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.

(Townhall)   Obama persists in his propaganda. Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs"   (townhall.com) divider line 383
    More: Obvious, Obama, unemployment benefits, economic liberalism, propaganda, scientific methods  
•       •       •

888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 06:15:35 PM

BojanglesPaladin: urbangirl: Here, you're wrong. $6 in unemployment is not better than a $10 job. But it is infinitely better than a $0 non-job, for both the economy as a whole and for the actual HUMAN BEINGS affected.

No shiat Sherlock. You obviously didn't notice, despite the many times I have articulated it, but I am not advocating for the end of all unemployment insurance.

urbangirl: And of course it would be better if Paul just got another job. But the government can't give Paul a job -- that's up to the private sector. It can, however, make sure Paul has at least some money coming in so that, in the meantime, HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.

Again, Perhaps you should read what I have posted. It seems like you skimmed looking for excerptables to argue against. Otherwise you would have noticed that not only did I NOT say the government can give him a job, I am specifically calling for government tax dollars to be used to incentivize private businesses to HIRE THESE PEOPLE SO HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.


If you want to incentive businesses to hire workers then you want to boost demand - period.

Tax breaks are useless because without additional demand to justify the extra labor cost no one is going to hire more workers. Those tax credits just are a giveaway to companies already hiring workers anyway. There's no point to put another person on the payroll if you don't already need them just for a tax credit less than their salary.

We DO NOT have a tax problem in our economy, we have a demand problem. The American worker has seen their wages and wealth slowly eviscerated by conservative class warfare for decades. Those workers are the consumers who keep our economy functioning. We need some policies to encourage payrolls to shift their costs towards the workers and away from the executive class for a while if we want to strengthen our economy.

Consumers with more money to spend = more demand. More demand = more economic activity and more jobs. We shouldn't cripple our economy just so a few plutocrats can get ever more obscenely wealthy while everyone else gets poorer and poorer.
 
2014-01-10 06:16:10 PM

jst3p: None of that explains why any business would hire someone they don't yet need for a tax break that saves them less than the employee costs them.


Which is a position that YOU posted.

YOU are the one who said:
jst3p: "Here Mr. Corporation, we are going to give you tax incentives to hire people you don't need (clearly you don't need them, if you had you would have hired them already). Hopefully the people we stopped giving money to will buy your products and then you will need that employee you hired!"

So I guess you leave me no choice...

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

That was a response to your dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What you said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it worth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway.

eventually you'll figure out that I'm not going top defend YOUR nonsense post, and that my post making fun of your post isn't a position statement.
 
2014-01-10 06:18:16 PM

Evil High Priest: This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.


Oh I agree entirely. we need to get those jobs going and one of the biggest impediments is economic uncertainty and the reluctance of banks to lend to SMBs (see HBR article). How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?
 
2014-01-10 06:20:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?


If demand exists and hiring leads to increase profit, then why would additional incentives be necessary?
 
2014-01-10 06:21:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.

Oh I agree entirely. we need to get those jobs going and one of the biggest impediments is economic uncertainty and the reluctance of banks to lend to SMBs (see HBR article). How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?


WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???!?
 
2014-01-10 06:21:36 PM

cousin-merle: Why would businesses hire when their customers have less money to spend?


Are you of the opinion that a fraction of 1% of the population and, what? .02 POTENTIAL spending in GDP is the critical difference between stagnation and economic recovery?

Surely we have a better plan than maintain the status quo.
 
2014-01-10 06:27:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: None of that explains why any business would hire someone they don't yet need for a tax break that saves them less than the employee costs them.

Which is a position that YOU posted.

YOU are the one who said:
jst3p: "Here Mr. Corporation, we are going to give you tax incentives to hire people you don't need (clearly you don't need them, if you had you would have hired them already). Hopefully the people we stopped giving money to will buy your products and then you will need that employee you hired!"

So I guess you leave me no choice...

