If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   "It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. That's why I had a press conference"   (firstread.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 252
    More: Stupid, President Obama, NBC Nightly News, NBC News, political editor, press conference, 2006 midterm elections  
•       •       •

5074 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jun 2012 at 7:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-09 02:57:45 AM  

balisane: Sabyen91: balisane: I really only came to this thread because the cloud of crack-rock smoke rolling out of here could reasonably suffocate a bunny rabbit.

I mean, shill!derp and the politics tab go together like orange juice and vodak, but I'm kinda impressed by this one.

And I thought it was because your balls itched.

That's where I keep my derp sensor array. And I can't even reach under the chair to scratch them.


The Hoveround commercials are really misleading. What kind of monsters make you think you will live like a normal human while not being able to scratch your balls?
 
2012-06-09 02:58:21 AM  

Sabyen91: balisane: Sabyen91: balisane: I really only came to this thread because the cloud of crack-rock smoke rolling out of here could reasonably suffocate a bunny rabbit.

I mean, shill!derp and the politics tab go together like orange juice and vodak, but I'm kinda impressed by this one.

And I thought it was because your balls itched.

That's where I keep my derp sensor array. And I can't even reach under the chair to scratch them.

The Hoveround commercials are really misleading. What kind of monsters make you think you will live like a normal human while not being able to scratch your balls?


Ahem, normal human life.
 
2012-06-09 03:09:59 AM  

GAT_00: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Please show me where the President has authority to hire anyone other than his own staff or personally change economic policy.


That, and what specific regulations would you recommend he reduce/streamline, Mr. Romney?
 
2012-06-09 03:26:21 AM  

The Name: GAT_00: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Please show me where the President has authority to hire anyone other than his own staff or personally change economic policy.

That, and what specific regulations would you recommend he reduce/streamline, Mr. Romney?


All of them? ;)

Oh wait, wrong candidate
 
2012-06-09 03:41:23 AM  

pxsteel: GoldSpider: Sabyen91: Fidel Guantan0bama didn't close it.

Lesson 34: Don't overpromise. I think Obama bought too much into his own hype and thought he could get stuff like GITMO closed and single-payer passed through sheer political will alone.

This is one of the main reasons I will not be voting for Obama in Nov. Even after 3 1/2 years they still have not figured out how reality works.

Dramatic over promising is the norm with Obama/Biden. The other day Biden promised a group of graduates everything short of rainbow farting unicorns.


Oh... was that a main reason? Well good thing we're all clear now.

You didn't vote for him last election. You sure as hell weren't thinking to vote for him now. But thanks for the memories, you twunt.
 
2012-06-09 03:41:25 AM  
This is the kind of shiat that plays very, very well with idiot voters.

This is also one of the many examples that the media is not "liberally biased."
 
2012-06-09 04:42:36 AM  
We got only 6 posts into this thread until some idiot came along and took a giant dump.
 
2012-06-09 06:29:58 AM  
"The truth of the matter is that ... we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone," he said in response to a question. "The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government," which, he said, isn't getting the support it needs from Washington.


I am amused, yet saddened by those claiming this quote is being taken out of context.
He obviously meant that the private sector is doing fine, not fine in comparison to the public sector.

Being a good Democrat doesn't mean always ignoring mistakes by our team, but learning from them and doing better next time. (likewise for Republicans)
 
2012-06-09 06:51:42 AM  

mrjared: We got only 6 posts into this thread until some idiot came along and took a giant dump.


welcome-to-fark.jpg

/actually we're slipping - should have been about the third post
 
2012-06-09 07:20:38 AM  

Mildot: LasersHurt: Mildot: LasersHurt: Mildot: We need a new updated version of this game that now includes Europe.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 466x535]

Is it your contention that nothing external to Obama could ever effect the nation?

It's my contention that his policies that componunded the externals factors and taken a bad situation and made it worse. I further contend that he is over his head in this job, that nothing in his background as a Community Organizer prepared him to manage this country. Finally, I contend that things will really begin to turn around until he is out of office.

I contend that you are a foolish, foolish person whose personal opinions give them a myopic view of the larger issues at hand. But that's fine, we'll talk again in a few more years (assuming neither of us die or leave Fark).

