Repugnicunts Want to RUIN the U.S. Economy

repugnant — incompatible, inconsistent, hostile, distasteful, contradictory, abhorrent, obnoxious, odious; originates directly from the Latin term repugnantem (nominative case repugnans), present participle of repugnare, meaning “to resist, fight back, oppose; disagree, be incompatible.”

repugnant (adj.)

early 15c., repugnaunt, “hostile, opposed; contrary, inconsistent, contradictory,” from Old French repugnant “contradictory, opposing” or directly from Latin repugnantem (nominative repugnans), present participle of repugnare “to resist, fight back, oppose; disagree, be incompatible,” from re- “back, against, in opposition” (see re-) + pugnare “to fight” (from PIE root *peuk- “to prick”).

The meaning “distasteful, objectionable” is from 1777; that of “offensive, loathsome, exciting aversion” is by 1879.

cunt (n.)

“female intercrural foramen,” or, as some 18c. writers refer to it, “the monosyllable,” Middle English cunte “female genitalia,” by early 14c. (in Hendyng’s “Proverbs” — ʒeve þi cunte to cunni[n]g, And crave affetir wedding), akin to Old Norse kunta, Old Frisian, Middle Dutch, and Middle Low German kunte, from Proto-Germanic *kunton, which is of uncertain origin. Some suggest a link with Latin cuneus “wedge” (which is of unknown origin), others to PIE root *geu- “hollow place,” still others to PIE root *gwen- “woman.”

The form is similar to Latin cunnus “female pudenda” (also, vulgarly, “a woman”), which is likewise of disputed origin, perhaps literally “gash, slit” (from PIE *sker- “to cut”) or “sheath” (Watkins, from PIE *(s)keu- “to conceal, hide”). De Vaan rejects this, however, and traces it to “a root *kut-meaning ‘bag’, ‘scrotum’, and metaphorically also ‘female pudenda,’ ” source also of Greek kysthos “vagina; buttocks; pouch, small bag” (but Beekes suspects this is a Pre-Greek word), Lithuanian kutys “(money) bag,” Old High German hodo “testicles.”

Hec vulva: a cunt. Hic cunnus: idem est. [from Londesborough Illustrated Nominale, c. 1500, in “Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies,” eds. Wright and Wülcker, vol. 1, 1884]

First known reference in English apparently is in a compound, Oxford street name Gropecuntlane cited from c. 1230 (and attested through late 14c.) in “Place-Names of Oxfordshire” (Gelling & Stenton, 1953), presumably a haunt of prostitutes. Used in medical writing c. 1400, but avoided in public speech since 15c.; considered obscene since 17c.

in Middle English also conte, counte, and sometimes queinte, queynte (for this, see Q). Chaucer used quaint and queynte in “Canterbury Tales” (late 14c.), and Andrew Marvell might be punning on quaint in “To His Coy Mistress” (1650).

“What eyleth yow to grucche thus and grone? Is it for ye wolde haue my queynte allone?” [Wife of Bath’s Tale]

Under “MONOSYLLABLE” Farmer lists 552 synonyms from English slang and literature before launching into another 5 pages of them in French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. [A sampling: Botany Bay, chum, coffee-shop, cookie, End of the Sentimental Journey, fancy bit, Fumbler’s Hall, funniment, goatmilker, heaven, hell, Itching Jenny, jelly-bag, Low Countries, nature’s tufted treasure, penwiper, prick-skinner, seminary, tickle-toby, undeniable, wonderful lamp, and aphrodisaical tennis court, and, in a separate listing, Naggie.] Dutch cognate de kont means “a bottom, an arse,” but Dutch also has attractive poetic slang ways of expressing this part, such as liefdesgrot, literally “cave of love,” and vleesroos “rose of flesh.”

Alternative form cunny is attested from c. 1720 but is certainly much earlier and forced a change in the pronunciation of coney (q.v.), but it was good for a pun while coney was still the common word for “rabbit”: “A pox upon your Christian cockatrices! They cry, like poulterers’ wives, ‘No money, no coney.’ ” [Philip Massinger: “The Virgin-Martyr,” Act I, Scene 1, 1622]

See also: https://qz.com/1045607/the-most-offensive-curse-word-in-english-has-powerful-feminist-origins

---

And, given the opportunity, Repugnicunts would ruin the U.S. economy.

