Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Kos)   If it weren't for GOP obstructionism and austerity measures unemployment would be under 6%   (dailykos.com) divider line 510
    More: Interesting, GOP, American Recovery, austerity measures, ARRA, spillover effect, economic cost, Health Care, International, unemployment  
•       •       •

5246 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2012 at 7:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-09 08:17:54 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: wait a minute.
before 0bama was getting credit from farkers for cutting down the number of gov't employees.
now that same action is the GOP's fault


I know. Obama is more of a Republican than the Republicans these days. ;)
 
2012-07-09 08:18:37 PM  

paygun: toddism: this does not end well.

Just put everyone on food stamps and no one has to pay taxes. It's win/win.



"Reductio ad absurdum ... when you absolutely, positively have no rational or coherent argument!"
 
2012-07-09 08:19:13 PM  

ib_thinkin: toddism: this does not end well.

What's the company do with the other 95%?


it buys shiat from china to sell at walmart. the point is - it is a cycle that ends badly despite the "stimulus effect"
 
2012-07-09 08:19:17 PM  

sno man: LordJiro: Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.

Its still not trickled down from when St. Reagan thought it was a good idea.... How long do we have to wait before we call this model a fail?


C'mon. Admit it.
You're a pee-on.
LordJiro is a pee-on.
Our favorite internet "dentist's" new alts are pee-ons.
I'm a pee-on, too.

St Ron (R-iCH*) succeeded far beyond his handlers' wildest wet dreams.

/*Roasting - in Christian Hell
 
2012-07-09 08:20:04 PM  

12349876: Giltric: 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.

Can that chart be proven, or is that just another economic theory like the laffer curve?

That chart has numbers, so it is right or wrong. The numbers are correct or incorrect. The laffer curve has no numbers, so it's just a theory. A theory that is simplistic but sort of correct but when Republicans say we're always on the right side, that's a bunch of wharrgarrbbl because they're unwilling to bring out real numbers to support it.


Well we do have 50 million people on food stamps. Surely there is evidence that supports the chart.
 
2012-07-09 08:20:38 PM  

cman: I call bullshiat.

No one can make that kind of assumption. There are too many damned variables.


I think they did a pretty good job of accounting for the variables, restricting their speculation to the Jobs Act and the so-called austerity movement.

Also, it was unusually fair in that it noted that under most GOP administrations in recessions, public employment has been deliberately increased, to good effect.

So take the two lowball numbers and assume they're 10% inflated, and still that would be nearly half a million MORE jobs we would have had absent the GOPs current drive to make Obama a one-term president even if they have to rip out our entrails to do it.
 
2012-07-09 08:20:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vernonFL: Well, if noted economist "Blue Mark" says it on a Daily Kos post, it must be true!

Your blog sucks. I'm pretty liberal, but this is garbage.

Please, refute his case.


Because economic variables are not completely independent from one another. Using this morons assumptions if government employed everyone there would be zero unemployment with no ill effects from said policy in the private sector.
 
2012-07-09 08:21:19 PM  

thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: and according to 0bama we needed to pass the Stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%.

oh wait, we did.
oh wait, it is still above 8%

i recognize that i'm quoting a brick wall here, but this talking point always confused me because it implies that the stimulus actually increased unemployment, which i don't think any economist has ever even attempted to argue.


no it implies that
(a) 0bama doesn't have a clue about how to create jobs
(b) the stimulus may have had no meaningful affect - remember his admission about the failed shovel ready jobs and the cash for clunkers spending.
 
2012-07-09 08:21:26 PM  

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?
 
2012-07-09 08:21:40 PM  
Also we'd ride to work on unicorns made of delicious free range chocolate!
 
2012-07-09 08:21:56 PM  

cchris_39: 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.

Well that pretty much sums up the socialist mind.

"Maximium economic benefit is achieved by consfiscating all wealth and putting everyone on welfare. I have charts to prove it."

Unfortunately, they have about the half the country agreeing with them. Not that they would ever lay it out with my frank Texas eloquence, but there is their fervant belief laid bare.


It must hurt to be this stupid. How on earth are you able to type through all the pain?
 
2012-07-09 08:22:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: (b) the stimulus may have had no meaningful affect - remember his admission about the failed shovel ready jobs and the cash for clunkers spending.


Is there proof that the stimulus had no meaningful effect instead of softening the blow that came as a result of the recession?
 
