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
 
2012-07-10 04:46:40 AM

relcec: /all you need to break out of a recession/depression is one quarter of actual growth.


And i'm sure that you know that job growth usually follows an economic upturn, they don't happen at the same time.

Also, are you saying that the Great Depression ended in 1933? That's a new one.
 
2012-07-10 04:53:14 AM
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.

I did not say that -- YOU did, dumbass.

Oh, and speaking of dumbass, it was NOT "America" that took 25 years to recover, it was the stock market. Dumbass. The stock market had a HUGE artificial bubble, caused by government action, just like the housing bubble in this one, caused by government action. And, of course, all of FDR's tax-n-waste make work DID delay recovery, just like Obama's "stimulus" has delayed recovery.
 
2012-07-10 04:56:43 AM

GeneralJim: I did not say that -- YOU did, dumbass.

Oh, and speaking of dumbass, it was NOT "America" that took 25 years to recover, it was the stock market. Dumbass. The stock market had a HUGE artificial bubble, caused by government action, just like the housing bubble in this one, caused by government action. And, of course, all of FDR's tax-n-waste make work DID delay recovery, just like Obama's "stimulus" has delayed recovery.



The New Deal should never have happened, amirite?
 
2012-07-10 05:08:20 AM

Magruda: relcec: /all you need to break out of a recession/depression is one quarter of actual growth.

And i'm sure that you know that job growth usually follows an economic upturn, they don't happen at the same time.

Also, are you saying that the Great Depression ended in 1933? That's a new one.


yes, that's what I'm saying.
technically it ended in the 4th quarter of 1933 iirc.
unemployment was still sky high, but depression/recessions are only demarcated according to gdp growth or lack their of, not unemployment rates of course.

2.bp.blogspot.com


http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/gdunemp l oyment.gif
 
2012-07-10 05:11:11 AM
it might make more sense if you had to at least get to back the gdp you started with. I don't know.
 
2012-07-10 05:15:23 AM

cman: I call bullshiat.

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


You're full of bullshiat. Maybe that's why you think you smell it.
 
2012-07-10 05:15:52 AM

relcec: it might make more sense if you had to at least get to back the gdp you started with. I don't know.


By that logic GDP and ressession/depression mean squat to the average Joe. What appears to have stimulated job growth according to you was the new deal.
 
2012-07-10 05:19:29 AM

GeneralJim: Derp Derp Derp


Well, I suppose it's certainly fortuitous to your argument the federal minimum wage isn't even a living wage for a single adult living alone.
 
2012-07-10 05:52:01 AM
IlGreven:
Basically, we know the driving factors behind the warming and cooling trends in the past. None of them are causing the current warming trend.

Well, we have a better idea of what the driving factors are. When all the Chicken Little climate projections were made, we did NOT know about the Sun's MAGNETIC activity being an amplifier of insolation. Measurements have shown that if the carbon dioxide level DOUBLES, the temperature WILL rise, but only by 0.50 K to 1.10 K, at 95% certainty. These are MEASUREMENTS, not the output of a model. And, this is also nothing to worry about. An extra Kelvin, and more carbon dioxide, will both be net positives.

It's the same with the "stimulus" crap. Models "prove" there will be X number of jobs created, but there are also approximately X number of jobs LOST due to the fact that close to 10% of the GDP was sucked out of the economy at one time. So, in NET, no jobs are created, and probably lost overall. And, again, reality (this time the employment numbers) fail to back up the models. Inaccurate models cause a buttload of problems when their output is used to set policy. And, whenever reality stubbornly refuses to follow the model, the response is, almost every time, do what didn't work AGAIN, only do it more this time.
 
2012-07-10 05:55:05 AM

gblive: intelligent comment below: gblive: Estonia and Latvia


That's funny you think those countries can be compared to any big economy like England or America.

When I engineer a little jet engine for a tiny RC plane or a huge jet engine for an large passenger plane - the successful design concepts remain the same, it is just a matter of scale.


