed Obama for a economic crash that happened before he was president. Even worse, Republicans hurt the country every chance they could, hoping it would make Obama look bad, so the relief was half what it should have been.

But it's worse than that, the crash was years in the making. Many books, and a couple movies, covered it. There is a long list of people to blame. None of them were Obama.

Here's a partial list, off the top of my head. All the presidents, Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes. Reagan because he appointed that lunatic Greenspan. Clinton because he acted like a Republican. Like the Bushes, who let things slide. Lastly, Phil "Mr Deregulation" Gramm, the Republican deregulation fanatic.

Welcome to the Planet Earth, perhaps you should learn how the dump works.

[Tainari88]

Most people need a lot more money than $2800 per married couple.

I need it to pay for some basics and many people need it to get out of debt.

Most people don't make a lot of money in the USA. That is the truth.

[Beren]

'Progressive' or not, you must admit there is a certain inevitability about it all. Hmm?

In inevitability we trust, don't we?

As to progressiveness, news of the day is that Elliot Page is fully himself and happy as fuck finally, so there's hope for all of us.

[Oxymoron]

Sure, I overestimated Washington, Hamilton, and a bunch of others... That's ahistorical nonsense.

Trying to install a dictator? You bet.

Trump got an extra 2% of the Black vote. Wanna guess what Biden got?

That doesn't make sense.

1.They were important, but not supremely so. Jefferson and Madison were by far more influential in the direction the country took.

2.Can you Be more ignorant?

3 Yes he got an increase in the black vote, and an even bigger surge in Latino votes. For a guy that is supposed to be racist he sure did well with the races.

[late]

1.They were important, but not supremely so. Jefferson and Madison were by far more influential in the direction the country took.

2.Can you Be more ignorant?

3 Yes he got an increase in the black vote, and an even bigger surge in Latino votes. For a guy that is supposed to be racist he sure did well with the races.

First you said it was just Washington, then they were a minority, and now "not supremely". They won, if only for a few years.

Trump's rioters stormed Congress to force the installation of Trump as dictator. You can lie, fake and shovel crap all day, it won't change that butt ugly fact.

So you've given up on your MIGHTY 2% increase in Black votes, and are switching to Latinos. No numbers, of course, why bother with reality. Here's reality, Biden won. Republican election officials say it, dozens of Republican judges say it, and the Supreme court won't give you the time of day. It's not that you are beating a dead horse here. It's that your horse never, ever, existed in the first place.

If you can't do better than that, don't bother.

[Oxymoron]

First you said it was just Washington, then they were a minority, and now "not supremely". They won, if only for a few years.

Trump's rioters stormed Congress to force the installation of Trump as dictator. You can lie, fake and shovel crap all day, it won't change that butt ugly fact.

So you've given up on your MIGHTY 2% increase in Black votes, and are switching to Latinos. No numbers, of course, why bother with reality. Here's reality, Biden won. Republican election officials say it, dozens of Republican judges say it, and the Supreme court won't give you the time of day. It's not that you are beating a dead horse here. It's that your horse never, ever, existed in the first place.

If you can't do better than that, don't bother.

It was Washington, and Hamilton you happy? if you do not get the point that one party was never a majority concept, you are just ignorant
2. Trump rioters is a bs term, no one wanted to overturn any goverment. So shut your ignorant mouth
3. You ignored the Latinos originally, I mentioned them already. Do you need a reading lesson?

[Finfinder]

You just blamed Obama for a economic crash that happened before he was president. Even worse, Republicans hurt the country every chance they could, hoping it would make Obama look bad, so the relief was half what it should have been.

But it's worse than that, the crash was years in the making. Many books, and a couple movies, covered it. There is a long list of people to blame. None of them were Obama.

Here's a partial list, off the top of my head. All the presidents, Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes. Reagan because he appointed that lunatic Greenspan. Clinton because he acted like a Republican. Like the Bushes, who let things slide. Lastly, Phil "Mr Deregulation" Gramm, the Republican deregulation fanatic.

Welcome to the Planet Earth, perhaps you should learn how the dump works.

First off even if all of that shit is true and it’s not, why did your Messiah Obama support massive spending and tax increases when you all (supposedly) knew the economy was in trouble. You letfists claim to have some type of superior intelligence so help us out here. When the economy is in the crapper you spend trillions of dollars, force people to purchase something or penalize them, and then open the borders to flood the work force? Please explain how those policies saved the economy? Also can you specifically show how every past Republican president is responsible for Obama’s record high unemployment rates in the black communities. I'd ask you to address the dismal GDP during Obama's reign but that might explode your brain.