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

That was a response to your dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What you said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it worth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway.

eventually you'll figure out that I'm not going top defend YOUR nonsense post, and that my post making fun of your post isn't a position statement.


It has been pointed out by more than just me that your "position" is long on abstract ideas but short on details. YOU provided the closest things to detail when you said, in response to my post:

 I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.

When it was pointed out to you by more than just me how incredibly flawed that is you started distancing yourself from it as fast as it could.

And my post wasn't a "dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying". It is a simplified but accurate restatement of what your "plan" is. To believe that ending extended unemployment benefits wouldn't have a negative impact on overall demand, thus have an impact on those "number of businesses on the cusp of having to hire someone"  shows a "coconut island" level of lack of understanding of very basic macroeconomics.

To believe that you can give tax breaks to get people to hire people they don't need when clearly the cost will be greater than the benefit is profoundly ignorant.

To think that these two things together will reduce unemployment... well.

It is why no one takes you seriously.
 
2014-01-10 06:29:44 PM

cousin-merle: If demand exists and hiring leads to increase profit, then why would additional incentives be necessary?


You know what? You have convinced me. You have ALL convinced me.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE HIRING. SINCE THE GOVERNEMNT CANNOT DO ANYTHING.

Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.
 
2014-01-10 06:32:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: You know what? You have convinced me. You have ALL convinced me.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE HIRING. SINCE THE GOVERNEMNT CANNOT DO ANYTHING.

Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.


What losing an argument looks like.
 
2014-01-10 06:34:03 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BojanglesPaladin: You know what? You have convinced me. You have ALL convinced me.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE HIRING. SINCE THE GOVERNEMNT CANNOT DO ANYTHING.

Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.

What losing an argument looks like.


It's what he does best.
 
2014-01-10 06:35:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.

Oh I agree entirely. we need to get those jobs going and one of the biggest impediments is economic uncertainty and the reluctance of banks to lend to SMBs (see HBR article). How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?


This is where you lost. Good try though! I'm sure there will be other threads where you can trot out your worn out rw talking points.
 
2014-01-10 06:36:41 PM

jst3p: It has been pointed out by more than just me that your "position" is long on abstract ideas but short on details.

YOU provided the closest things to detail when you said, in response to my post: [PREFACE DELIBERATELY REMOVED] I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.


nubian please. Do you think people can't see your snip?

What I ACTUALLY said:

BojanglesPaladin: Also YOUR example is dumb. Why would we REALLY care if employers are hiring people they don't "need"? I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.

I pointed out that your example was absurd and nonsensical as illustrated by the fact that business would not hire a $50K employee to save $5 as your moron mischaracterization would suggest.

That you are pulling this kind of elementary school nonsense pretty much identifies your intellectual level.

/ironically I at one point had you labeled as 'sometimes reasonable'. Dunno what has happened, but the level of your comments has taken a nosedive over the last 6 months or so.
 
2014-01-10 06:38:04 PM

Evil High Priest: This is where you lost.


Lost what? Are you the WINNAH?

Are you actually arguing AGAINST using tax dollars to incentivize job creation?
 
2014-01-10 06:39:18 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I pointed out that your example was absurd and nonsensical as illustrated by the fact that business would not hire a $50K employee to save $5


That isn't AT ALL what you did, but keep spinning.
 
2014-01-10 06:39:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.


We did speak up earlier, but we couldn't pass anything without the less effective tax cuts that Republicans demanded, and what we passed was too small.  Unemployment benefits get more bang for the buck.
 
2014-01-10 06:54:42 PM

jst3p: BojanglesPaladin: I pointed out that your example was absurd and nonsensical as illustrated by the fact that business would not hire a $50K employee to save $5

That isn't AT ALL what you did, but keep spinning.


I knew a man Bojangles and he'd dance for you in worn out shoes
Silver hair, ragged shirt and baggy pants, that old soft shoe
He'd jump so high, he'd jump so high, then he lightly touched down
Mr. Bojangles, Mr. Bojangles, dance.