2012-07-09 08:23:07 PM  

MyRandomName: Because economic variables are not completely independent from one another. Using this morons assumptions if government employed everyone there would be zero unemployment with no ill effects from said policy in the private sector.


In that hypothetical I think the following question is appropriate: "What private sector?" Your cogency is slipping.
 
2012-07-09 08:23:13 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Hm, Kos sort of screws up the fact that they have a legitimate general point (the GOP has been intentionally advocating things they know to be bad for the economy) by making a specific claim that's straight-up pants-on-head retarded. 5% unemployment? Really? Lower than during the boom years of the late '90s and before the crash? Do they think we're bloody stupid?


Not sure about the bloody, but they are all over the stupid, because there are so very many!
 
2012-07-09 08:23:57 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: and according to 0bama we needed to pass the Stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%.

oh wait, we did.
oh wait, it is still above 8%

i recognize that i'm quoting a brick wall here, but this talking point always confused me because it implies that the stimulus actually increased unemployment, which i don't think any economist has ever even attempted to argue.

no it implies that
(a) 0bama doesn't have a clue about how to create jobs
(b) the stimulus may have had no meaningful affect - remember his admission about the failed shovel ready jobs and the cash for clunkers spending.


right, but if you are holding 8% as the "but-for" unemployment figure, any number over 8% would have to be the adverse effect of the stimulus. it's a terrible talking point.
 
2012-07-09 08:24:13 PM  

MSFT: It must hurt to be this stupid. How on earth are you able to type through all the pain?


I'd bet on experience.
Mark Twain: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
 
2012-07-09 08:24:32 PM  
doubtful.

but whatever they feel the need to say...
 
2012-07-09 08:24:49 PM  
// toddism: hokay - let me 'splain:

Sigh.

1. Govt pays person X 2.00 in food stamps.
2. Person x spends money on food lives, provides adequate food to children. The converse of both costs money (ER bills, children of diminished intellect)
3. The grocery store gets $2. It pays a portion to employers, and to suppliers and to delivery companies. Each (ofcourse) is taxed. > .10.
4. At some point the money is deposited in a bank. Due to the reserve system banks create money. 2.00 becomes say $20s as result
5. That 20$ (having been loaned out) generates interest (goverment gets a cut) and funds companies/startups some of which generate a profit some of which is returned to the government in the form of taxes.
6. profit.
 
2012-07-09 08:25:34 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: and according to 0bama we needed to pass the Stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%.

oh wait, we did.
oh wait, it is still above 8%

i recognize that i'm quoting a brick wall here, but this talking point always confused me because it implies that the stimulus actually increased unemployment, which i don't think any economist has ever even attempted to argue.

no it implies that
(a) 0bama doesn't have a clue about how to create jobs
(b) the stimulus may have had no meaningful affect - remember his admission about the failed shovel ready jobs and the cash for clunkers spending.


What happened, did your make believe dentists office go belly up?
 
2012-07-09 08:27:01 PM  

MSFT: cchris_39: 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.

Well that pretty much sums up the socialist mind.

"Maximium economic benefit is achieved by consfiscating all wealth and putting everyone on welfare. I have charts to prove it."

Unfortunately, they have about the half the country agreeing with them. Not that they would ever lay it out with my frank Texas eloquence, but there is their fervant belief laid bare.

It must hurt to be this stupid. How on earth are you able to type through all the pain?


What part of Shvetz's argument did I get wrong?

And yes, the idea that people believe that food stamps provide a 73% return on investment does make my head hurt. Doesn't it yours?

Hell if that was true, Bain Capital would have figured out a way to own the food stamp business.
 
2012-07-09 08:27:53 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: MSFT: It must hurt to be this stupid. How on earth are you able to type through all the pain?

I'd bet on experience.
Mark Twain: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."


Which is why I have a policy to never argue with them, only make fun.
Point and laugh at the retards who serve as a reminder why people should stay in school and continue to read books past the 8th grade.
 
2012-07-09 08:28:02 PM  

toddism: 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.

hokay - let me 'splain:

1: the govt takes in 10.00 in taxes
2: it pays out 2 in food stamps (and it takes a dollar's worth of effort to do so) 7.00 left
3 the 2 is revenue (not profit)
4 after taking out expenses the company pays taxes on about 5% or .10
5 the government now has 7.10
7 it pays out 2 in food stamps (and it takes a dollar's worth of effort to do so) 4.10 left
8 the 2 is revenue (not profit)
9 after taking out expenses the company pays taxes on about 5% or .10
10 the government now has 4.20

this does not end well.