Question: Is it your contention that Obama has been flawless on how he has handeled the economy and nothing he or anyone could have done could have fixed what Bush left him? Because that seems to be Obama's contention. He does seem to blame everyone and everything except HIS policies.


I would be more inclined to say that his inability to get this congress to legislate based upon policies he's proposed (generally safe and accepted policies enacted by previous presidents during periods of recession) is the cause for the stagnant economy.

The fact that the majority of his jobs bill sits stagnant and stalled in committee really is a major cause for stagnation. His proposal for an infrastructure bank was quite sound yet congress did nothing on it. His universally highly regarded appointments to agencies that Republicans authorized go unapproved. An extremely highly regarded appointee with a very good credentials was refused by this congress for 2 of the open seats for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You wonder why the fed isn't doing more for it's other mandate - unemployment - ? Perhaps empty seats and unapproved appointees has something to do with this.

You are only choosing too see a single aspect of the current state of economic affairs. Why? I can''t say and I won't speculate as your motives for singling out the president in the face of Republican leadership public vows to oppose this president at every opportunity and the congressional record that verifies their success at following through on that vow.

The behavior of the Republican party in the face of a national crisis, to me, has been treasonous. And they have lost my vote for the remainder of my days. The republican party is dead to me. Why that isn't so for millions more Americans is beyond me, knowing that their atrocious behavior is part of the public record for the past 3 years.
 
2012-06-09 07:23:01 AM  

julianmaple: Descartes: "The truth of the matter is that ... we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone," he said in response to a question. "The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government," which, he said, isn't getting the support it needs from Washington.


I am amused, yet saddened by those claiming this quote is being taken out of context.
He obviously meant that the private sector is doing fine, not fine in comparison to the public sector.

Being a good Democrat doesn't mean always ignoring mistakes by our team, but learning from them and doing better next time. (likewise for Republicans)

The private sector is doing fine, when you create 25 Million jobs, like Clinton did.

4 Million is what a stuffed shirt like Obama does, and is proud of the accomplishment.

Why again is Obama president?


Because the alternative in 2008 was completely unacceptable to the American public.
 
2012-06-09 07:27:56 AM  

julianmaple: Descartes: "The truth of the matter is that ... we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone," he said in response to a question. "The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government," which, he said, isn't getting the support it needs from Washington.


I am amused, yet saddened by those claiming this quote is being taken out of context.
He obviously meant that the private sector is doing fine, not fine in comparison to the public sector.

Being a good Democrat doesn't mean always ignoring mistakes by our team, but learning from them and doing better next time. (likewise for Republicans)

The private sector is doing fine, when you create 25 Million jobs, like Clinton did.

4 Million is what a stuffed shirt like Obama does, and is proud of the accomplishment.

Why again is Obama president?


The opposition seeks to destroy jobs to spite him.
 
2012-06-09 07:31:57 AM  

rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!


Yet, somehow, Bush killed the economy. This is how clever Bush is.
 
2012-06-09 07:32:22 AM  

julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple:

The private sector is doing fine, when you create 25 Million jobs, like Clinton did.

4 Million is what a stuffed shirt like Obama does, and is proud of the accomplishment.

Why again is Obama president?

The opposition seeks to destroy jobs to spite him.

pretty hard to destroy jobs, when Obama got there first.


That is a falsehood.
 
2012-06-09 07:36:54 AM  

Nemo's Brother: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Yet, somehow, Bush killed the economy. This is how clever Bush is.


In 2003 President Bush's home ownership program pushed for a loosening of lending standards.

This is what gave rise to the massive influx of low doc and no doc "Liar" loans which in turn were then scooped up by Fannie and Freddie (exposing American taxpayers to losses) and a multitude of other investment banks and turned into Mortgage Backed Securities.

So, yes, there are viable arguments for the policies of GW Bush doing grave damage to the world's economies. Including the US economy.
 
2012-06-09 07:38:51 AM  

julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple:

The private sector is doing fine, when you create 25 Million jobs, like Clinton did.

4 Million is what a stuffed shirt like Obama does, and is proud of the accomplishment.

Why again is Obama president?

