swain

I think Obamy's mommy would even say he was the worst.

Here's your sign
http://www.altacocker.com/

i think obamy is the worst since 4/30/1789

Note from GoNC: I moved this post and the next 4 from another thread on a similar topic. I considered moving the last 50 posts in this thread to that topic, instead, but the stream of discussion never gave me a clear point where this thread would stop and the next would begin. Sorry.

No.

We switched it to discuss the actual worst president ever. I would say that the discussion of any President and how bad they are is on topic here.

You guys are too rigid.

It was a stupid topic, already answered by the fact that they were blaming Obama for local violence.

He's right, though, this whole conversation should probably be moved to a new thread so we don't look like idiots.

Just curious, what happened to the original topic: Blacks In Chicago Say Obama The Worst President Ever

Never did I say they were more important. I said they are the foundation that the economy is built on. Importance is relative man. It doesn't mean anything who you are I think is more important. But it's easy to see that ideas are useless without action.

Why should the workers get rich? They didn't create the idea, and they didn't risk their homes and personal finances to start a company. And they are replaceable.

No one said they should get rich. But I did say that if they make less, they spend less, resulting in less products and services being bought from the rich.

If the rich want more money, the consumers have to make more money. This is how money trickles up, which you said doesn't happen.

And a Debt that has been increased two Fold by the Idiot walking the Halls of the White House now.

Actually, the Debt to GDP has gone down under Obama, I'll have to pull those stats for you later. But the money borrowed by Obama has been spent on the US economy, which has a financial return. Money borrowed to stock the military doesn't have a financial return.

It's like borrowing money to invest in a house, versus borrowing money to invest in an alarm system. Eventually you'll see a return on the house, but you'll probably never see a return on the alarm.

http://www.shelterforce.com...eagan.html

They do benefit from the check they get every week. I never said they work for free. I just don't buy some fairy tale that they are more important than the company owner.

Just curious, what happened to the original topic: Blacks In Chicago Say Obama The Worst President Ever

They should both benefit from a prospering company.

You yourself destroyed your own argument about supply side economics.

We are all wage slaves. And you are too CallSign. You just can't admit it.

Forever Cynic (view profile)

Only on the Wealth thing. Reagan was GREAT for the Country. He had to Rebuild an Military that was decimated in Four Short years by the Peanut Farmer's budget cuts, and the 16 to 18% interest rates on home Owners.Follow the link I provided earlier about the federal debt as compared to GDP, and you'll see that Reagan increased the military spending with money borrowed from other countries. A debt that we're still paying.

And a Debt that has been increased two Fold by the Idiot walking the Halls of the White House now.

Why should the workers get rich? They didn't create the idea, and they didn't risk their homes and personal finances to start a company. And they are replaceable.

Only on the Wealth thing. Reagan was GREAT for the Country. He had to Rebuild an Military that was decimated in Four Short years by the Peanut Farmer's budget cuts, and the 16 to 18% interest rates on home Owners.

Follow the link I provided earlier about the federal debt as compared to GDP, and you'll see that Reagan increased the military spending with money borrowed from other countries.

A debt that we're still paying.

Cajahah (view profile)

Shoot me now. RedTurd is agreeing with me.

Only on the Wealth thing. Reagan was GREAT for the Country. He had to Rebuild an Military that was decimated in Four Short years by the Peanut Farmer's budget cuts, and the 16 to 18% interest rates on home Owners.

The only thing we can unilaterally agree on is that you are a PRICK and Asrehole rolled into one.

Workers are expendable and can be replaced at a dime a dozen. They don't create. They chug away like the drones they are because they have no initiative.

Employees can be replaced, sure, and often are replaced by people in other countries.

But the rich rely on those employees to spend their income on products and services that they (the rich) provide. When those employees make less money, they spend less money on those products and services, making the rich lose money.

Short sighted businesses save money in the short term by hiring low wage employees, but long term their sales will drop and they will suffer for it.

Wow.

If you believe that skilled labor is expendable. Then you are helping to create the lousy service economy we have in the United States presently. Skilled workers and a strong middle class are the foundation on which an economy is built. Ever heard of an LLC?

They don't risk their homes. They make you lose yours when they tank the business.

More drones they hire is a direct quote from you. You didn't say if they get rich the workers will get rich also. Right there you refuted supply side economics yourself. So the workers/drones as you put it make the man rich. He just expands and hires more. That's not trickle down. That's just upgrading the plantation.

You know what's interesting? What's interesting is looking at who controlled the congresses that created and approved the budgets of those administrations.

It's also interesting to see how Reagan, the ultra conservative, increased the Federal Debt as a % of GDP, compared to other presidents -

http://upload.wikimedia.org...sident.jpg

Reagan increased the debt from 35% to 55%, Bush Sr increased it to almost 70%. Clinton lowered it, but then Bush Jr raised it back to 85%.