Even now, in the opening days of the 118th Congress, there’s talk among Repugnicunts of eliminating the Federal Income Tax, along with all other forms of Federal tax, and replace it with a 30% Value Added Tax.

If you think inflation is a bugbear now, just add 30% to it, and see what it’s like. Repugnicunts are such morons.

The reason why, is because that’s what they want to do:

TEAR IT ALL DOWN.

Not repair, not rebuild, not reinforce, not improve efficiency… but TEAR IT DOWN — and hope for the best, then sell off to the highest corporate bidder the skeletal remains.

For example, NOT A SINGLE REPUGNICUNT in the House or Senate voted for Pandemic Economic Relief.

Had the American people not had that money, our economy would have melted down, and suffered a depression even worse than the Great Depression.

But, it didn’t.

In fact, it didn’t even have a recession.

Not even.

So, when the Repugnicunts cry and whine about national debt, not only are they TOTALLY missing the boat, they’re missing the BIG PICTURE.

And here’s the odd thing about it:

They want to cut spending, but don’t want to pay for it — they do NOT want PayGo, or pay-as-you-go. And if they had their way, they’d let America default on its “loans.”

But, there’s an even BIGGER picture that few, if any, ever talk about, and certainly, most probably don’t even understand it. This entry will try to correct that.

---

“…the U.S. government’s ability to borrow.”

U.S. To Max Out On Debt Soon, Setting Up Political Fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government is on track to max out on its $31.4 trillion borrowing authority as soon as this month, starting the clock on

How BAD is Trump’s Economy?

Trump’s economy is so bad, that…

Before we talk about how BAD it is, first…

Let’s turn to some official agencies to answer that question.

We’ll start with information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s Economic Data.

Here’s a picture – it’s said that they’re worth 1000 words.

The DARK GRAY is Trump’s term in office, while the white line reflects the Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP – “real” means adjusted for inflation year-to-year) – which has consistently increased since Obama’s first quarter in his first term in office.

The MEDIUM GRAY (and DARK GRAY) areas represent the extent of Trump’s Economic Losses.

The LIGHT GRAY (at G.W. Bush’s end of term in office -and- presently) are representative of Economic Recessions.

So now that you’ve had an opportunity to examine the chart, let’s

Report: U.S. to LOSE $4 TRILLION GDP, 2.5 MILLION Jobs in 5 Years

“Over time, these impacts will also affect businesses’ ability to provide well-paying jobs, further reducing incomes. If this investment gap is not addressed throughout the nation’s infrastructure sectors by 2025, the economy is expected to lose almost $4 trillion in GDP, resulting in a loss of 2.5 million jobs in 2025.

“Moreover, workers who are employed will earn lower wages, and in the long term, many higher paying jobs in technology and other leading sectors will be replaced by jobs that fulfill needs brought on by the inefficiencies of deteriorating infrastructure.”

There you have it!

Why focus upon repairing, rebuilding, replacing, and expanding America’s deteriorated economic infrastructure?

Because not only will YOU lose money and unemployment will increase, but American Gross Domestic Product will seriously decline, and that means reduced profitability for businesses of all types and all sizes – from Mom & Pop small and minority-owned businesses, to corporate giants, as well.

That finding is from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and their report “Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America’s Economic Future,” which was published in May 2016, as the final update from four previous reports in the Failure to Act series published in 2011 and 2012. In those reports, the ASCE examined 10 infrastructure sectors critical to American economic prosperity.

Those reports were followed by a fifth, comprehensive final report entitled “Failure to Act: The Impact of Infrastructure Investment on America’s Economic Future,” which focused upon the total economic loss which would occur because of America’s failure to act in more than one sector.

The purpose of the report was to provide a total overall analysis of the economic implications of continuing to fail to invest in multiple infrastructure categories.

Even the Central Intelligence Agency sees America’s problems for what they are. It’s as plain as the nose on one’s face. And it’s NOT a partisan, Republican versus Democrat type of issue. It’s a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Even America’s spy agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), sees the problem clearly, and has recognized not only it, but the increasing inequities of income distribution, as well.

“Long-term problems for the US include stagnation of wages for lower-income families, inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure…

“…the rise of low-wage producers such as China, has put additional downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on the return to capital. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income.”

Now that we’ve identified the problem, let’s consider a workable solution.