Using that argument in economics fails though, for the same reason you can't take your successful marriage to one wife and seamlessly duplicate it a billion times over and marry every woman in Asia. Economics isn't a physical system, it's a social convention. Pretending that because you can count a single deck of cards you can't lose in the game of macroeconomics is stupid because there are millions of decks of cards, everyone's constantly changing the rules, and every so often someone invent entirely new cards.

Economists make simplified models because macroeconomics is farking hard. It's easier when you're talking about smaller economies, to the point where you're essentially talking about different rules entirely.
 
2012-07-10 05:58:19 AM
Mrtraveler01:
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!

Jesus. Did your mama have any children who lived?

No, the one that starts in March 2001 is ORANGE. Dumbass. The big fat RED one is Obama's. (Clue: It's the one on the bottom, and it only goes about 33 months. See, the other ones are in the past, and are over now.) Put your helmet back on, and have some pudding.


www.brookings.edu
 
2012-07-10 06:08:41 AM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: 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!
Jesus. Did your mama have any children who lived?

No, the one that starts in March 2001 is ORANGE. Dumbass. The big fat RED one is Obama's. (Clue: It's the one on the bottom, and it only goes about 33 months. See, the other ones are in the past, and are over now.) Put your helmet back on, and have some pudding.

[www.brookings.edu image 550x360]


Why isn't the red line included in the chart legend? Regardless, most of the job losses happened within the first few months of his Presidency, everyone knows that.
 
2012-07-10 06:12:20 AM

GeneralJim: IlGreven: Basically, we know the driving factors behind the warming and cooling trends in the past. None of them are causing the current warming trend.
Well, we have a better idea of what the driving factors are. When all the Chicken Little climate projections were made, we did NOT know about the Sun's MAGNETIC activity being an amplifier of insolation. Measurements have shown that if the carbon dioxide level DOUBLES, the temperature WILL rise, but only by 0.50 K to 1.10 K, at 95% certainty. These are MEASUREMENTS, not the output of a model. And, this is also nothing to worry about. An extra Kelvin, and more carbon dioxide, will both be net positives.

It's the same with the "stimulus" crap. Models "prove" there will be X number of jobs created, but there are also approximately X number of jobs LOST due to the fact that close to 10% of the GDP was sucked out of the economy at one time. So, in NET, no jobs are created, and probably lost overall. And, again, reality (this time the employment numbers) fail to back up the models. Inaccurate models cause a buttload of problems when their output is used to set policy. And, whenever reality stubbornly refuses to follow the model, the response is, almost every time, do what didn't work AGAIN, only do it more this time.


i0.kym-cdn.com

Lots of words, absolutely nothing to back them up. How many jobs were lost due to the stimulus, again? Please, bring some numbers to fill in the X. Months and months of consecutive job growth, yet we're losing jobs?
 
2012-07-10 06:26:06 AM
MORE LIBERAL LIES?????
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaH a HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa HaHaHaHa!!!!
And YOU believe them???????
 
2012-07-10 06:46:43 AM

NowhereMon: Whatever it takes right guys? Tank the economy, disenfranchise millions, the ends justify the means right? RIGHT?


This is precisely why I will not be supporting the GOP until the douchebags behind this are out of public office.
 
2012-07-10 06:49:12 AM

WorldCitizen: Party and power before country and civilization.


Bumper sticker.
 
2012-07-10 06:50:46 AM

paygun: James F. Campbell: paygun: The only thing I can come up with it that this manufactured drama imparts meaning to a pretty empty life.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

Is there any reason why you shouldn't feel that way too?


Because both sides aren't equally bad, as you mistakenly claim?

home.comcast.net
 
2012-07-10 07:32:22 AM

MikeMc: The GOP will do anything to try and regain power before America's changing demographics relegate them to permanent minority party status.


Except, you know, govern effectively. That would just be crazy.
 