--Bob Dylan  RAND PAUL
 
2014-01-10 06:59:15 PM
"Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong?"

Have you ever noticed that uneducated conservative morons espouse illogical-sounding theories with nary a fact nor study to back it up simply by convincing themselves and others that it is "common sense"?
 
2014-01-10 06:59:20 PM

iawai: menschenfresser: PsiChick: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.

I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.

Why do they always trot out this derp about Democrats taking other people's (or even their) money? Everyone paying taxes, regardless of political affiliation, can use this logic to "claim" the money as "theirs." And from what I've noticed, most of the loud republicans/conservatives are something along the lines of low-earning trailer people, low-earning rednecks/hillbillies and government/SSI-earning retirees. I'd be surprised if even 1% of registered Repubs are the actual rich the entire party exists to serve exclusively. It's our money too, derptards, and we have a right to try and see it spent on helping people as much as you have a right to make sure we waste it all on military equipment and corporate welfare.

First, I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. Nor did I say that only "I" or only "republicans" pay taxes.

Second, it is your money, then it's taken by the govt. When the GOP says "they're taking OUR money" it's not meant to say that they're not also taking YOUR money.

Third, once it's taken, you and I don't get to say what happens. It's no longer "the taxpayer's money." It's then the govt's money. And they'll do what they want with it.

If you read above, I'd support extending unemployment or a "everyone gets a govt job" plan or even a "here's your monthly check, citizen" plan if corporate welfare were ended to fund it. Throw in ending the drug war, the hot wars, privatize some national parks, bailouts, and domestic spying programs, and I'd support giving everyone $10k per month if the govt insists on playing any role in the economy.


I was going by the "and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans" part. However, based on what you've just said, I think we actually agree on some things. Regardless, I appreciate your feedback and respect your views no matter how similar or different they may be to mine. Thank you!
 
2014-01-10 07:01:13 PM

cousin-merle: We did speak up earlier, but we couldn't pass anything without the less effective tax cuts that Republicans demanded, and what we passed was too small. Unemployment benefits get more bang for the buck.


Let's try this. I provided a few reasons as to why small businesses that SHOULD be hiring are not. Among them was the absence of lending to SMBs. I gave referenced the HBR article a few times, but since no one seems inclined to even explore what I'm talking about (opting instead for the typical 'nuh-uh yer a poopy head and you are probably just saying poopy stuff' approach) let's give it one more go for an intelligent discussion, shall we?

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/why-small-businesses-are

"Despite the economic progress driven by business performance since the recession, the country has not recovered jobs at the same pace. Job growth, while improving, is slow by post-recession standards: The New York Times reported last year that percentage change in payroll, from business cycle trough to business cycle peak, averaged from all previous recessions, is 15%. For the current recovery it is 2%. By contrast, in an average recovery, corporate profits rise 38 percent from trough to peak. In this recovery, they have risen 45 percent. We have better than average profitability and much, much lower than average job growth."

The MONEY is out there. Paying unemployment benefits or not paying them isn't the problem. Businesses are reaping the rewards of the economic increases, but aren't turning that into jobs. Even more puzzling is that SMBs are already increasing revenue more than anyone, but are hiring less than anyone. And this is important: small businesses (those with 500 or less employees) amount to 99.7% of all businesses and employ 49.1% of private sector employment.

"In 2013 alone, micro business revenue on average grew by 2.14% while small business revenue grew by 1.18%. Yet medium business revenue stayed relatively flat, losing 0.2% overall. The large businesses on average in our data decreased revenue by 1.56%.
(Microbusinesses are defined as those earning less than $500,000 in annual revenue, small businesses earn less than $5 million, medium-sized businesses earn between $5 million and $100 million, and large businesses earn over $100 million.)