Let me explain: We need an actual balance. Nobody is suggesting that we put everybody on food stamps. That's like saying broccoli is healthy, therefore you should eat nothing but broccoli. Also, you need to look up "velocity of money." Injecting the cash into the bottom of the economy makes it go around and around multiple times. Injecting it into the top (Bush tax cuts) ensures that more than half is just sitting in somebody's account, not being spent or invested.
 
2012-07-09 08:28:10 PM  
gilgigamesh:
EnviroDude: foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term

If you repeat the lie enough times, it makes it true!

That DOES seem to be the leftist way to do things, yes. Apparently, however, you have not repeated this lie often enough... yet.

Wikipedia describes Obamacare's passage thus:
"On March 21, 2010, after Obama announced an executive order reinforcing the current law against spending federal funds for elective abortion services, the House, by a vote of 219 to 212, passed the version of the bill previously passed on December 24, 2009, by a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. The bill, which includes over 200 Republican amendments, was passed without a single Republican vote."

Your wildly misleading Democratic National Committee talking point borders on the retarded. Even a Web site calling it "The Democratic Super Marjority Myth" says: "On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority." That super-majority was uninterrupted from September 25, 2009, when Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. That's more than four months when the Republicans could do NOTHING to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do.

Sanders and Lieberman are a socialist, and "other," respectively, but caucus with the Democrats. Are you saying that the only guy in the Senate honest enough to call himself a socialist would vote with the Republicans? Uh, no. Lieberman, possibly, but I doubt it when it's "do or die" time. Face it, although it's a DNC talking point to deny it, Obama had a super-majority in the Senate, and a clear majority in the House, uninterrupted, for more than four months. What did he use it for? He gave Obamacare as a Christmas present to the insurance companies. Yippee.

An article written before the election in 2008, but containing remarkably prescient predictions
 
2012-07-09 08:30:09 PM  

GeneralJim: Sanders and Lieberman are a socialist


The guy that backed McCain for President in 2008?

i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-09 08:30:42 PM  

cchris_39: MSFT: cchris_39: 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.

Well that pretty much sums up the socialist mind.

"Maximium economic benefit is achieved by consfiscating all wealth and putting everyone on welfare. I have charts to prove it."

Unfortunately, they have about the half the country agreeing with them. Not that they would ever lay it out with my frank Texas eloquence, but there is their fervant belief laid bare.

It must hurt to be this stupid. How on earth are you able to type through all the pain?

What part of Shvetz's argument did I get wrong?

And yes, the idea that people believe that food stamps provide a 73% return on investment does make my head hurt. Doesn't it yours?

Hell if that was true, Bain Capital would have figured out a way to own the food stamp business.


if i understand the chart correctly, it's not the return on investment to the government, it is the money multiplier of the government program to the broader economy. if you give someone money in the form of food stamps, they will spend 100% of it at a grocery store, who will use it to pay employees and restock their shelves. this in turn is used by wholesalers and employees to circulate through the economy again. money multiplier, not tax returns.
 
2012-07-09 08:30:50 PM  

toddism: 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.

hokay - let me 'splain:

1: the govt takes in 10.00 in taxes
2: it pays out 2 in food stamps (and it takes a dollar's worth of effort to do so) 7.00 left
3 the 2 is revenue (not profit)
4 after taking out expenses the company pays taxes on about 5% or .10
5 the government now has 7.10
7 it pays out 2 in food stamps (and it takes a dollar's worth of effort to do so) 4.10 left
8 the 2 is revenue (not profit)
9 after taking out expenses the company pays taxes on about 5% or .10
10 the government now has 4.20

this does not end well.


You can't count to 10, but I will definitely trust your math.
 
2012-07-09 08:31:38 PM  

MSFT: tenpoundsofcheese: thomps: tenpoundsofcheese: and according to 0bama we needed to pass the Stimulus to keep unemployment below 8%.

oh wait, we did.
oh wait, it is still above 8%

i recognize that i'm quoting a brick wall here, but this talking point always confused me because it implies that the stimulus actually increased unemployment, which i don't think any economist has ever even attempted to argue.

no it implies that
(a) 0bama doesn't have a clue about how to create jobs
(b) the stimulus may have had no meaningful affect - remember his admission about the failed shovel ready jobs and the cash for clunkers spending.