2012-07-10 07:52:43 AM
intelligent comment below:
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

It's NOT a fact, you flaming ignoranus; maybe that's why he won't accept it. Below is a pie chart on who owns Apple stock. 84% of Apple is owned by mutual funds. Also note that INDIVIDUALS own only one per cent of Apple stock. I'm sure there are more individual investors in most stocks. The reason Apple has so few is that ONE share of Apple costs $613.89, and stock is normally sold in 100-share lots. That means that the smallest normal investment an individual can make in Apple is $61,389. And, here's where your class-envy numbers come into play: of the ONE PER CENT of Apple stock that is owned by individuals, I'm sure that almost all of it is owned by wealthy investors... almost by definition.

Mostly, though, (84%,) Apple is one stock in a mutual fund portfolio. And, who owns mutual funds? Well, everybody, sort of. Almost half of American households own some mutual funds. People don't like to take a big risk on one company, for the most part. A mutual fund buys LOTS of different stocks, and you buy the "basket" of them, and can invest only a little if you want.

Most pension funds are also unhappy to be buying individual stocks, so they end up buying only 3% of Apple. But, a large percentage of mutual funds are owned by pension funds. So, the figures don't tell you as much as they might... If a pension fund owns a LOT of a particular mutual fund, Apple may or may not be a part of it. I'm sure pension funds own LOTS more than 3% of Apple, but they own it indirectly, by owning mutual funds that have invested in Apple.

But you LOVE the class-envy crap, don't you? In my experience, most class-envy types are people without valuable skills of any kind, who know that the only way they'll ever have anything is to use the force of government to make those more talented than themselves (In your case, this would be almost all of humanity, and select representatives of other higher mammal species) give some of what they have earned to them. The poorer you are, the better divvying up the wealth evenly looks.

But, your acceptance of this hate speech has a price -- if you believe all the stilted stats you get, you won't understand dick about the real world. And then you find yourself outflanked on every hand by people who know much more than you do about, well, everything. It must be frustrating. And, the frustration feeds anger, which drives resentment of those who easily accomplish what you cannot, and it festers into a lump of sullen hate which bubbles up any time the idea of fairness, or wealth, or competence comes up.

This is bad for you, and causes long-term problems in most any area of your experience as an (alleged) human being. This is bad for you, but for me it's frickin' hilarious. Not only are you guaranteed to spout of some factually incorrect tripe about how the rich are standing on your neck -- you're too freaking dumb to notice that the rich are not standing on your neck, YOU are standing on your own crank as you lie on the ground. Besides the pain and lack of mobility this causes, there is also the leg cramp.

So you shoot off your mouth when you don't have a clue -- which is almost always. And, somehow, you appear to think that if you only stay at it long enough, you will "win" in your quest to defeat the evil rich. And, some of it's true... you can "win" if by "win" you mean that you keep getting humiliated and never leave. No doubt, you see that as perseverance. Most people see it as simple stubbornness. And stubbornness, while it occasionally works, is a trait quite common in barnyard animals, and not really a bragging point.

But, yes, even myself, as amused as I am by your antics, which are the closest things to chimpanzee frolicking one can see in text format, it does grow old, due to lack of intellectual content. A chimp leaping onto a tire swing is cool and exciting -- the first time. The attraction drops off quickly with repetition, however, and the fact that you constantly read something wrong and pounce on someone mistakenly becomes not enough to hold one's attention. In my case, I'll often go watch something on Netflix until the boredom with your antics passes.

/ That felt good... Loves me some late-night ramblin'


saxangle.com
 
2012-07-10 08:02:24 AM
Who cares, subby? You are falling into this trap of thinking that the purpose of the economy is to provide people with jobs, instead of that the purpose of jobs is to allow people to have nice things. Lowering unemployment for its own sake is not a proper goal. The goal should be per capita lifestyle improvement. If you're suggesting that we should waste a bunch of money hiring people to dig holes in the ground and fill them with dirt, then count me among the Republicans. Keynesianism is moronic. I would rather the government just pay people unemployment forever. At least that doesn't needlessly contribute to traffic congestion and waste extra money on shovels that aren't being used for anything that needs to be done. Just this year a bunch of ARIA employees held up traffic repaving a road on my way to work that didn't have a single pothole in it, and in fact was just repaved only three years ago.
 
