paygun: intelligent comment below: Finally we get to your argument, it's the minorities fault.

I never made a connection between a broken community and race. But you just did.

Makes ya wonder how these guys can hear the dog-whistles so well.

WombatControl: Oh, yeah, trickle down was totally invalidated by the 1980s. I mean things totally sucked in the 1980s. All that massive GDP growth, inflation being put under control, and dramatically reduced unemployment was a total failure.

Get the facts. GDP grew by an average of 3.2% during Reagan's two terms in office. Per-family median income increased by $4,000. Unemployment went from nearly 10% when Reagan took office. When he left it was 5.5%.

You can spew all the bullshiat talking points about the economy of the 1980s, but no matter how many times you repeat them that won't actually make them true...


You forgot the part about the 80's where taxes were raised over a dozen times

oops

Mrtraveler01: intelligent comment below: paygun: I agree but what's farked up is that we'd try to do it by spending more money. It's like trying to teach someone brain surgery by hitting them in the head with a hammer.


Government has always been the largest employer in the nation.

Why do you hate people having jobs?

Are you really going to argue, in an economic sense, that spending money on education is a net loss in the long run? Wow...

What I've always wondered about the pro-austerity people is how does having more government workers unemployed help the economy?

You do realize that every government worker is being paid with money taken from the rest of us don't you?

As I've said before the unemployment rate should only reflect the non-governemnt taxpayers (aka the 'Sources') and not the government workers (aka the 'Sinks')

WombatControl: Reagan didn't raise taxes - he had to compromise with Democrats in order to get other things done.

So he still gets the blame right?

Just like how the right blames Clinton for repealing Glass-Stegall after signing off on a bill the GOP drafted up in Congress and passed at a more unanimous rate than the Democrats?

intelligent comment below: gblive: In the real world, Austerity means that spending goes "Down". Not so in the U.S. and many European countries. Then the politicians jump up & down and claim that "austerity" was a failure. Austerity did not fail; you increasing spending and calling it "austerity" is a big Fail.


except England has cut spending in all areas like the military, health care and education.

Guess what has happened? Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Show me the total U.K. budget each year from 2005 to current. The U.K has not reduced TOTAL spending.

That is like saying the the U.S. cut education and FDA spending ... and guess what happened. Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

WombatControl: Reagan didn't raise taxes - he had to compromise with Democrats in order to get other things done.


So Democrats forced Reagan to have sound economic policies to counter his deficits that crippled government with the largest peace time debt in history?

Funny how you point to Reagan as some champion of trickle down economics, when he spent like a drunk sailor on government that translated into a better economy for all

But you see no irony in turning around and demanding to drown government in a bath tub today, while point to to the success of Reagan... mind boggles

CujoQuarrel: You do realize that every government worker is being paid with money taken from the rest of us don't you?

Yes I do.

CujoQuarrel: As I've said before the unemployment rate should only reflect the non-governemnt taxpayers (aka the 'Sources') and not the government workers (aka the 'Sinks')

Government workers aren't members of the workforce? With the hyperbole you just used, I'm not expecting a serious answer to that question.

gblive: intelligent comment below: gblive: In the real world, Austerity means that spending goes "Down". Not so in the U.S. and many European countries. Then the politicians jump up & down and claim that "austerity" was a failure. Austerity did not fail; you increasing spending and calling it "austerity" is a big Fail.


except England has cut spending in all areas like the military, health care and education.

Guess what has happened? Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Show me the total U.K. budget each year from 2005 to current. The U.K has not reduced TOTAL spending.

That is like saying the the U.S. cut education and FDA spending ... and guess what happened. Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers

Ah yes, the "No True Scotsman" approach to austerity.

Obviously if the UK cut spending more and put EVEN more government workers out of work, that'll somehow magically fix the UK economy and get it out of the recession it just got back into.

GoldSpider: paygun: intelligent comment below: Finally we get to your argument, it's the minorities fault.

I never made a connection between a broken community and race. But you just did.

Makes ya wonder how these guys can hear the dog-whistles so well.