What happened, did your make believe dentists office go belly up?


Fake businesses can never fail.
 
2012-07-09 08:33:13 PM  

GeneralJim: On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority." That super-majority was uninterrupted from September 25, 2009, when Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. That's more than four months when the Republicans could do NOTHING to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do.


You really fail to grasp the passage of time do you?

September 25, 2009-February 4, 2010 = 4 months and 11 days

Your own citations prove your wrong.

/I think you should quit while you can
 
2012-07-09 08:34:01 PM  

cchris_39: MSFT: cchris_39: Shvetz: [i.imgur.com image 635x389]

And yes, the idea that people believe that food stamps provide a 73% return on investment does make my head hurt. Doesn't it yours?

Hell if that was true, Bain Capital would have figured out a way to own the food stamp business.


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.

Somebody gets a food stamp, the spend it at a local market. That local market now needs cashiers, shelf stockers, etc. Those newly employed people have their wages taxed. They go out and spend all their money because they have low-income jobs, and can't afford to save in a bad economy. They create demand/jobs, which now pay federal income tax. It's a cycle, and it's trickle up.

If you give tax cuts to a corporation in a poor economy, they're just going to sit on the money. Without new customers, they have no reason to expand or hire new employees. That's why you read about companies such as Apple, sitting on more cash than the US Treasury.
 
2012-07-09 08:34:03 PM  

kmmontandon: "Reductio ad absurdum ... when you absolutely, positively have no rational or coherent argument!"


Are you saying that it's possible to have too much of a good thing? That's absurd.
 
2012-07-09 08:36:30 PM  

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.


If you actually believe this, you are the economic equivalent of a flat Earther.
 
2012-07-09 08:37:14 PM  

AirForceVet: Bontesla: DeaH: Now that will be an interesting election ad.

Seriously.
Please.
Someone. Anyone?
Please.

It's a tough sale of a political ad. It's complex, probably too much so for a 30-second TV or radio spot. No sound bites and/or catchy phrases.

This information requires a fully informed electorate. But, unfortunately, most Americans don't stay informed, much less vote. So, while I believe the GOP is responsible for obstructing recovery attempts with increased spending, it's tough to say they're doing this deliberately to sink President Obama. They can simply claim they have a different philosophy, but with no facts to back up their claims. The given chart in the article explains it very well though during previous recessions.

By the way, Republicans have no problem screwing America over to gain power. Look how they went to war in Iraq and cut taxes to make future Americans pay the bills. The GOP is a really messed up bunch of dysfunctional people.


Nah, it's an easy campaign add.

==========Begin=========

*20 second clip of GOP Politicians literally saying they don't care if the country burns so long as Obama is a one term president.*

"Republican obstructionism is putting millions of Americans out of work for political gain. Find out more at *insertwebaddress.com*

=========END========

See? Easy. It's like all the GOP ads, that make broad claims without facts, except unlike the GOP ads, this one isn't complete bullshiat.
 
2012-07-09 08:37:36 PM  
Austerity works!

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

The "austerity" adopted by the U.S. federal government is too tiny to be significant or meaningful. The U.S. still has a spending problem AND an revenue problem (taxes need to go up). Neither party wants to face the truth.
 
2012-07-09 08:38:51 PM  

Alephnaught: // toddism: hokay - let me 'splain:

Sigh.

1. Govt pays person X 2.00 in food stamps.
2. Person x spends money on food lives, provides adequate food to children. The converse of both costs money (ER bills, children of diminished intellect)
3. The grocery store gets $2. It pays a portion to employers, and to suppliers and to delivery companies. Each (ofcourse) is taxed. > .10.
4. At some point the money is deposited in a bank. Due to the reserve system banks create money. 2.00 becomes say $20s as result
5. That 20$ (having been loaned out) generates interest (goverment gets a cut) and funds companies/startups some of which generate a profit some of which is returned to the government in the form of taxes.
6. profit.


This is why leftists should never, ever comment on economic matters.

Broken window fallacy. Please look it up.
 
