patrick.net

Quigley says

They were lied to and manipulated by the wealthy elite like the rest of us.

Wouldn't another tax cut for the elite solve this?

If the elite go offshore, who will lie to us?

ThreeBays says

Are the Teabagger districts upset at Obama because their economy is poor?

Or are the Teabagger district economies poor because the local government they support and elect does nothing for them, and the Obama hate is distraction.

They are poor because of the deficit.

Obama's debt has destroyed their economy - Bush's deficits did not, so don't say that. Plus, the deficit hurt the performance of the fixed-income and equities that lower-class Republicans usually invest in.

A capital gains tax cut would reach these voters and put their fortunes right, but unfortunately our current "president" is an Islamic communist.

Do you really want to go there? Compare the 'takers' (O-bots, welfare recipients, illegals, section-8, (multiple) EBT card-carriers), to the 'givers' (law-abiding, tax-paying people with jobs)??

Because here in Massachusetts, we can look at the cities of say, Boston, Holyoke, Springfield, Lawrence, etc (the O-bot 'taker' districts'), and compare them to the Boston metro-west, central-Mass, Cape, and Berkshire areas.

Now the data would definitely be skewed because Boston's GDP comes off the backs of those that drive into Boston to work, coming from these 'tea-party' metro-west areas, etc to earn their $$, and have their taxes go to the takers in Boston.

Which brings up the other point to this non-sensical thread. The way this state is drawn up district-wise, it's designed for the democrats to win. Don't believe me? You wonder when my state lost a congressional seat recently, the biggest moon-bat (Barney Frank) decided not to run for re-election. Why? Because he drew the short straw when the lines were redrawn, getting the more conservative slice of metro-west that went down to the cape. JFK-III takes over and wins on his name (only).

That said, comparing the 'economies' of the Tea party to the liberal counterpart is retarted.

AverageBear says

That said, comparing the 'economies' of the Tea party to the liberal counterpart is retarted.

Pure poetry.

rooemoore says

AverageBear says

That said, comparing the 'economies' of the Tea party to the liberal counterpart is retarted.

Pure poetry.

Yes. Some of the finest political analysis ever written in crayon.

sbh says

This how they do it in the Tealibanbagging white trash shithole south. The real Americans are forced to take welfare otherwise the niggers would take it all.

^^^^ = unhinged. wow. Never argue with an idiot, because nobody in the area can tell the difference...

sbh says

AverageBear says

The way this state is drawn up district-wise, it's designed for the democrats to win

This how they do it in the Tealibanbagger whitetrash shithole south. They draw the districts around the real Americans otherwise the niggers would take all the welfare votes.

Did you even read my entire post? I'm talking about Massachusetts. I know, I know. It's hard to turn your 'Projection-mode' off.

AverageBear says

sbh says

AverageBear says

The way this state is drawn up district-wise, it's designed for the democrats to win

This how they do it in the Tealibanbagger whitetrash shithole south. They draw the districts around the real Americans otherwise the niggers would take all the welfare votes.

Did you even read my entire post? I'm talking about Massachusetts. I know, I know. It's hard to turn your 'Projection-mode' off.

I've spent a lot of time in the berkshires. There are plenty of people who are dental challenged with only very close relatives. Try again on projection mode.

finehoe says

Teabagger Districts Poorer with More Unemployment

Why do you think they are pissed OFF?

The South was destroyed by bi-partisan NAFTA beginning in 1994 and finished off by 2000 when All their low-tech jobs were shipped to China. There was a brief reprieve beginning in 2000 with the no-money down housing boom scam, but that too was busted in 2007 because there aren't any jobs today in the South to support anything.
Most get by today on welfare, ranging from 50% of the population to a high of 90% in the abandoned factory towns.
All of this was caused by Washington and they all know it.

Quigley says

The country needs protectionist left-leaning fiscal leadership to rebuild the middle class, but thanks to the democrats' obsession with ridiculous nonsense issues, the GOP has ample leverage to sway people who are afraid of such social change.

Agree. We need Democrats to focus on economic issues rather than sexual politics. Their obsession with sexual politics turns many people toward the GOP and against their own economic interests.

Odd, isn't it, that 2008 saw both a massive turn out of historically democrat-voting blacks to the polls to elect Obama, and overwhelming black votes also for Prop 8 which amended the California constitution to read marriage as a man and a woman.
Results like that speak for themselves. People vote economics, social politics are a sideshow, except for religious people who take them very very seriously and will set aside their economic interests to vote against a candidate who is for the things they firmly believe they should never support.
Stuff like this keeps the lower and middle classes divided. And this is intentionally done by the real power brokers so they can continue effing everyone over.
Note that NAFTA and the China "most favored nation" started under Clinton. A democrat. So it's really hard to make the argument to these red state unemployed Southerners that it's all the evil Republican party's fault. To them, the Democrats are all that and a bag of Lucifer-O's tossed in.

Quigley says

Note that NAFTA and the China "most favored nation" started under Clinton.

You're wrong.

"MFN/NTR status for China, a non-market economy, which had been originally suspended in 1951, was restored in 1980 and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions. Following the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, however, the annual renewal of China’s MFN status became a source of considerable debate in the Congress"
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2024/m1/1/high_res_d/RS20691_2001Apr27.html

Yes Clinton signed NAFTA, but its terms were negotiated under Bush I.

freak80 says

Agree. We need Democrats to focus on economic issues rather than sexual politics. Their obsession with sexual politics turns many people toward the GOP and against their own economic interests.

You are aware of the Irony in that statement aren't you?

Looking for any economic commitment from any politician, is in anyone's best economic interest.

finehoe says

Yes Clinton signed NAFTA, but its terms were negotiated under Bush I.

If you think our problem with losses in MFG were due to NAFTA or Mexico .. Clinton or Bush 1.. you are sadly mistaken... Our losses and not to mention little spoken European mfg losses were mostly due to rise of Japan as second largest economy.

China is just a late comer .. not the cause !

Hey, ThreeBays:

Google "Poe's Law".

Here's how free trade has helped America.