Blaming a community for bad students is obviously blaming Beverly Hills High and it's culture that leads to poverty and drop outs. Not targeted at minorities, at all. Of course. wink wink

Makes ya wonder if you both aren't the same person talking

Mrtraveler01:

GeneralJim: Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING

Got any statistics to back it up?

Yeah, let me pull this "control planet" out of my arse, and we can run it back to try it the other way. Dipshiat. Show me what it did.... 'cause I sure don't see it:

Many people have said that the recession would've been much more severe without the stimulus.

Right after you ask for statistics that something DIDN'T happen, you say bullshiat like this? So, where are your statistics showing that a sudden disaster exactly matched the point where the all-powerful stimulus kicked in, and exactly cancelled it? Friggin' dumbass.

Yeah, and some people say if Gore had been elected, we would have surrendered to the Taliban after 9/11. That kind of claim should be ignored, exactly like YOUR bullshiat claim should be ignored.

Face, it, you partisan hack: TRILLIONS of dollars were flushed down the toilet, as far as the economy is concerned, and your only response is "We should have flushed MORE?" Yeah, it was a field day for all the political hangers-on, and Wall Street toadies who sucked it all up, but I have some difficulty being happy that they were spared suffering the consequences of the actions that threw us into the crapper in the first place. Goldman Sachs SHOULD have gone out of business, along with every other company that farked up that badly.

Do you have any proof that isn't the case that isn't a bunch of talking points from Fox News or some right-wing think tank?

Oh, bollocks. Look at the goddam numbers. "Oh, it was going to go WAY down, but Obama saved it" is the talking point, moron.

The only thing Obama has done to reduce unemployment is to redefine how it is calculated so that the same shiatty condition now has a lower number. Real unemployment is about 15%, and even if you redefine it so that the "official" unemployment is under 1%, those people without jobs are going to be as unhappy come November. President Carter was a one-term President, and he did not do as badly as Obama, when it comes to slow recovery. Here is a graph of all the recoveries from recessions in the last 60 years. You're bragging about that big, fat, red line, by the way... and the start of the pale green one above it is what got Carter fired.

ib_thinkin: GeneralJim: Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING

Nice crystal ball you have there.

Also demonstrably untrue. I work in the construction industry, cement distribution to be specific. Our sales this year are up over 40% due to roadwork, most of it at least partially funded by stimulous dollars. Last year we were up 20%.

When I sell cement, that means jobs for drivers, operators, finishers, and other associated laborers, as well as administrative people, engineers, inspectors, etc.

The stimulus did do some good, and we'll have some better roads and bridges to show for it. We should do it again.

Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 635x389]

All you need to know. Obama has been for all the things on top, the things that are creating jobs and economic stimulus, and therefore government revenue. See the return on food stamps? Food stamps actually pay for themselves. The Bush tax cuts? Negative returns.

You keep using this slanted image as though it were fact. Why not try to cite some documentation (from an unbiased source) instead of posting a ideological image?

Mrtraveler01: CujoQuarrel: You do realize that every government worker is being paid with money taken from the rest of us don't you?

Yes I do.

CujoQuarrel: As I've said before the unemployment rate should only reflect the non-governemnt taxpayers (aka the 'Sources') and not the government workers (aka the 'Sinks')

Government workers aren't members of the workforce? With the hyperbole you just used, I'm not expecting a serious answer to that question.

I should make the point that many other governments on the face of the earth separate their employment numbers into "government" and "non-government". Their unemployment numbers, of course, are those people employed by neither. The U.S. should consider reporting in the same manner.

gblive: Mrtraveler01: gblive: The only countries in Europe which are recovering from recession are those who adopted real austerity like Estonia and Latvia (not the U.K).

Are you sure you want to use Latvia as an example?

[www.tradingeconomics.com image 640x274]

[www.tradingeconomics.com image 640x274]

Yes, I am. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Switzerland are all examples of success in austerity. Even Krugman does not dispute the figures and success, but tries to claim the countries are too small to be representative examples. Which is like trying to claim that Greece to too small to serve as an example of how not to run an economy.