The opposition seeks to destroy jobs to spite him.

pretty hard to destroy jobs, when Obama got there first.

That is a falsehood.

How? You had congress, the White House for 2 solid years

How?


And the economy has improved for about 3 years, slower lately, but still improving. Not that 'we' have Congress, the Filibuster rule makes the Senate about as useful as a boat anchor.
 
2012-06-09 07:41:52 AM  

julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple:

The private sector is doing fine, when you create 25 Million jobs, like Clinton did.

4 Million is what a stuffed shirt like Obama does, and is proud of the accomplishment.

Why again is Obama president?

The opposition seeks to destroy jobs to spite him.

pretty hard to destroy jobs, when Obama got there first.

That is a falsehood.

How? You had congress, the White House for 2 solid years

How?


They had the senate for 12 weeks. The Minnesota GoP refused to allow the certification of the election of Al Franken to the senate for months. Filing challenges over and over and losing every single one, thereby preventing him from being seated which WOULD have given the Dems their 60th seat in the Senate. By the time Franken was finally seated, 12 weeks later Kennedy took medical leave for what would prove to be terminal brain cancer.

The Dems had a filibuster proof majority for only 12 weeks during the 111th congress. And although they enjoyed control of committees and processes, they had the damndest time with universal whining and obstruction coming from the not-so-honorable opposition.
 
2012-06-09 07:44:16 AM  

julianmaple: Funny, you really want to boast about the economy improving? Please shout that from the roof tops.


I made no statement of opinion.

And I'm too busy at work to bother with rooftops.
 
2012-06-09 07:48:25 AM  

julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple: Funny, you really want to boast about the economy improving? Please shout that from the roof tops.

I made no statement of opinion.

And I'm too busy at work to bother with rooftops.

Please, then shout that fact from the rooftops. Please.

I even have a slogan for you

recovery summer


Account created: 2012-06-08

You the new troll of the day?
 
2012-06-09 07:48:25 AM  

julianmaple: X-boxershorts: Nemo's Brother: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Yet, somehow, Bush killed the economy. This is how clever Bush is.

In 2003 President Bush's home ownership program pushed for a loosening of lending standards.

This is what gave rise to the massive influx of low doc and no doc "Liar" loans which in turn were then scooped up by Fannie and Freddie (exposing American taxpayers to losses) and a multitude of other investment banks and turned into Mortgage Backed Securities.

So, yes, there are viable arguments for the policies of GW Bush doing grave damage to the world's economies. Including the US economy.

you do know that all the leading Dem's supported those lending, and even said, it was not enough?

So you all would have made it worse?


Actually, since that involved regulations affecting executive branch agencies, these policy proposals never went before a full congress. All they required was committee approval from the congressional committees that have oversight of said agencies.

That would have been the Republican controlled 109th congress in 2004 when the proposals were finally examined and approved by committee.

Your assertion is not terribly accurate.
 
2012-06-09 07:55:48 AM  

julianmaple: Obama is our first "cut and paste" president running America from Cliff Notes and not even doing a good job within that cognitively challenged context.

It doesn't say much for someone who was touted as the smartest president ever.


Yep, new troll alt to add to the list. Plonk.
 
2012-06-09 07:57:04 AM  

julianmaple: X-boxershorts: julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple: Alphax: julianmaple:

The private sector is doing fine, when you create 25 Million jobs, like Clinton did.

4 Million is what a stuffed shirt like Obama does, and is proud of the accomplishment.

Why again is Obama president?

The opposition seeks to destroy jobs to spite him.

pretty hard to destroy jobs, when Obama got there first.

That is a falsehood.

How? You had congress, the White House for 2 solid years

How?

They had the senate for 12 weeks. The Minnesota GoP refused to allow the certification of the election of Al Franken to the senate for months. Filing challenges over and over and losing every single one, thereby preventing him from being seated which WOULD have given the Dems their 60th seat in the Senate. By the time Franken was finally seated, 12 weeks later Kennedy took medical leave for what would prove to be terminal brain cancer.