2012-07-10 08:02:44 AM
General Jim seems angry
 
2012-07-10 08:02:50 AM
Vegetable Medley:
So where on your graph is the point Obama's policies were actually codified into law?

Meh, that's kind of the point... I can't see a difference anywhere, and a YEE-HAH stimulus measured in the TRILLIONS of dollars really ought to stand out -- know what I mean? But it doesn't. Maybe someone else can see it, but I do NOT see any ameliorating action there. I mean, I can see the 22 billion of the census temp jobs, but not the trillion stimulus? WTF?
 
2012-07-10 08:08:33 AM

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.


Depends - does the government use the 4.20 to buy a joint?

/because that might end OK
 
2012-07-10 08:09:59 AM
Thread tl;dr, so I'll just post this:

i51.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-10 08:14:27 AM

dickfreckle: paygun: I don't understand why so many people here think the Republicans are the boogey man. It's a dying party, with an ever dwindling number of true believers.

Well, I would argue that the reason they're "boogey men" is that they're doing their damndest to insult women, anyone who isn't a Christian, etc, all while they're circling the drain.

I no longer fear Republicans in the long run. They'll be dead in 20 years and hopefully replaced with a less Jesus-y and maybe actually conservative party of younger, more reasonable people I can at least respect while disagreeing with. But damn, have you looked at this last-gasp clawing for relevance? The animal is most dangerous when its backed in a corner. Remember how the GOP used to talk a ton of sh*t about God and abortion but never actually did anything once elected? Now they're on a mission to stay glued to voter's hearts with nearly draconian bills and over-the-top rhetoric. They know they're fading into the wrong side of history, but are fighting to bring everyone else down with the ship.


I doubt they'll be dead. At some point pragmatism will take over and they will have to readjust their positions. The party exists in a perpetual state of scraping against history, hanging onto as much support as they can, and grabbing elections right after a crisis of some kind. Just as they backed away from overt racism right when it was about to relegate them to minority party, they will come around on gay rights, and they will eventually morph into an economic stability party that gains lots of support among young people by promising not to push the country farther into debt spending on things that only affect old people. Look for this to happen within the next ten to fifteen years.
 
2012-07-10 08:28:30 AM
Mrtraveler01:
GeneralJim: You don't get evidence that something DIDN'T happen

Ok

GeneralJim: In similar fashion, you are an idiot if you believe that the stimulus packages had any significant positive effect, when no positive effect can be seen

Which is coincidentally something you can't prove. Because you just said you can't prove something that didn't happen.

Yep. I can't PROVE it had no effect. It is POSSIBLE that at the exact same time as a truly horrible rush into a new Great Depression happened, at that exact moment, the saving effects of the stimulus ALSO hit, and, miracle of miracles, the stimulus EXACTLY offset the new horrible rush to the Great Depression, leaving us stranded in the Great Recession as we were before either of them hit.

Yeah, that's possible. But it is also so incredibly unlikely that if you believe it, you're in danger. Email me with your credit card numbers, their expiration dates, the security codes on the back of them, and your SSAN, and I'll check to see if they have been compromised. (To everyone else: Worth a shot. I'm not dealing with a rocket surgeon here, after all.)

So, here's the deal. Since it cannot be proved that there was no effect from the stimulus, which is my contention, you would have to show WHERE the effect you claimed happened is. I mean, if I say no corpse was left in my yard last night, I can't PROVE it, because there's no evidence. So if you claim there WAS a corpse left in my yard... where is it? You are claiming there WAS an effect. Okay, show it to me. I can show you where $22 billion had an effect. Surely you can show me where a couple of near-trillion dollar lumps made an effect.
 