Austerity Works



Republican Economics 101

gblive: Show me the total U.K. budget each year from 2005 to current. The U.K has not reduced TOTAL spending.

That is like saying the the U.S. cut education and FDA spending ... and guess what happened. Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers


Why do you pick an arbitrary year and demand to be compared to that? England has cut its budget and is now in a double dip recession.

intelligent comment below: Blaming a community for bad students is obviously blaming Beverly Hills High and it's culture that leads to poverty and drop outs. Not targeted at minorities, at all. Of course. wink wink

Go ahead and tell me you don't believe there's any stupid white hillbillies in Alabama. You played the race card. You can't go back and unplay it now.

GeneralJim: The only thing Obama has done to reduce unemployment is to redefine how it is calculated so that the same shiatty condition now has a lower number. Real unemployment is about 15%

Ah yes, the U6 numbers that Republicans and Conservatives didn't start using until January 20, 2009.

Wonder why that is?

ib_thinkin: toddism: it buys shiat from china to sell at walmart. the point is - it is a cycle that ends badly despite the "stimulus effect"

What's Wal-Mart do?

buys shiat from china. sure, they employ people and hire businesses but the 2.00 is not suddenly turned into 20.00 by magic. lower regulations. let people start businesses and create new products - that is what we don't have now. the government cannot keep handing out the 2.00.

GeneralJim: Many people have said that the recession would've been much more severe without the stimulus.


Want to know how long it took for America to recover from the 29 crash? 25 farking years.

Quasar: I don't know how well the math holds up but I think it's quite reasonable to assume the economy would be better to some degree.

Actually, I would argue that it's just like the climate, which people who are big on the Obama caused the recession lie are also denying.

Basically, we know the driving factors behind the warming and cooling trends in the past. None of them are causing the current warming trend. This means that either our past models are wrong (which they might be, of course), or some factor that wasn't around in the past is driving the current warming trend. And currently the only factor we can point to is anthropogenic.

Same with the economy. We know the driving factors behind the recessions and recoveries in the past. All are in place, yet they're not working as they did. This means that either previous economic policies are wrong (which they might be), or some factor that wasn't around in the last few recessions is driving this non-recovery recovery. And currently the only factor we can point to is Republican obstructionism and austerity.

GeneralJim: You're bragging about that big, fat, red line, by the way...

The one that starts in March 2001?

Damn Obama and his time machine!

intelligent comment below: citation needed

Focus on the fourth column from the left.

Are you really trying to make an argument against this?

Perhaps you should re-read my comment.

Let me address some other dumbassery you've spouted in this thread: 80% of the stock market is not owned by the top 10% of the population, or wealthy as you put it. The vast majority of stockholders are stock funds, which in turn are invested in by individual 401ks and, hold on to your pants, pension funds. Union pension funds. It always astounds me just how naive you folks are about who is heavily vested in the markets, particularly "unsavory" markets such as tobacco, oil, commodities, etc. Here's a pro-tip: no one gets hurt worse than pension funds when Wall Street takes a hit. No one. Additionally, the vast majority of them are critically underfunded and must seek highly aggressive investments (*risky*/unsavory/unregulated) for any hope of solvency.

intelligent comment below: GeneralJim: Many people have said that the recession would've been much more severe without the stimulus.


Want to know how long it took for America to recover from the 29 crash? 25 farking years.

The Republican talking point used to fight that unfortunate fact is that FDR lengthened the Great Depression with his socialisms and polio.

paygun: Go ahead and tell me you don't believe there's any stupid white hillbillies in Alabama. You played the race card. You can't go back and unplay it now.


Step 1: blame an entire culture for bad schools

Step 2: be shocked when people call you out on your racist bs

Step 3: cry a river about how oppressed you are for suggesting such a ridiculous thing

intelligent comment below: Blaming a community for bad students is obviously blaming Beverly Hills High and it's culture that leads to poverty and drop outs. Not targeted at minorities, at all. Of course. wink wink

Yup, the guy who isn't equating poverty to minorities is the racist.