The Dems had a filibuster proof majority for only 12 weeks during the 111th congress. And although they enjoyed control of committees and processes, they had the damndest time with universal whining and obstruction coming from the not-so-honorable opposition.

so an election, voting in a blue state, on your policies, never an across the isle discussion?

did you in?


Dems did not have congress in any solid fashion for 2 straight years. Can you not see the falseness of your assertion?

No, you can't. You ignore your own flawed assertion and move directly to non-related allegations.

You're good at this, I hope you're being paid.
 
2012-06-09 07:57:36 AM  

julianmaple: HURRRRRRR.


I wonder how long winterwhile can get away with his constant ban evasion.
 
2012-06-09 07:58:31 AM  

julianmaple: X-boxershorts: julianmaple: X-boxershorts: Nemo's Brother: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Yet, somehow, Bush killed the economy. This is how clever Bush is.

In 2003 President Bush's home ownership program pushed for a loosening of lending standards.

This is what gave rise to the massive influx of low doc and no doc "Liar" loans which in turn were then scooped up by Fannie and Freddie (exposing American taxpayers to losses) and a multitude of other investment banks and turned into Mortgage Backed Securities.

So, yes, there are viable arguments for the policies of GW Bush doing grave damage to the world's economies. Including the US economy.

you do know that all the leading Dem's supported those lending, and even said, it was not enough?

So you all would have made it worse?

Actually, since that involved regulations affecting executive branch agencies, these policy proposals never went before a full congress. All they required was committee approval from the congressional committees that have oversight of said agencies.

That would have been the Republican controlled 109th congress in 2004 when the proposals were finally examined and approved by committee.

Your assertion is not terribly accurate.

you do know who Barny Frank and Dodd are? And what they did? What party are they in?


I know exactly who they are and what they did. The truth of their actions are in the congressional record. Not the Fox News archives.
 
2012-06-09 08:00:24 AM  

X-boxershorts: julianmaple: X-boxershorts: julianmaple: X-boxershorts: Nemo's Brother: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Yet, somehow, Bush killed the economy. This is how clever Bush is.

In 2003 President Bush's home ownership program pushed for a loosening of lending standards.

This is what gave rise to the massive influx of low doc and no doc "Liar" loans which in turn were then scooped up by Fannie and Freddie (exposing American taxpayers to losses) and a multitude of other investment banks and turned into Mortgage Backed Securities.

So, yes, there are viable arguments for the policies of GW Bush doing grave damage to the world's economies. Including the US economy.

you do know that all the leading Dem's supported those lending, and even said, it was not enough?

So you all would have made it worse?

Actually, since that involved regulations affecting executive branch agencies, these policy proposals never went before a full congress. All they required was committee approval from the congressional committees that have oversight of said agencies.

That would have been the Republican controlled 109th congress in 2004 when the proposals were finally examined and approved by committee.

Your assertion is not terribly accurate.

you do know who Barny Frank and Dodd are? And what they did? What party are they in?

I know exactly who they are and what they did. The truth of their action ...


And you made another deflection of the explanation of the falseness of yet another of your assertions and went directly to unrelated allegations.

You got nothing.
 
2012-06-09 08:08:30 AM  

julianmaple: X-boxershorts:

so an election, voting in a blue state, on your policies, never an across the isle discussion?

did you in?

Dems did not have congress in any solid fashion for 2 straight years. Can you not see the falseness of your assertion?

No, you can't. You ignore your own flawed assertion and move directly to non-related allegations.

You're good at this, I hope you're being paid.

Like I said, an election on your policies. Did you in.

Or did that hurt to much to remember?


Franken won. All that butt hurt and obstruction in Minnesota came from the losers.

You really aren't that good at this.
 
2012-06-09 08:08:40 AM  

freetomato: I don't get the hate for government employees.


As a former GS employee, I think one of the sore spots with the public centers around the old pensions. A worker could retire with full pension after 30 years and live off of the public dime for another 30 years. If that wasn't enough, they could come back to work at the same office as a "consultant" and double-dip at the public's expense. It's a valid gripe, I think.

If I understand correctly, though, most if not all federal agencies' retirement plans have switched to a 401(k). A retired employee can still come back and "double-dip", but the pensioned federal retiree is an endangered animal.
 