2012-07-10 08:30:08 AM
Came for YBS....but remembered it was Dkos and the local liberals wouldn't dare say a blog full of empty assertions from their side sucked.
 
2012-07-10 08:32:08 AM
Has anyone pointed out that many large corporations and business owners are sitting on piles of cash that they could use to hire new employees,not because they don't have the orders for work, but rather because they are nervous that Obama's presidency may have a destablizing effect on the marketplace(read Republicans revolt because they don't like having a Black man be successful in the Presidency.

That whole demographic are a bunch of Assholes. They need to be taught some kind of lesson, while the rest of America needs a break from their stupid shiat!
 
2012-07-10 08:32:52 AM

Ambivalence: 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. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation

You seem to be under the impression that democrats are just like republicans. This is not the case. When republicans have 60 caucus members they can be reasonably certain those 60 votes will all be available for important legislation.

When democrats have 60 caucus members, the 3 or 4 obnoxious tools realize that they can use that razor thin margain to hold the rest of the party hostage to their ridiculous demands.

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.

Idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it shows.


Yeah it's too bad that they weren't able to pass the stimulus bill or Obamacare due to all that opposition.
 
2012-07-10 08:36:33 AM
I think the real problem with Republicans is that they keep aligning themselves and remolding themselves to suit poorly chosen groups.

In recent history first it was the Southern Strategy and aligning themselves with racists and ended up losing most of the minority votes. Then they aligned themselves with the evangelical Christians and alienated people of other religious (or non-religious) groups and homosexuals. Then comes the neocons and they get all xenophobic. Now finally it's the ultra conservative conspiracy theory idiots... which pretty much destroys their chances of picking up moderates, progressives, or liberals.

They're starting to run out of people to make enemies out of... pretty soon they'll even start hating themselves.
 
2012-07-10 08:41:26 AM
unemployment would be a lot lower if companies were encouraged to part-time their workers instead of firing them...
 
2012-07-10 08:43:32 AM

EnviroDude: its the daily kooks. they never lie about republicans or the failures of the democrats.


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. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation


Breaking News: Local idiot EnviroDude forgets about the Blue Dog controversy. News at 11.
 
2012-07-10 08:43:38 AM

GeneralJim:
if I say no corpse was left in my yard last night, I can't PROVE it, because there's no evidence. So if you claim there WAS a corpse left in my yard... where is it?


I'm pretty sure the corpse was smuggled to Syria, and besides, there was a very bad man in your yard, and the world is better off without him. Plus women can now vote in your yard. The village budget no longer has a huge line item for police to patrol your yard, mission accomplished! There is a line on the budget titled, "Super Secret Village Security" and they can't talk about what it is because VILLAGE TERROR, but there is no proof that has anything to do with the private security guards patrolling your yard.
 
2012-07-10 08:47:37 AM

DrD'isInfotainment: Has anyone pointed out that many large corporations and business owners are sitting on piles of cash that they could use to hire new employees,not because they don't have the orders for work, but rather because they are nervous that Obama's presidency may have a destablizing effect on the marketplace(read Republicans revolt because they don't like having a Black man be successful in the Presidency.

That whole demographic are a bunch of Assholes. They need to be taught some kind of lesson, while the rest of America needs a break from their stupid shiat!


yeah i know right, Apple is such a neo-con dumbshiat corporation
 
2012-07-10 08:47:59 AM
This story and this thread might be the derpest of derp thread ever to be derped.
 
2012-07-10 08:49:51 AM

GeneralJim: I mean, if I say no corpse was left in my yard last night, I can't PROVE it, because there's no evidence. So if you claim there WAS a corpse left in my yard... where is it? You are claiming there WAS an effect.


I stopped someone from getting shot in the face once. Where's the evidence?