WombatControl: Shvetz: The money gets spent multiple times over. Unless Bain Capital could tax the entirety of the economy, they wouldn't make any money. There is a reason the vast, overwhelming majority of economists don't consider supply-side/trickle-down economics to be effective at economic stimulus.

Yes, because that money farking grows on trees. It magically appears after being deposited by the money fairies.

That dollar in food stamps comes from somewhere else in the economy. It comes either from taxes or borrowing. Taxes have deadweight losses. Oh, and then you have to pay to collect that tax, administer the program that gives the food stamps, and then actually cut the checks. Those are all further losses.

So you haven't created a farking thing. You've just taken one dollar from somewhere else in the economy and put it somewhere else. There's no economic value being created, and in fact there's economic value being destroyed.

What you are describing is something that was thoroughly debunked and demolished over 200 years ago. Making the same conceptual mistakes over and over again is not the sign of an intelligent society.

Bullshiat, bullshiat, bullshiat. Large companies are sitting on the money as retained earnings. It's not doing anything, it's not stimulating jack shiat. Again, it all boils down to the velocity of money. That dollar in food stamps is spent multiple times over. That tax cut for the wealthy? Yeah, a lot of times it actually does sit in personal accounts. Sure the stock market is doing well, but not everybody invests in it. In fact, most American consumers don't. Yet they still need customers to walk in and spend money.

Your broken window parable is bullshiat as well. Again, that dollar in food stamps wouldn't have been doing anything. We can see that from the Bush tax cuts, which didn't generate anything. People just sat on the money.

Shvetz: WombatControl: Shvetz: The money gets spent multiple times over. Unless Bain Capital could tax the entirety of the economy, they wouldn't make any money. There is a reason the vast, overwhelming majority of economists don't consider supply-side/trickle-down economics to be effective at economic stimulus.

Yes, because that money farking grows on trees. It magically appears after being deposited by the money fairies.

That dollar in food stamps comes from somewhere else in the economy. It comes either from taxes or borrowing. Taxes have deadweight losses. Oh, and then you have to pay to collect that tax, administer the program that gives the food stamps, and then actually cut the checks. Those are all further losses.

So you haven't created a farking thing. You've just taken one dollar from somewhere else in the economy and put it somewhere else. There's no economic value being created, and in fact there's economic value being destroyed.

What you are describing is something that was thoroughly debunked and demolished over 200 years ago. Making the same conceptual mistakes over and over again is not the sign of an intelligent society.

Bullshiat, bullshiat, bullshiat. Large companies are sitting on the money as retained earnings. It's not doing anything, it's not stimulating jack shiat. Again, it all boils down to the velocity of money. That dollar in food stamps is spent multiple times over. That tax cut for the wealthy? Yeah, a lot of times it actually does sit in personal accounts. Sure the stock market is doing well, but not everybody invests in it. In fact, most American consumers don't. Yet they still need customers to walk in and spend money.

Your broken window parable is bullshiat as well. Again, that dollar in food stamps wouldn't have been doing anything. We can see that from the Bush tax cuts, which didn't generate anything. People just sat on the money.

This is the same guy that thinks that companies will spend capital to expand operations to produce a product regardless of demand based on how much their taxes got cut (ie: Supply Side).

It's hard to reason with people with that kind of warped view of economics.

WombatControl: Any time a liberal tries to take on the mantle of Reagan, they're selling you a 55-gallon drum of concentrated bullshiat. Reagan's actual philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the left-wing statism of the modern Democratic Party.

Reagan's philosophy of government and Reagan's actions are two different things entirely. In fact the size of the U.S. government grew 69% during the "Small Government" Reagan years.

intelligent comment below: paygun: Go ahead and tell me you don't believe there's any stupid white hillbillies in Alabama. You played the race card. You can't go back and unplay it now.


Step 1: blame an entire culture for bad schools

Step 2: be shocked when people call you out on your racist bs

Step 3: cry a river about how oppressed you are for suggesting such a ridiculous thing

I see we've reached the "just start making shiat up" stage.