2012-06-09 08:09:20 AM  

LordJiro: I wonder how long winterwhile can get away with his constant ban evasion.


Yeah, I thought that screed looked familiar.
 
2012-06-09 08:56:23 AM  

GoldSpider: LordJiro: I wonder how long winterwhile can get away with his constant ban evasion.

Yeah, I thought that screed looked familiar.


He's just trying to eke out a living in spite of numerous liberal roadblocks placed in his path....
 
2012-06-09 09:20:25 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I wonder what the reaction of dems and libs would be if Romney said the exact same thing.


If Romney said, "the private sector is doing fine in jobs, compared to the public sector?"

Um...yeah, I guess I'd do a serious amount of head-scratching on that one, as to why he would say that.
 
2012-06-09 09:36:22 AM  

FormlessOne: Whoo-hoo! I'm loving the whole "let's exploit an out-of-context quote" rush, even though the quote is correct - compared to public sector employed, the private sector is, indeed, fine.

But, it'll be fun to watch the knee-jerk attacks.


I know right?!? It's like, compared to the people that drowned, those people floating in the North Atlantic after the Titanic sunk were indeed, fine.

So, if the private sector is "fine", then no more biatching about how the economy is so bad because GWB farked it all up, right? After all, we're all just doing fine. Everything is peachy and after four years, Obama is finally on the clock.
 
2012-06-09 09:38:18 AM  

El Pachuco: Seriously, you really look stupid here.

The first step in any liberal trying to make an argument is to name-call. I'm glad you dont disappoint

650k new teacher hires would come mainly from the unemployed - we just happen to have a large number of recently laid-off teachers who could fill those jobs. Any post left by someone moving from another industry into teaching would be filled by someone else on the unemployment roles. Where did you come up with such a profoundly idiotic premise?

What premise is that? i said we should hire teachers if we need them but hiring people to work for the government just takes money out of the private sector and moves it to the public.

And their salaries could be paid via federal grants to states. The feds can either borrow the grant money at record low costs, or could even just print the money,

So your solution is to borrow or print paper and you call me the idiot? Listen to yourself

although I'd prefer they pay for the grants via letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

Just shut up, okay? That was just embarrassing.


What is embarrassing is trying to discuss things with people who form the basis of their economic knowledge from the editorial page of Slate and Salon
 
2012-06-09 09:40:24 AM  
julianmaple
Account created: 2012-06-08 10:20:57

ZAP
 
2012-06-09 09:41:51 AM  
lonelyconservative.com
No complaints from the public sector.
 
2012-06-09 09:55:33 AM  
The fundamentals of our economy are strong.
 
2012-06-09 10:26:56 AM  

Sabyen91:

Aww, you don't like your choice? Do you feel you are being played by the Republican establishment? Too farking bad. Pull the lever for Romney and enjoy it.


You seem upset that the rest of the country finally came to the conclusion that your messiah has shiat the bed.

www.nowtheendbegins.com
 
2012-06-09 11:45:43 AM  
i22.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-09 02:04:32 PM  

LordJiro: julianmaple: HURRRRRRR.

I wonder how long winterwhile can get away with his constant ban evasion.


Forever.

/best part.................................................................. .
 
2012-06-09 02:23:38 PM  

o5iiawah: El Pachuco: Seriously, you really look stupid here.

The first step in any liberal trying to make an argument is to name-call. I'm glad you dont disappoint

650k new teacher hires would come mainly from the unemployed - we just happen to have a large number of recently laid-off teachers who could fill those jobs. Any post left by someone moving from another industry into teaching would be filled by someone else on the unemployment roles. Where did you come up with such a profoundly idiotic premise?

What premise is that? i said we should hire teachers if we need them but hiring people to work for the government just takes money out of the private sector and moves it to the public.

And their salaries could be paid via federal grants to states. The feds can either borrow the grant money at record low costs, or could even just print the money,

So your solution is to borrow or print paper and you call me the idiot? Listen to yourself

although I'd prefer they pay for the grants via letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

Just shut up, okay? That was just embarrassing.