Nothing is free in this nation, nor anywhere else, for that matter. And EVERY government runs on taxes, and has done so at least since the time of the Roman empire. And face it… if the Romans built aqueducts and roads that have lasted for at least 2000 years, we can too – and should.

Simply put, income tax rates WILL

Alabama As A Third World Country: How True Is It?

Editor’s Note, Saturday, 15 October 2016: Since Sunday, October 26, 2014, the date of this original publication, Yellowhammer News blog has thought to create their own entry (herein linked) obliquely contradicting the data supplied and referenced in this entry, which has now been published for over two years. Though they do not refute the data cited herein, instead, they refer to an Alabama-based data analysis company, and present data exclusively from the United Nations’ Human Development Index to support their assertion. In stark contrast, we use source citation and and references to the variety of sources used to compare Alabama to Third World Nations.

Also entitled as: How does Alabama compare with Third World Countries?

—

In so many comparative rankings for quality of life within our 50 United States, Alabama and Mississippi seem in a dead heat for last place. In a veritable “Race To The Bottom,” Alabama and Mississippi scrap over being in last place. In fact, it’s been a long-standing joke – with the sad, bitter sting of truth – that Alabama’s State Motto is not “Audemus jura nostra defendere,” which has been translated as: “We Dare Maintain Our Rights” or “We Dare Defend Our Rights,” but rather “Thank God For Mississippi.”

And just so we’re singing on the same sheet of music, and on the same verse, a “Third World Nation” is one which were at one time colonies “formally lead by imperialism. The end of imperialism forced these colonies to survive on their own. With lack of support, these colonies started to develop characteristics such as poverty, high birthrates and economic dependence on other countries. The term was then affiliated to the economic situation of these former colonies and not their social alliances to either capitalism or communism.” In a more modern sense however, a “Third World Nation,” is more readily thought of as being one of several “underdeveloped nations of the world, especially those with widespread poverty.” And it is in that sense to which I refer to Alabama as “a Third World Nation.”

In essence, what that term refers to is Quality Of Life. And, there are many aspects of life that can be measured, such as rates and incidences of crime, employment/unemployment, education, health/sickness/disease, responsive & efficient government, availability of clean water, sewerage, utilities such as electricity, natural gas, supporting infrastructure to deliver those utilities, which includes transportation, roads, highways, airports, railways, and access to the same. There is much more to life than the mere availability of food, clothing and shelter. For example, who would want to eat raw meat, wear bearskins, and live in a cave? In context, those three items are certainly fulfilled. And if that’s all there is, then all is well… right?

Demonstrating that, again, there is MUCH MORE to life than the mere availability of food, clothing and shelter.

Consider, for example, Public Health.

Rates of Obesity, and Obesity-related Diseases (also called chronic, or long-term problems) such as Diabetes, Hypertension (High Blood Pressure), Stroke, and certain types of Cancer, in Mississippi and Alabama are among the highest in our United States. While Obesity is quickly becoming an epidemic of significant national proportions, it is particularly problematic in

Necessary but Not Sufficient: Why Taxing the Wealthy Can’t Fix the Deficit

NOW OR NEVER | SEPTEMBER 2012

By David Brown, Gabe Horwitz, and David Kendall

In this paper we shatter the myth that taxes on the wealthy can come close to solving our long-term budget problem. We readily acknowledge that raising taxes on top earners is necessary, but it is not sufficient to solve the looming fiscal crisis. And we make clear that if entitlements are left on autopilot, burdensome middle class tax hikes become inevitable.

Even a 50% tax rate on the wealthy can’t fix the deficit.
This is the first in a pair of papers that demonstrate that purely ideological fixes will not sufficiently address our fiscal issues. Our other report, Death by a Thousand Cuts: Why Spending Cuts Alone Won’t Fix the Deficit, proves that a cuts-only strategy cannot solve our budget woes without severely compromising our safety, security, and economic growth. Together, these papers make the case that a big and balanced fiscal package is the preferred way to avoid the fiscal cliff, prevent deficits from exploding in the future, and allow our economy to grow.

To stabilize the debt and create a positive economic climate for U.S. growth, most mainstream economists agree that annual deficits must be reduced to 3% of GDP. The question is: how do we get there?

In order to demonstrate that taxes alone cannot solve our budget woes, we explore three budget scenarios, all of which rely solely on