So what gives? Clearly these businesses are seeing more money (That's the DEMAND that the idiot brigade pretends isn't already there, or mistakenly seems to think is magically multiplied when it is unemployment benefits). So there is DEMAND. And increases in business. But they aren't hiring. And we NEED the SMBs to hire. "In the past 20 years, about two-thirds of all net new jobs were created by small businesses".

So what 's the problem? Well it's not ONE single problem, but here's an important one:

"We tend to equate job growth with business success but the reality is far more nuanced than that. Adding jobs is a capital investment, not a cash flow issue. In other words, crude as it may sound, additional employees are hired for future growth, similarly to the way business owners purchase computers, software, and other capital goods.

For large businesses, the cost of employment is relatively low, so this point becomes largely academic. As revenues and profits rise, the largest businesses simply dip into their capital reserves to hire more people and grow their businesses. But small businesses do not have reserves significant enough to support new employment growth. It is a far bigger investment for a small business to hire an additional employee than for a larger business to do so.
Today, access to capital for small businesses is a significant problem. The largest businesses are able to secure financing with relative ease and on strong terms, including historically low interest rates. But as business size gets smaller, access to capital shrinks dramatically. For example, a recent Pepperdine University study showed a large discrepancy in bank loan approval rates: 75% of medium-sized businesses that sought a bank loan were successful, compared with 34% of small businesses and only 19% of microbusinesses.
Without capital, small businesses are not in a position to increase employment. This explains why even though small businesses have increasing revenues and remain optimistic, they are still not adding jobs.

So.

When I say that we are better served by focusing the nations resources and tax dollars on incentivizing Small to Medium Businesses, it's because THAT is where the problem is. THAT is where we can have the most impact, and THAT is where we can most quickly and effectively get the most people back to work.

Thoughts?
 
2014-01-10 07:04:56 PM
And THAT is why I have repeated over and over that "any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas."
 
2014-01-10 07:15:25 PM
<crickets>

Not surprised. I'll check back later and see what it looks like once the kids have gone to bed. (mine and the posters on here)
 
2014-01-10 07:17:32 PM
This just makes it clear that Obama denies basic science.  If you continue to let people feed and house themselves, they remain unemployed longer.  If you simply cut off all UI (and also other entitlements like food stamps), they dehydrate/starve to death within a week or two.  You will see unemployment drop dramatically within a month, guaranteed.  It's science; study it out.
 
2014-01-10 07:22:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Without capital, small businesses are not in a position to increase employment.


That's an interesting article, though it seems to conflict with the WF/Gallup Small Business Index.

content.gallup.com

December 30, 2013

"Having enough money for capital investment" is 3rd, and Credit availability is last on the list.

"Attracting new customers" (demand) is number one, "The economy" (of which demand is a function) is number two, and "Financial stability/Cash flow" (demand) is number three. These are the same answers small businesses owners have given the past two years in other surveys (Gallup and otherwise).
Which is why I prefer putting money into the hands of consumers with a payroll tax exemption on initial income.
 
2014-01-10 07:23:05 PM

Egoy3k: BunkoSquad: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes. FACT.

RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs

Well abortion clinic staff, maternity nurses, OBGYNs, and pediatricians all need work too.


They're going to ban abortions, and without Medicaid none of those other people get paid.
 
2014-01-10 07:30:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: <crickets>

Not surprised. I'll check back later and see what it looks like once the kids have gone to bed. (mine and the posters on here)


You keep saying the same thing in slightly different ways even when people prove you wrong.  What is it you want, exactly, other than attention?
 
2014-01-10 08:19:49 PM
Say's Law. Parasites don't add to the economy.
 
2014-01-10 08:22:38 PM

vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".


There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.
 
2014-01-10 08:25:13 PM

hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.


We'll just ignore the fact that, for every dollar paid out in unemployment benefits, the taxpayer has one less dollar to spend. A zero-sum game is still a zero-sum game, even if you ignore half of the equation.
 
2014-01-10 08:26:26 PM

Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea

bullshiat.