What is embarrassing is trying to discuss things with people who form the basis of their economic knowledge from the editorial page of Slate and Salon


Hurr durr derp derp derp - way to double down, Herr von Mises.

It looks like you're parroting Austrian School blather that you don't actually understand. You seem to be stuck with the "finite work" fallacy, which is untrue in normal times, and clownishly incorrect in times of high unemployment.

You assert: The jobs that you "create" in teaching are offset by the jobs lost in retail, hospitality, home improvement and the loss in savings from the taxes you have to levy in order to pay their salaries."

What the hell are you talking about? Please show your work - why does hiring a teacher require a job lost elsewhere?

You made a pretty stellar bare assertion, but if it's untrue your entire argument collapses. Which it did.

But go ahead - please explain your assertion, and why anyone should pay any attention to you. You'll notice that your comments have been ignored by just about everyone else - no sure why I'm bothering, just sadism I suppose.

Oh, and most of my understanding of economics comes from my grad school MBA program. But good guess, despite being factually baseless! There is a pattern to your methods.
 
2012-06-09 02:44:32 PM  

SunsetLament: You seem upset that the rest of the country finally came to the conclusion that your messiah has shiat the bed.


It's not like the GOP spent his entire term trying to ensure he'd be a one-term president...
 
2012-06-09 02:49:29 PM  

El Pachuco: o5iiawah: El Pachuco: Seriously, you really look stupid here.

The first step in any liberal trying to make an argument is to name-call. I'm glad you dont disappoint

650k new teacher hires would come mainly from the unemployed - we just happen to have a large number of recently laid-off teachers who could fill those jobs. Any post left by someone moving from another industry into teaching would be filled by someone else on the unemployment roles. Where did you come up with such a profoundly idiotic premise?

What premise is that? i said we should hire teachers if we need them but hiring people to work for the government just takes money out of the private sector and moves it to the public.

And their salaries could be paid via federal grants to states. The feds can either borrow the grant money at record low costs, or could even just print the money,

So your solution is to borrow or print paper and you call me the idiot? Listen to yourself

although I'd prefer they pay for the grants via letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

Just shut up, okay? That was just embarrassing.

What is embarrassing is trying to discuss things with people who form the basis of their economic knowledge from the editorial page of Slate and Salon

Hurr durr derp derp derp - way to double down, Herr von Mises.

It looks like you're parroting Austrian School blather that you don't actually understand. You seem to be stuck with the "finite work" fallacy, which is untrue in normal times, and clownishly incorrect in times of high unemployment.

You assert: The jobs that you "create" in teaching are offset by the jobs lost in retail, hospitality, home improvement and the loss in savings from the taxes you have to levy in order to pay their salaries."

What the hell are you talking about? Please show your work - why does hiring a teacher require a job lost elsewhere?

You made a pretty stellar bare assertion, but if it's untrue your entire argument collapses. Which it did.

But go ahead - please explain your assertion, and why anyone should pay any attention to you. You'll notice that your comments have been ignored by just about everyone else - no sure why I'm bothering, just sadism I suppose.

Oh, and most of my understanding of economics comes from my grad school MBA program. But good guess, despite being factually baseless! There is a pattern to your methods.


He's having difficulty making up his Mises
 
2012-06-09 05:24:28 PM  

El Pachuco: why does hiring a teacher require a job lost elsewhere?

El Pachuco: You made a pretty stellar bare assertion, but if it's untrue your entire argument collapses. Which it did.

But go ahead - please explain your assertion, and why anyone should pay any attention to you. You'll notice that your comments have been ignored by just about everyone else - no sure why I'm bothering, just sadism I suppose.

Oh, and most of my understanding of economics comes from my grad school MBA program. But good guess, despite being factually baseless! There is a pattern to your methods.


I havent actually read any arguments to the contrary, other than some nonsense about Von Mises, your MBA and other things about Austrian Economics. There's been an ad-hominem or two thrown in there...still no counter arguments. just a baseless assertion that if we decide to conjure up the money to hire 650k teachers that it doesn't affect the private economy.