Do you need a bullet hole through the economy's forehead for your need of evidence to be satisfied?

Also, your graphs are useless. The only graphs that are even remotely useful are from 2007 on, and maybe the ones from the Great Depression. There's no playbook on how to handle a massive hole in this economy in the 21st century. Obama is doing the best that he can.

Is spending a problem? Yes. Is lack of tax revenue a problem? Yes. It's not one over the other, it's both, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner the GOP can stop being obstructionist dickbags and actually help the country.

/independent homeowner who is sick of the GOP and has no plans on voting for them in the immediate future.
 
2012-07-10 08:51:11 AM
Mrtraveler01:
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there's no doubt that the number is positive.


That seems like a visible effect. But I forgot that the CBO numbers are invalid unless it backs up a Conservative argument.

You're too stupid to pull off that snark thing. Save yourself the embarrassment.

"The number is positive." Well, thank God. I'd hate to think we spent a trillion or two to put people OUT of work. But 17 is a positive number; is that how many new jobs were created? The point of the bill was to put people to work, right? Whatever the number was, it did not have a significant enough of an effect to make the difference visible on the charts. "Not visible." That is, CANNOT BE SEEN. By way of contrast, hiring temps with part of $22 billion dollars DID leave a significant bump where unemployment dropped - temporarily.

Just hiring people worked to lower unemployment, and one can SEE it. Congress gave all their favorite pork projects a trillion and a half, or whatever the total was, and we CAN'T see the effects. How few jobs were created, and how many billions of dollars did each of them cost? How freaking bad at creating jobs IS Congress? $22 billion dollars had MUCH more effect than a trillion. You support this?

And, over time, that extra couple of trillion dollars of debt WILL suck wealth out of the economy, and WILL cost jobs in doing so. And BAD effects can't be ruined by Congressional incompetence and corruption, so the pain will be real, and quite visible, even if the alleged gains are not.
 
2012-07-10 08:53:06 AM
Yeah, but then they wouldn't win the election. Do you really want a blah guy in charge for another four years? If he gets a second term they'll have to obstruct him even more. Stop hitting yourself.
 
2012-07-10 08:58:09 AM
 
2012-07-10 09:00:24 AM

EnviroDude: its the daily kooks. they never lie about republicans or the failures of the democrats.


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. this invalidates every republican attempt to stop legislation


Except it doesn't. The Republicans had enough seats in the house to kill (threat of fillibuster) anything and everything and they did.

You did your job and repeated your dittohead talking points, but you are wrong.
 
2012-07-10 09:05:55 AM

GeneralJim: intelligent comment below: 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?
Well... that about sums it up. Usually, leftist jackasses (like you) usually are not honest... or stupid... enough to say that they think all the money belongs to the government.

So, I'm assuming that if I hold you up at gunpoint, and demand that you ask me a question about computers, which I answer, you won't have a problem with me taking all your money for "the services you used?"


From your profile:

I have noticed that quite a few of the people I identify as utter lunkheads, unwilling to do more than spout talking points and party viewpoint, all seem to have a couple of characteristics in common.

First, they all seem to think that they can read minds. They will tell you what you are thinking, and what you are planning, and what you are trying to do. And, what they think you are trying to do is grossly offensive. The horrid things they think are in my mind really aren't, and it makes me wonder how twisted must THEY be that such perfidy is what they think others are up to. Yikes.
 
2012-07-10 09:10:29 AM

rubi_con_man: millions of highly trained, devoted civil servants across the country lost their jobs.


That made me LOL. I always dreaded going to the DMV, but then they privatized it and got rid of all the turtles sitting behind the counter. Big improvement.

And there are always the devoted highly skilled cops who shoot people or tase 90 year old women....where is all the talk of highly trained civil servants in the cop bashing threads?
 
2012-07-10 09:13:31 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Every dollar paid out to investors is a dollar that does not go into payroll. It does not go into R&D. It does not train workers. It is not passed down to the consumer.


