"Supply Sider Kudlow" says "Hillary Pinned the Elephants Ears Back" in Repug Debate

[KoKo]

even thought she's the Dem in the Room! He loved that the Repugs were running against Hillary for pinning the Repugs Elephants Ears Back! :rofl:

Kudlow the "Supply Sider" is in Hillary's CAMP! As Wall St. Laughs over the whole DEBATE between Repugs and Dems and Wall St. decides HILLARY IS GOOD FOR THE MARKET@

Hey...all of us RETIREE's in the next 10 years need to SIGN UP FOR HILLARY!

AND...they LAUGH AND LAUGH in the WALL Street World...after all Ruppert Murdoch had bought the Wall St. Journal...so WHAT COULD YOU EXPECT!

:rofl: as America GOES DOWN THE TUBES while Off Shore MANSIONS are the GAME FOR ALL OF THEM! Great KIDS with PRIVATE PLANES to take kids to their SWEET SIXTEEN PARTIES on SEX AND DRUGS!

HEY ....the GREAT REPUG "FUCK UP"...FUCK EVERYONE...and let your TEENAGE DAUGHTER or LARRY CRAIG or the FUNDIE CHURCHES....FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

IT's GREAT FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY...FUCK UP! :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Her husband was great for the market

what you are seeing is a sea change

The biddness Republcians are breaking with the party and going to the Democrats now

Hell, at this point I think they may even vote for Dennis, but don't count on it

Actually I would not be laughing, as this is a hell of an indicator of where we are going as a nation.

[KoKo]

4. ...a hell of an indicator for sure.........n/t

[Richardo]

2. "Think you used enough PCP there, Butch?"

[KoKo]

3. huh?

can you "splain more?" :shrug:

[Richardo]

5. I can't follow your rant at all.

What are you trying to say, and pretend I'm not watching the television nor can I read your mind.

[KoKo]

14. It really was an OTT Rant....I've seen worse here...but it doesn't excuse me....

it was that I went off over the Wall Streeters Controlling everything...and even putting forth Fred Thompson as a Savior of our Economy.

It pushed me over the edge...so I did do a rant...with lot's of "F**k's that I don't do here on DU...but then most of you don't even know me...so why should you know what my rant was about.

:blush: sorry ...that you guys thought I run a Crack House and am posting on DU raving ignorances....

[durrrty libby]

6. Meth.............The High is a Lie

[KoKo]

8. If you don't know what CNBC is ...and Who Larry Kudlow is...then YOU have the Meth Habit

not me! Do you know what the Stock Market is? Do you know who Larry Kudlow is? Do you know about Milton Friedman and "Supply Side Economics?

Do you realize WHO SPONSORED TONIGHT's REPUG DEBATE? You think "I" have a "Meth Problem"...I would wonder what YOUR PROBLEM IS...unless you are very young...and in that case...you are EXCUSED!

[durrrty libby]

17. You came off like a wacko...not me.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

24. I was making a point

not that you're good at understanding points.

[durrrty libby]

25. Yeah, I tend to dismiss the obtuse and their so-called "points"

[Lerkfish]

26. well, let me help you out a little, be a little less obtuse:

you call someone a meth addict, and a whacko, and me a braying jackass. Your posts still remain.
I call you a prick FOR using personal attacks. My post is deleted. As will this post.

that's my point.

[madrchsod]

7. i sure in the hell am signing up!

it`s been a grand day for the queen...401k`s for everyone and now this! larry is on-board the clinton train! :rofl:





hell i just found she`s giving out Hanna Montana tickets! :rofl:

[AX10]

9. Kudlow does not bring anything of positive value to the debate.

With that said, Democrats are better for the overall economy.

[KoKo]

10. I should have posted this in the "Economics Forum" because folks here don't seem to

even understand the basics of what I'm talking about. Not blaming you guys..but figured "GD Politics Forum" might have a few clued in folks...but whatever...just GOOGLE: "Supply Side Econimics" and follow it up with "Larry Kudlow" and then "CNBC Business Network" and you will understand. :eyes:

[Nimrod2005]

13. Very few people know or watch Kudlow...His show gets about 100K or less

a night...