You can’t polish that turd can you? Because this isn't about the economy this is about the leftist blood thirst for perpetual power. It's like déjà vu Groundhog Day all over again. Massive spending bills that weren’t even read, unpopular tax increases, open borders, and focusing on lame identity politics is a proven formula for bad economy and recession. Its a conspiracy that fuel prices are spiking. LOL

Here we are folks 16 years later and all the leftist have as an argument is “but Bush” and Michael Moore movies. We all know how Late's, Obama brand of politics turned out for our economy and now with Biden we can see it coming two- fold. They don’t give a shit about the economy it’s impossible they can’t be this stupid and gullible, can they ?

[late]

It was Washington, and Hamilton you happy? if you do not get the point that one party was never a majority concept, you are just ignorant


2. Trump rioters is a bs term, no one wanted to overturn any goverment. So shut your ignorant mouth

3. You ignored the Latinos originally, I mentioned them already. Do you need a reading lesson?

1) Fine, prove me wrong.

"The election of 1796 was the first election in American history where political candidates at the local, state, and national level began to run for office as members of organized political parties that held strongly opposed political principles.

This was a stunning new phenomenon that shocked most of the older leaders of the Revolutionary Era. Even Madison, who was one of the earliest to see the value of political parties, believed that they would only serve as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections. The older leaders failed to understand the dynamic new conditions that had been created by the importance of popular sovereignty — democracy — to the American Revolution."
https://www.ushistory.org/us/19c.asp

" When the Constitution was written in 1787, the founders thought of political parties as "factions," acting only for their own selfish interests rather than the public good. The founders saw instances in history when factions resorted to assassination and civil war if they failed to get their way.

The writers of the Constitution believed that political parties would play no formal role in the new government. The Constitution made no mention of them.

Even in electing the president, the founders assumed the absence of political parties. The Constitution established an Electoral College, which called for a small number of electors—elected or appointed in the states— to meet, deliberate, and choose the best person for president. The runner-up automatically would become the vice president."
https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-2-a-how-political-parties-began

2) They were there to force Congress to make Trump president. "Stop the steal". They weren't sightseeing...

3) I didn't ignore them. You didn't mention them, so they weren't relevant...

The reality is Biden won. Get over it.

[late]

First off even if all of that shit is true and it’s not, why did your Messiah Obama support massive spending and tax increases when you all (supposedly) knew the economy was in trouble.

"The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis (GFC), was a severe worldwide financial crisis. Excessive risk-taking by banks,[2] combined with the bursting of the United States housing bubble, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate to plummet and damaged financial institutions globally;[3] this culminated with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, and an international banking crisis.[4] The crisis sparked the Great Recession, which, at the time, was the most severe global recession since the Great Depression."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008

There was an economic crisis, and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it. IT WAS BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT...

Obama did pretty much what Bush did before him, try to keep the economy from freezing solid. You know, another Great Depression. Since you clearly know nothing about it, I will suggest reading about it.
[url]https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YFVEW7W?ascsubtag=[]st[p]cjkublxwg003d0ayep8wy2l0m[i]lRkytq[t]w[r]google.com[d]D[z]m&tag=thestrategistsite-20[/url]

[AFAIK]

Besides, Keynesianism is based on an alliance between the trade unions and business managers; as such, it is intrinsically unstable and prone to collapse.

How do you think the dispute would have been resolved had Labour been in power instead of Thatcher?

[Potemkin]

How do you think the dispute would have been resolved had Labour been in power instead of Thatcher?

It wouldn't have been, and it wasn't. Labour were in power for most of the 1970s, and they were effectively held hostage by a whole series of industrial disputes which became progressively worse as the decade progressed. Google 'the winter of discontent' if you don't believe me.

[AFAIK]

So Keynesianism is/was a dead end in Britain?

[Potemkin]

So Keynesianism is/was a dead end in Britain?

Yes.

[B0ycey]

It wouldn't have been, and it wasn't. Labour were in power for most of the 1970s, and they were effectively held hostage by a whole series of industrial disputes which became progressively worse as the decade progressed. Google 'the winter of discontent' if you don't believe me.

The Winter of Discontent was an issue with fuel not economics. Had we had oil, miners wouldn't have held the government to ransom.

[Potemkin]

The Winter of Discontent was an issue with fuel not economics. Had we had oil, miners wouldn't have held the government to ransom.

We did have oil, from the North Sea.

[B0ycey]

We did have oil, from the North Sea.

I never said we didn't have oil. I said we had a fuel crisis. Oil was expensive due to the Suez crisis. We then used coal for power which meant the miners had the upperhand. They striked due to pay as fuel was making things more expensive to make and inflation was a huge issue. That caused the winter of discontent which was caused by the three day week. This had nothing to do with Keynes which died when Thatcher backed Heyek and which Sunak now endorses anyway.