2012-07-09 08:39:47 PM  
Ambivalence:
Oh, and it wasn't a year. It was 6 months, top. First to wait for Franken to get officially sworn in, then the passing of Ted Kennedy. The democrats had 60 members in the senate for 6 months and at no time did Joe Lieberman or Max Baccus or that Nelson Farker let democrats get shiat done.

And Democrats woudln't even NEED a 60 vote supermajority if republicans' weren't obstructionist douch nozzles over anything more controversial than naming post offices.

Cripes... You make it sound like the more legislation these jackasses pump out, the better. In reality, we could spend a decade judiciously repealing legislation and retracting extra-legal regulations, and the country would be a better place. We have, I have heard, over a million laws in this country as it is; so many laws, in fact, that it is well-nigh impossible to avoid breaking at least one law every day. We need fewer, not more.

And, stop your candy-ass whining about "we only had a super majority for six months" crap. Republicans WILL have a Senate majority starting in 2013 -- deal with it. They may or may not have a super-majority. But, even if they DON'T, watch what they do... Especially, though, if they DO have a super-majority, watch what happens in the first six months. Compare with Obama's bullshiat.
 
2012-07-09 08:39:50 PM  

WombatControl: 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.

If you actually believe this, you are the economic equivalent of a flat Earther.


He didn't mention supply side economics anywhere in his post, so your flat-Earther comparison is invalid.
 
2012-07-09 08:39:59 PM  

Giltric: We were supposed to have unemployment below 6% by now due to the stimulus.....the dems farked that estimate...which makes every other estimate suspect.



That was before half the stimulus was tax cuts for the rich which depressed government spending because of a loss of revenue.
 
2012-07-09 08:40:05 PM  

GeneralJim: gilgigamesh: EnviroDude: foggy memories seem to forget that Obama had a super majority in the senate and a majority in the house for the first year of his term

If you repeat the lie enough times, it makes it true!
That DOES seem to be the leftist way to do things, yes. Apparently, however, you have not repeated this lie often enough... yet.

Wikipedia describes Obamacare's passage thus:
"On March 21, 2010, after Obama announced an executive order reinforcing the current law against spending federal funds for elective abortion services, the House, by a vote of 219 to 212, passed the version of the bill previously passed on December 24, 2009, by a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. The bill, which includes over 200 Republican amendments, was passed without a single Republican vote."

Your wildly misleading Democratic National Committee talking point borders on the retarded. Even a Web site calling it "The Democratic Super Marjority Myth" says: "On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority." That super-majority was uninterrupted from September 25, 2009, when Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Teddy Kennedy's seat. That's more than four months when the Republicans could do NOTHING to stop anything the Democrats wanted to do.

Sanders and Lieberman are a socialist, and "other," respectively, but caucus with the Democrats. Are you saying that the only guy in the Senate honest enough to call himself a socialist would vote with the Republicans? Uh, no. Lieberman, possibly, but I doubt it when it's "do or die" time. Face it, although it's a DNC talking point to deny it, Obama had a super-majority in the Senate, and a clear majority in the House, uninterrupted, for more than four months. What did he use it for? He gave Obamacare as a Christmas present to the insurance companies. Yippee.

An article written before the election in 2008, but containing remarkably prescient predictions


Yes because a 4 month super majority in the Senate means they could have done anything they wanted. Period.
You type like you know how government works, but the words you type pretty much say you don't.

If the Dems could have passed any little thing they wanted in those four months, you would already be enjoying the same heath care system that works so much more efficiently in the rest of the developed world. (Although there would be a ton of insurance industry workers still looking for work... but I digress)
 
2012-07-09 08:40:28 PM  

gblive: The "austerity" adopted by the U.S. federal government is too tiny to be significant or meaningful.


If I only piss away 118% of my paycheck instead of 132%, that's a big ass savings.
 
2012-07-09 08:40:42 PM  

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

www.tradingeconomics.com
 
2012-07-09 08:41:51 PM  

paygun: Letting someone keep more of their money through a tax cut doesn't have shiat to do with what they chose to do with it, it's their money.



No, it's not their money. It's the government's money for all the services you use. You want a free lunch don't you?
 
2012-07-09 08:42:45 PM  

intelligent comment below: You want a free lunch don't you?


I don't give a shiat what anyone says, it tastes better.
 
2012-07-09 08:44:30 PM  
DUH

Remember : AMERICA IS OUT OF MONEY.