So buying a brand new G650 is not the same as say food stamps? The money that buys a G650 does not pay the people who put the g650 together, the people who sweep the hangar, the people who drive the truck to deliver the material to the assembly line and whatnot?
 
2012-07-10 09:14:53 AM
Mrtraveler01:
More "visible effects" for Jim:

No, Jackass, they are NOT visible. Obama can claim 50 million jobs were saved or created, but it doesn't matter. When you look at the unemployment charts, YOU DON'T SEE IT. There's no uptick in employment, no downtick in unemployment, just the same sad slide, with no change. So, if those figures are not simple lies or other misstatements, then OTHER jobs were LOST which balanced them out, more or less exactly.

You really don't get this, do you?
 
2012-07-10 09:17:37 AM

GeneralJim: When you look at the unemployment charts, YOU DON'T SEE IT. There's no uptick in employment, no downtick in unemployment, just the same sad slide, with no change.


BZZZT! Wrong!
 
2012-07-10 09:18:04 AM

cman: I call bullshiat.

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


Jobs added to the job market based on Federal spending is literally one variable.
 
2012-07-10 09:18:45 AM
djkutch:
The benefits were 40% of the stimulus were tax cuts. Show us how that has stimulated the economy.

I can't. None of it seems to have done ANYTHING visible in any area of study -- well, outside of a big jump in the national debt, of course. THAT shows up.
 
2012-07-10 09:23:50 AM

AdamK: DrD'isInfotainment: Has anyone pointed out that many large corporations and business owners are sitting on piles of cash that they could use to hire new employees,not because they don't have the orders for work, but rather because they are nervous that Obama's presidency may have a destablizing effect on the marketplace(read Republicans revolt because they don't like having a Black man be successful in the Presidency.

That whole demographic are a bunch of Assholes. They need to be taught some kind of lesson, while the rest of America needs a break from their stupid shiat!

yeah i know right, Apple is such a neo-con dumbshiat corporation


http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-07-20-compa n ies-with-the-most-cash_n.htm
 
2012-07-10 09:26:26 AM
Mrtraveler01:
GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: How does this prove that the economy would've recovered faster without the stimulus?

Man you guys are slow tonight!

Well, to be fair, you DID move the goalposts a VERY long way in a single sentence.

Well, let's try this: Zero unemployment for 18 months by using the same money to hire every single unemployed person. Show where the "stimulus" did better than that. Dumbass.


This was my original post. How is this moving the goal posts?

Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: Seriously? How about the fact that the "stimulus packages" already passed did NOTHING

Got any statistics to back it up?

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

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?

How is this moving the goalposts? Really? No, sorry, I simply CANNOT believe you are that farking stupid.

I start with "the 'stimulus packages' already passed did NOTHING"

Then YOU want me to prove "that the economy would've recovered faster without the stimulus?"

That's moving the goalpost, dumbass.
 
2012-07-10 09:29:20 AM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: More "visible effects" for Jim:
No, Jackass, they are NOT visible. Obama can claim 50 million jobs were saved or created, but it doesn't matter. When you look at the unemployment charts, YOU DON'T SEE IT. There's no uptick in employment, no downtick in unemployment, just the same sad slide, with no change. So, if those figures are not simple lies or other misstatements, then OTHER jobs were LOST which balanced them out, more or less exactly.

You really don't get this, do you?


After the economic collapse, Canada invested $100B in spending to spur the economy. No one made a bid deal about it. Canada has a mild recession compared to the US and is only 1/10th the size of the US. They US by comparison had a much deeper recession and only invested about $300B in to spending (the rest was tax cuts). Instead of investing $2T in pure infrastructure spending in 2009, you guys ignored the problem and have prolonged the recession and delayed your ability to balance the budget. Do you think Obama could have pushed $2T through in pure infrastructure spending? Because that was what you needed.

/Canada should have a balanced budget by 2016 BTW.
 
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 »






Report