That money has to come from somewhere. When you take the money out of the hands of taxpayers, they cannot spend it on other things and since we have a -1.3% savings rate in this country, chances are, if you take money away from someone, they would have otherwise spent it.

Tell me where this is flawed logic. Put those MBA dollars to work
 
2012-06-09 05:48:48 PM  

rinasaunce: GAT_00: Please show me where the President has authority to hire anyone other than his own staff or personally change economic policy.

Well, there is this little thing that he can do:

Within the executive branch itself, the President has broad powers to manage national affairs and the workings of the federal government. The President can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval.


Yeah, he just doesn't because he hates America.

/socialist
//Muslim
///Fascist
////Atheist
//Marxist
 
2012-06-09 06:06:30 PM  

o5iiawah: El Pachuco: why does hiring a teacher require a job lost elsewhere?El Pachuco: You made a pretty stellar bare assertion, but if it's untrue your entire argument collapses. Which it did.

But go ahead - please explain your assertion, and why anyone should pay any attention to you. You'll notice that your comments have been ignored by just about everyone else - no sure why I'm bothering, just sadism I suppose.

Oh, and most of my understanding of economics comes from my grad school MBA program. But good guess, despite being factually baseless! There is a pattern to your methods.

I havent actually read any arguments to the contrary, other than some nonsense about Von Mises, your MBA and other things about Austrian Economics. There's been an ad-hominem or two thrown in there...still no counter arguments. just a baseless assertion that if we decide to conjure up the money to hire 650k teachers that it doesn't affect the private economy.

That money has to come from somewhere. When you take the money out of the hands of taxpayers, they cannot spend it on other things and since we have a -1.3% savings rate in this country, chances are, if you take money away from someone, they would have otherwise spent it.

Tell me where this is flawed logic. Put those MBA dollars to work


Allow me...and I don't even have an MBA...

You're entire premise is based upon the belief that there is a finite amount of currency in circulation at any given time.
That borrowing more currency for the purposes of creating needed jobs will detract from currency available to the private sector.

This is baseless in a sovereign based floating currency economy.

Every single American dollar you might earn or steal.....is borrowed into existence.
The only limit to the nation's ability to borrow more currency into existence is the faith of other nations to purchase our treasury bonds.

Currently, in a liquidity trap condition, with credit squeezes happening elsewhere around the globe, the international investment class
will flock to the safest store for their capital.

And even at our current real market less than zero borrowing capacity, our currency is much more valuable to the world's investors than anything else out there, the investment class continues to purchase American Treasuries. Because losing a little in US sovereign bonds is much preferable to losing a lot in other sovereign bonds. (Yes, the whole world is working on the same system we are).

So, in spite of the fact that we aren't even investing the bonds back into America, we keep selling on the international market while we squander them on military adventures and tax cuts. We sell a hundred billion or more in treasuries bi-weekly (borrow into existence 100 billion dollars).

So, taking a portion of that sale each month and hiring back teachers, cops and firefighters or building bridges, schools, roads and a new electrical grid will have a barely noticeable blip on our debt levels and more important, at less than zero interest, will actually improve our long term fiscal outlook. And that investment now will pay huge benefits in the near and long term future.

I know it's not the style of economy you want. You'd like a currency tied to a solid commodity.

Unfortunately, that's not the economy we (the whole world) has.

Your assertion doesn't work when you come to realize that every single dollar in circulation is borrowed into existence.
 
2012-06-09 07:52:54 PM  

cman: I gotta give Obama his props.

He could have fudged everything for a few months. But now, after it is apparent after all the new data, he comes out and tells the truth.


What has Obama been dishonest about? And the follow-up question; Citation please?
 
2012-06-09 08:27:46 PM  

GAT_00: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Please show me where the President has authority to hire anyone other than his own staff or personally change economic policy.


I'm sure Obamas E P A and his 44 Czars couldn't have any thing to do with the economy !
In fact his GAO watchdog on spending group is doing it's part spending $ 850.000 dollars on a lavish working 3 day get together in Vegas !
 
2012-06-09 08:40:44 PM  

larry00: GAT_00: rinasaunce: GAT_00: Actually, calling a press conference is just about all the President can do to directly impact the economy.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA. Thanks for that fine understanding of how the Presidency works. I guess the president can't direct any of the millions of employees that work at government agencies or their policies or regulations. No power to reduce or streamline regulations or even make any policy without Congress, I guess.