"out of money" means two distinct things for distinct groups of people

If you're "rich" (i.e. you've demonstrated huge earning potential in the past, and have assets (like connections, permits, etc) that simply are outweighed by your liabilities, you go bankrupt, keep your home and car and other sheltered assets, settle with your lenders, then borrow FROM THE SAME LENDERS and then go on with your life.

If you are less than awesomely rich, then you lose EVERYTHING and are cast out by your friends and loved ones. and wind up digging through rubbish bins and eating rats.

So you can't say "AMERICA IS TEH AWESOME" and "AMERICA IS BROKE" at the same time.
 
2012-07-09 08:46:22 PM  

vegasj: doubtful.

but whatever they feel the need to say...



citation needed


paygun: I don't give a shiat what anyone says, it tastes better.


I agree. I love using services I never pay for, it's good to be super rich and hide my wealth offshore.
 
2012-07-09 08:46:53 PM  

GeneralJim: Ambivalence: Oh, and it wasn't a year. It was 6 months, top. First to wait for Franken to get officially sworn in, then the passing of Ted Kennedy. The democrats had 60 members in the senate for 6 months and at no time did Joe Lieberman or Max Baccus or that Nelson Farker let democrats get shiat done.

And Democrats woudln't even NEED a 60 vote supermajority if republicans' weren't obstructionist douch nozzles over anything more controversial than naming post offices.
Cripes... You make it sound like the more legislation these jackasses pump out, the better. In reality, we could spend a decade judiciously repealing legislation and retracting extra-legal regulations, and the country would be a better place. We have, I have heard, over a million laws in this country as it is; so many laws, in fact, that it is well-nigh impossible to avoid breaking at least one law every day. We need fewer, not more.

And, stop your candy-ass whining about "we only had a super majority for six months" crap. Republicans WILL have a Senate majority starting in 2013 -- deal with it. They may or may not have a super-majority. But, even if they DON'T, watch what they do... Especially, though, if they DO have a super-majority, watch what happens in the first six months. Compare with Obama's bullshiat.


They'll shut down the government and do everything in their power to hurt Obama, even if it means sending the country down in flames. And if, God forbid, Romney wins the election, the country will go down in flames anyway, because we'll just see more Bush-style tax-cutting, more bullshiat wars, more of the same style of deregulation that inflated the housing bubble...basically, all of the same Republican policies that have dragged America back for decades, and all but killed our middle class.

Republicans want to push America back all the way to the dark ages. Their dream for America is a theocratic, neo-feudalist state. Democrats aren't perfect, but at least they're SANE.
 
2012-07-09 08:47:23 PM  

Giltric: 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.

Can that chart be proven, or is that just another economic theory like the laffer curve?


It is pure modeling output, never corroborated with hard evidence. Harvard economists have even stated no study has ever been conducted to verify the multiplier effects with real data. Only models with built in assumptions.
 
2012-07-09 08:47:34 PM  

paygun: If I only piss away 118% of my paycheck instead of 132%, that's a big ass savings.


But as stated previously: If you are getting a paycheck , then you're in an entirely incomparable situation to the person PAYING your paycheck. Frequently, businesses (which is a better comparitor to the USGOV , although not perfect) BORROW money and spend more than they get for a period in order to maintain continuity over time and have assets on hand when the time for growth occurs.

THIS IS VERY COMMON.

Anyone with a business knows that doing it exclusively on the basis of having a large pool of cash that you own free and clear is almost unheard of. Most companies borrow.
 
2012-07-09 08:47:43 PM  
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-09 08:48:41 PM  

GeneralJim: Especially, though, if they DO have a super-majority, watch what happens in the first six months. Compare with Obama's bullshiat.



Defund planned parenthood, the EPA, PBS, abolish collective bargaining for unions, force tests before abortions, defense of marriage act, and all these other "job creating" bills?
 
2012-07-09 08:48:43 PM  
LordJiro:
Keep slashing (non-military) government spending, guys! Who needs infrastructure or a healthy populace or anything like that when we can have hyper-advanced toys to blow away terrorists armed with RPGs and AK-47s. Total arms race goin' on.

And if we cut taxes on the rich even more, well, it'll totally start trickling down any day now.

Well, take ALL the money "the rich" have -- it would run the bloated carcass of the federal government for just over two months. But then, who would you blame for your failures? Oh, the horror.
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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