FTFY
 
2014-01-10 08:30:07 PM

DrPainMD: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.



I'm glad to see we agree on something.  Those with truly large sums, do nothing for the economy, yet continue to consume.

No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered.Theodore Roosevelt
 
2014-01-10 08:34:27 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-10 08:40:00 PM

DrPainMD: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.


Really? You come into the thread THIS LATE with this bullsh*t? Ugh.
 
2014-01-10 08:40:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And THAT is why I have repeated over and over that "any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas."


Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't magically make it true.
 
2014-01-10 08:44:22 PM
All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.
 
2014-01-10 08:47:22 PM
DrPainMD:There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.

Hm. You do pose an interesting dilemma. Shall I favorite you as wing-nut or just not very smart?
 
2014-01-10 08:49:18 PM

bigsteve3OOO: All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.


Yes. We should be taking water out of the deep end to fill the shallow end!
/wait..
 
2014-01-10 08:55:19 PM

bigsteve3OOO: All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.


Of course, you have some evidence of this don't you?

/of course you don't.
 
2014-01-10 08:56:25 PM
It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"
 
2014-01-10 08:56:33 PM

bigsteve3OOO: All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.


www.arrl.org
 
2014-01-10 08:57:11 PM

DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY


I give you $100

You spend $20 on gas.
You spend $40 on groceries.
You spend $20 on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 on condoms.

Let's look at the return on investment:

With the extra gas, you can widen your scope in looking for a new job, and spend more time looking for a new job, thus increasing your odds of getting a job and getting off unemployment.
With the groceries you're able to feed your family for more than a week, giving the kids energy for schoolwork, your wife energy at her job, and maintain your health so nobody is malnourished.
Thanks to their new jackets, your kids won't be as cold, won't burn as many calories, and so the food they eat stays with them longer and together you can maybe afford to skip a meal to help stretch every penny.
Those flowers you got her on a whim put your wife "in the mood", and thanks to the condoms you can have sex without worrying about a pregnancy, which would compound your problems exponentially.

Not to mention the effect your money has on the local and chain businesses in your area.
 
2014-01-10 08:58:27 PM
Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore.  Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that.  So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.

I'm not very optimistic about the outcome.
 
2014-01-10 09:25:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"


SEEMS like this is how it could be:
Gubmint cain't save money by spendin' it!
Ya want folks workin', stop paying 'em fer not workin'!
 
2014-01-10 09:35:23 PM

Ablejack: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

SEEMS like this is how it could be:
Gubmint cain't save money by spendin' it!
Ya want folks workin', stop paying 'em fer not workin'!


"I just don't  believein [this scientifically proven fact]." That one gets me every time, no matter how many times I hear it. As if facts need for them to  believein them to be true. I'm telling you, their brains are... different.
 
2014-01-10 09:42:45 PM

menschenfresser: Ablejack: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

SEEMS like this is how it could be:
Gubmint cain't save money by spendin' it!
Ya want folks workin', stop paying 'em fer not workin'!

"I just don't  believein [this scientifically proven fact]." That one gets me every time, no matter how many times I hear it. As if facts need for them to  believein them to be true. I'm telling you, their brains are... different.


I should have responded directly to cameroncrazy1984 here rather than you, Ablejack my friend. Sorry for my oversight.
 
2014-01-10 10:02:23 PM

El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?


hookers and blow
 
2014-01-10 10:07:12 PM

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.

Really? You come into the thread THIS LATE with this bullsh*t? Ugh.


He's late because he had to got cash his welfare check.
 
2014-01-10 10:41:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"


Faith Based Economics
 
2014-01-10 10:44:12 PM
scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-01-10 10:50:02 PM

Yakk: $1 in aid return[s] $1.6 in tax revenue ....


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-01-10 10:52:00 PM

Phinn: Yakk: $1 in aid return[s] $1.6 in tax revenue ....

[www.quickmeme.com image 400x300]


Let's try that again:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report