I live in rural Missouri. Every semi-literate bible banging farktard I've ever met here is white. You'd fit right in, by the way.

Spaz-master: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 635x389]

All you need to know. Obama has been for all the things on top, the things that are creating jobs and economic stimulus, and therefore government revenue. See the return on food stamps? Food stamps actually pay for themselves. The Bush tax cuts? Negative returns.

You keep using this slanted image as though it were fact. Why not try to cite some documentation (from an unbiased source) instead of posting a ideological image?

Moody's is now biased towards food stamps? Do your homework, the numbers are good

notShryke: Focus on the fourth column from the left.

How about you focus on your argument, you know, the as a percentage of GDP

Notice how the numbers of tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are at 1960 and 1970 levels


notShryke: Let me address some other dumbassery you've spouted in this thread: 80% of the stock market is not owned by the top 10% of the population, or wealthy as you put it. The vast majority of stockholders are stock funds, which in turn are invested in by individual 401ks and, hold on to your pants, pension funds. Union pension funds. It always astounds me just how naive you folks are about who is heavily vested in the markets, particularly "unsavory" markets such as tobacco, oil, commodities, etc.


I love how you prove me wrong with... nothing.

The wealthy own the stock market, sorry you cannot accept this fact

notShryke: Here's a pro-tip: no one gets hurt worse than pension funds when Wall Street takes a hit. No one. Additionally, the vast majority of them are critically underfunded and must seek highly aggressive investments (*risky*/unsavory/unregulated) for any hope of solvency.


Of course pension funds take big hits, because banks are always first dibs to get repaid and government hands them free money to help in tough times

Just stop talking, you're as bad as all the other libertarian econ 101 Fark Independent's trolling here

MikeMc:
Reagan's philosophy of government and Reagan's actions are two different things entirely. In fact the size of the U.S. government grew 69% during the "Small Government" Reagan years.

Small government Reagan hasn't got shiat on small government Bush!

GoldSpider: Yup, the guy who isn't equating poverty to minorities is the racist.


Your alt is blaming their culture for being poor, if that isn't racist then you are a PhD. candidate at an Ivy League school

paygun: I see we've reached the "just start making shiat up" stage.

I live in rural Missouri. Every semi-literate bible banging farktard I've ever met here is white. You'd fit right in, by the way.


Blaming peoples culture for being poor, that's racist. Sorry you cannot accept the facts.

You might as well argue they were born with less brain cells because of the environment they are brought up in.

Smart people come from all shapes and sizes. The fact is rural areas anywhere receive little funding outside of military spending. Their schools are a joke and none of the kids can get a proper education.

But go ahead and keep blaming their "culture"

/don't call you a racist

ib_thinkin:

GeneralJim: Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING

Nice crystal ball you have there.

You don't need a crystal ball to predict the past, FFS. Okay, bucko -- how about YOU show ME where the beneficial effects of the stimulus packages are... and how they're worth trillions of dollars, while you're at it. I'll wait.

And, just so you know... something as trivial as the hiring for the census makes a noticeable dent in unemployment, temporarily. The following graph shows rates with and without the census jobs. If THAT is noticed, shouldn't one see a HUGE improvement if multi-trillon dollar stimuli are applied? In case this question gives you trouble, YES, it should.

The 2011 census cost $22 B. Even one trillion is over 45 times larger than the entire cost of the census. So, show me the effects.

Let me address some other dumbassery you've spouted in this thread: 80% of the stock market is not owned by the top 10% of the population, or wealthy as you put it.

The correct way of putting it is: The "Top 20%" own 85% of all wealth in America which constitutes far more than just the stock market.

intelligent comment below: But go ahead and keep blaming their "culture"

rawr rawr rawr nobody understands you she bear

intelligent comment below: Blaming peoples culture for being poor, that's racist. Sorry you cannot accept the facts.

People like you who dilute the meaning of racism to backstop a feeble argument enables actual racists. Good job.

paygun: I live in rural Missouri. Every semi-literate bible banging farktard I've ever met here is white. You'd fit right in, by the way.