Yes, the President can just call press conferences. Glad that this one went so well to help the economy. Its great to have a community organizer doing press conferences to help the economy!!!

Please show me where the President has authority to hire anyone other than his own staff or personally change economic policy.

I'm sure Obamas E P A and his 44 Czars couldn't have any thing to do with the economy !
In fact his GAO watchdog on spending group is doing it's part spending $ 850.000 dollars on a lavish working 3 day get together in Vegas !


So when Rmoney's elected and he replaces all the Czars with Elders we'll be good right?

On the up side, Mormon elders don't drink in groups so the bar tab won't be as much.
 
2012-06-10 12:03:07 AM  

X-boxershorts:

Allow me...and I don't even have an MBA...

You're entire premise is based upon the belief that there is a finite amount of currency in circulation at any given time.
That borrowing more currency for the purposes of creating needed jobs will detract from currency available to the private sector.

This is baseless in a sovereign based floating currency economy.

Every single American dollar you might earn or steal.....is borrowed into existence.
The only limit to the nation's ability to borrow more currency into existence is the faith of other nations to purchase our treasury bonds.

Currently, in a liquidity trap condition, with credit squeezes happening elsewhere around the globe, the in ...


Golf clap, and you should consider working in finance or economics.

I don't mind people arguing with me, but our friend is just plain stupid. We are not in some sort of closed system with absolutely finite resources.

The freshwater schools of economics - Austrian and Chicago - in various ways just plain make up "universal rules" and stampede towards a set of principles on how the world works, except that they're based on made-up nonsensical "rules."

As you note, we the US attract all kinds of other people's money, plus we can wave a magic wand and create more money. If we can pay for wars, and "pay" for tax cuts, we could also pay for all kinds of infrastructure, whether it's a teacher or a mile of pavement.

He's indirectly referencing "crowding out," where (on Mars, I think, or maybe in the 1920s) government spending and borrowing crowds out private counterparts, and we suffer by it.

Right now, if the feds said, we shall have wars AND we shall pour a trillion into hiring teacher and firefighters, plus we'll repair public schools and civic centers, and restore the educational grant programs Reagan eviscerated, we'll all do much better, even if the rich have to pay 3 % points more in taxes (oh the horrors!!) to help pay for it they'll get it back in spades when the economy recovers years sooner.
 
2012-06-10 10:42:00 AM  

o5iiawah: That money has to come from somewhere. When you take the money out of the hands of taxpayers, they cannot spend it on other things and since we have a -1.3% savings rate in this country, chances are, if you take money away from someone, they would have otherwise spent it.

Tell me where this is flawed logic. Put those MBA dollars to work


Other Farkers have answered you, but here's another way to look at it.

Workers are not parasites on the country. Workers build things, help manufacture things, repair stuff, and so on. That labor, when properly applied, makes the whole economy worth more. It can be measured objectively, as change in GDP for one.

Right now, millions of competent workers are unemployed. That means they don't build things, they don't help manufacture things, they don't repair stuff, and so on - and that makes the whole economy worth less than it would have been if those unemployed were actually working.

Unemployment is high due to lack of demand, period. Consumers are paying down a huge debt overhang left over from the old housing bubble. They're not buying as much. There is no need for businesses to invest. All attempts to claim current unemployment is somehow a sudden mismatch between skills and available jobs, or maybe the result of reduced tax incentives for businesses to produce stuff, have been debunked.

Because the Presidency is blamed or rewarded for the state of the economy then let Presidential policy direct the three ways out. 1) Borrow at cheap rates and hire people to build, manufacture and repair stuff we need. 2) Reduce the overhanging debt burden. 3) Require the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to connect the monetary policy with the Presidential economic policy.
 
2012-06-10 11:10:11 AM  
President Obama couldn't use the loo without some republican superpac spending a million dollars to run ads against how long he's been in there, how much toilet paper he's using, or how much it stinks.


Corporations are NOT people. The Roberts court must be dismantled.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report