[papau]

23. This plan killed by GOP IN 1998 when Bill proposed it - its an excellent idea that solves 2 problems

how low personal savings rate gets a boost as another 25 Billion a year comes back to something other than war -

and retirement income security is improved as folks have a bit of cash at retirement and in the process get in the habit of saving for the future.

It has nothing to do with supply side anything, which makes Kudlow's flip flop interesting since he is usually only for accounts if setting them up hurts Social Security. This does not affect Social Security and indeed gets the idea of investing in real assets with payroll tax funds under the door - so we can perhaps in the future stop having the Trust Fund buy Government Bonds that the GOP can pretend are worthless (although we know they are not worthless but they do require higher taxes on the rich in the future to pay back the bonds as they are cashed in to pay benefits - which is fair since those bonds are financing the current tax cuts for the rich).

Kudlow is trying to fake the Dems out by pretending to be for the idea this time - interesting .... he hated it last time (1998) and was demanding that any accounts be paid for by destroying Social Security.

[antigop]

27. No, it is NOT a good idea. We have already have IRA's. Take the money and do something else with it

n/t

[MGKrebs]

11. Link? Source? Paraphrasing or quotes? What have we got here?

[KoKo]

12. Hey...go to CNBC's Website and hit "Kudlow & Company" and hope they

give the links and transcripts. :shrug: What else can I tell 'ya?

[MGKrebs]

15. What you can tell me is this:

This is your paraphrasing of something you heard on the TV? I just would like the context.

[BootinUp]

16. America would be so much better

if companies were doing poorly I guess?

It seems to me you are admitting that she is the only Dem candidate that supports the Democratic platform that business people will vote for. Thanks for that opinion.

[cascadiance]

19. No, America would be so much better if companies HAD NO POWER TO GOVERN!

They are totally running the show. They should ONLY be focused on making a profit within the rules specified by society. They should NOT be able to specify the rules. They are only interested (by LAW) in profit, not doing what's best for society in general (aka global warming costs, etc.).

[BootinUp]

20. Its not that simple

There are plenty of people voting for pro-business policy besides the CEO's. This is due to both misinformation and some reality as well. Your idea of a perfect world would not work out too well imho.

There was a post with a recent poll, showing that Republicans too are seeing the damage from the last 30 years of de-regulation, free-trade policies. The political environment will eventually welcome our ideas and we need a candidate that knows how to involve both sides in a discussion. Thats the only way to get the power to change policy.

[cascadiance]

21. I'm in favor of having consultants as ADVISORS!...

... but with NO power of throwing money or favors to politicians! They should be there STRICTLY to inform how policy decisions might affect a set of companies or business segment. And in so doing they should have to frame it how doing policy decisions a certain way help a politician's constituents in a certain way by also helping the corporations involved. They shouldn't be able to just throw an incentive of helping pay their campaign expenses and in effect say "Damn what the people want! I'll help you keep in power if you help keep us powerful!" The latter is what is going on way too much now, and is what is destroying this economy, democracy, the middle class, and our country in the process.

There should be strict regulations on how the corporate sector behave, and how those regulations are decided upon should have NO money/favor influence in setting up those rules. We're a ways away from that, but corporations have been living too high off the hog lately, and it's going to be a fight to restore our democracy back. We're interpreting that the reason the Dems aren't doing what we want is "fear". But in my book, it's not really fear of how voters will vote, but fear of what their campaign financing backers will do if they don't cowtow to the way they want things voted on for their money they spend on said politician.

You can say it's not that simple and in practice, how a politican decides to vote one way or the other to balance out the concerns of business and their constituents may be complicated, but they should do it STRICTLY on their own criteria and how they feel it will help the people they serve. If we take the money out of the system and go to public campaign financing, it WILL make politicians jobs of representing their TRUE constituents a lot easier.