You sound like you live in the Ozarks or the Bootheel.

/Although Northern Missouri can be that bad too sometimes

Mrtraveler01: I never understood why people on the right don't understand this.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending in some programs (Defense) even if you cut spending in others (Entitlements), is not going to get us out of debt.

Anyway, back to discussion.

The leadership on the right does understand it, and they know it's bullshiat. They're counting on their audience either not understanding it or just plain ignoring because why do you hate america, that's why.

intelligent comment below: gblive: Show me the total U.K. budget each year from 2005 to current. The U.K has not reduced TOTAL spending.

That is like saying the the U.S. cut education and FDA spending ... and guess what happened. Rising unemployment and extremely low GDP numbers


Why do you pick an arbitrary year and demand to be compared to that? England has cut its budget and is now in a double dip recession.

Alright... select any year at least a decade ago.... and provide year by year figures for the total U.K. budget. Stop parsing words and acting like I was only asking for 2005. You know as well as I - that the last time the U.K. reduced the total public budget was right after WW2.

Since you appear to be too inept to dig up the figures - here they are:

UK total public spending since 1963 : £bn
Year ---- £bn
1963-64 12.0
1964-65 13.0
1965-66 14.5
1966-67 16.0
1967-68 18.3
1968-69 19.3
1969-70 20.3
1970-71 22.7
1971-72 25.2
1972-73 28.3
1973-74 33.4
1974-75 43.7
1975-76 55.7
1976-77 63.6
1977-78 69.5
1978-79 78.6
1979-80 93.6
1980-81 112.5
1981-82 125.6
1982-83 138.3
1983-84 149.7
1984-85 159.6
1985-86 166.
1986-87 172.0
1987-88 183.1
1988-89 190.4
1989-90 209.7
1990-91 224.4
1991-92 251.1
1992-93 271.5
1993-94 283.7
1994-95 296.4
1995-96 309.5
1996-97 315.3
1997-98 321.9
1998-99 330.9
1999-00 343.1
2000-01 364.3
2001-02 389.3
2002-03 421.1
2003-04 455.5
2004-05 492.4
2005-06 524.0
2006-07 549.8
2007-08 583.1
2008-09 629.8
2009-10 670.1
2010-11 687.9

Data Source

Look at those big austerity drops of 629.8B in 2008/09 to 670.1B in 2009/10 to 687.9B in 2010/11

No wait, that really doesn't convey what Im thinking...



yeah, that's a little better.

Mrtraveler01: paygun: I live in rural Missouri. Every semi-literate bible banging farktard I've ever met here is white. You'd fit right in, by the way.

You sound like you live in the Ozarks or the Bootheel.

/Although Northern Missouri can be that bad too sometimes

About an hour and a half south of St. Louis. It's like a forward observation post for culture war.

GeneralJim: ib_thinkin: GeneralJim: Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING

Nice crystal ball you have there.
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the past, FFS. Okay, bucko -- how about YOU show ME where the beneficial effects of the stimulus packages are... and how they're worth trillions of dollars, while you're at it. I'll wait.

And, just so you know... something as trivial as the hiring for the census makes a noticeable dent in unemployment, temporarily. The following graph shows rates with and without the census jobs. If THAT is noticed, shouldn't one see a HUGE improvement if multi-trillon dollar stimuli are applied? In case this question gives you trouble, YES, it should.

The 2011 census cost $22 B. Even one trillion is over 45 times larger than the entire cost of the census. So, show me the effects.

[images2.dailykos.com image 550x357]

So where on your graph is the point Obama's policies were actually codified into law?

paygun: Mrtraveler01: paygun: I live in rural Missouri. Every semi-literate bible banging farktard I've ever met here is white. You'd fit right in, by the way.

You sound like you live in the Ozarks or the Bootheel.

/Although Northern Missouri can be that bad too sometimes

About an hour and a half south of St. Louis. It's like a forward observation post for culture war.

Near Cape Girardeau?

Because you're right. That is a great observation post for a culture war.