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.

(Huffington Post)   Next time the GOP complains about the "slowest economic recovery ever" remind them that it was their needless austerity measures that cost us $351 billion in lost economic activity   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 733
    More: Obvious, Republican Congress, Center for American Progress  
•       •       •

1611 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2014 at 8:24 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-17 02:49:50 AM  
The GOP is so obsessed with cutting the size of government that they even forced it during the absolute worst time you could cut government spending.
 
2014-07-17 03:03:54 AM  
Government spending doesn't count (in the economy).

That's why they were just fine shipping pallets of cash to Iraq to get thrown down a hole.  Because that money totally didn't count.
 
2014-07-17 03:28:33 AM  
Because borrowing prosperity is such a wise thing to do.
 
2014-07-17 03:32:54 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: The GOP is so obsessed with cutting the size of government that they even forced it during the absolute worst time you could cut government spending.


Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.
 
2014-07-17 04:30:10 AM  

DrPainMD: not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.


No.
 
2014-07-17 04:48:09 AM  

DrPainMD: shower_in_my_socks: The GOP is so obsessed with cutting the size of government that they even forced it during the absolute worst time you could cut government spending.

Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.


Hello, person from an alternate reality. Could they see Japan during the 1990's from your planet? Or are two decades of stagnation considered a wonderful way to recover from a recession by your people? Roosevelt spent us most of the way out of the Great Depression, and government spending on WWII did the rest of the job. Reagan exploded the defense budget to get us out of a recession in the early 80's; when the dotcom bubble burst, Dubya sneaked in increased government spending by invading two countries and leaving the costs off the books for the next guy to deal with; Kennedy ended a recession in 1961 with stimulus spending; and the recession in 1945 was literally caused by a reduction in government spending due to the war ending.

I could go on, but thanks for laugh.
 
2014-07-17 07:12:55 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: The GOP is so obsessed with cutting the size of government that they even forced it during the absolute worst time you could cut government spending.


The GOP doesn't care about cutting the size of government. They just want to make the president look bad. The Tea Party saboteurs who registered Republican might be different; it's difficult to speculate on the motives of semi-literate, marble mouthed hicks who stumbled out of the hills at night. Maybe they're just confused by the bright lights of modern America, and are angrily thrashing about. It's a bad time for such a temper, but anyone who's ever dealt with small children and dogs can tell you a bad time is the exact time non-sentient creatures will act up.
 
2014-07-17 07:21:04 AM  

DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.


I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom
 
2014-07-17 07:27:06 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: DrPainMD: shower_in_my_socks: The GOP is so obsessed with cutting the size of government that they even forced it during the absolute worst time you could cut government spending.

Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

Hello, person from an alternate reality. Could they see Japan during the 1990's from your planet? Or are two decades of stagnation considered a wonderful way to recover from a recession by your people? Roosevelt spent us most of the way out of the Great Depression, and government spending on WWII did the rest of the job. Reagan exploded the defense budget to get us out of a recession in the early 80's; when the dotcom bubble burst, Dubya sneaked in increased government spending by invading two countries and leaving the costs off the books for the next guy to deal with; Kennedy ended a recession in 1961 with stimulus spending; and the recession in 1945 was literally caused by a reduction in government spending due to the war ending.

I could go on, but thanks for laugh.


Japan's been spending its butt off for over 20 years and they're worse off now than when they started. And it's the fact that the US had the highest savings rate in its history that ended the Great Depression; had WW2 gone on much longer we would have spent ourselves into third-world poverty. The post-WW2 recession was nothing more than the economy normalizing after the WW2-induced industrial spending bubble. Our current economic mess was caused in part by all those "recession-ending" spending programs that you mention above (which piled up debt that has yet to be paid down). You can't keep a bubble inflated for ever; all you can do is kick the inevitable crash down the road, and make it worse when it does hit.

I would laugh, but millions of people as ignorant as you vote.
 
2014-07-17 07:36:27 AM  

somedude210: DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom


We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt (personal and business debt plummeted during the GD, and personal and business savings skyrocketed). Eisenhower eliminated the deficit... IOW, every penny of federal spending under Eisenhower was accompanied by a penny of decreased spending by the taxpayers (spending-neutral in the aggregate). The Great Depression, like today's mess, is nothing more than the economy correcting itself after a bubble... of course attempting to prop up the bubble didn't work and the bubble immediate resumed deflating when Congress cut FDR's spending. This really isn't that complicated.
 
2014-07-17 07:56:19 AM  

DrPainMD: We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending;


nope, actually we did. FDR's programs put a lot of Americans back to work and WW2 pushed us the rest of the way by creating a massive war-time industry.
 
2014-07-17 08:12:35 AM  

DrPainMD: We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt


in fact that was the entire premise of The New Deal.

*eyeroll*
 
2014-07-17 08:15:05 AM  
I'm not sure this guy's really a doctor, y'all...
 
2014-07-17 08:17:13 AM  

DrPainMD: We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending;


Do you understand anything of what actually went on during the Great Depression and the policies we put in place to get us out of it?
 
2014-07-17 08:20:42 AM  
Why don't we cut taxes for the rich just to be safe?
 
2014-07-17 08:26:19 AM  
Like that kind of logic matters to them.

"Obama is trying to shut down Gitmo and bring terrorists with superpowers into the United States where they will kill all old people and rape all of our grandchildren! We must stop him at all costs!"

[one year later]

"Hey, remember when Obama said he'd close Gitmo? He's a farking lying sack of shiat, aint he."
 
2014-07-17 08:27:14 AM  
Their austerity plans were hardly needless.  They served, if not an intentional then at least a happily accidental, function of ensuring that Republicans could biatch at Obama about the economy for six years.

i463.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-17 08:29:47 AM  

somedude210: DrPainMD: We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending;

nope, actually we did. FDR's programs put a lot of Americans back to work and WW2 pushed us the rest of the way by creating a massive war-time industry.


Americans' standard of living fell continuously during WW2, because those jobs (and the bulk of the New Deal jobs) weren't creating goods and services to be consumed by the public (which is what the economy is... consumed goods and services). There's not a speck of evidence to back your claim.
 
2014-07-17 08:30:15 AM  

DrPainMD: somedude210: DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom

We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt (personal and business debt plummeted during the GD, and personal and business savings skyrocketed). Eisenhower eliminated the deficit... IOW, every penny of federal spending under Eisenhower was accompanied by a penny of decreased spending by the taxpayers (spending-neutral in the aggregate). The Great Depression, like today's mess, is nothing more than the economy correcting itself after a bubble... of course attempting to prop up the bubble didn't work and the bubble immediate resumed deflating when Congress cut FDR's spending. This really isn't that complicated.


I really hope you're a troll, but I don't think you are-

Here's the thing, society benefits from money changing hands. when you cut spending, money doesn't change hands, it just sits where it is. Social programs cycle money through the machine that's known as civilization, and by that process happening, many people benefit.
 
2014-07-17 08:30:40 AM  
Karac:

[i463.photobucket.com image 750x528]

Never seen that before. Wow that is awesome
 
2014-07-17 08:31:53 AM  

somedude210: DrPainMD: We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending;

Do you understand anything of what actually went on during the Great Depression and the policies we put in place to get us out of it?


Yes. I've studied it extensively. The policies were contradictory, wasteful, and designed only to get votes. Massive spending (and jobs) just before elections, with massive layoffs after.
 
2014-07-17 08:33:07 AM  
Stop feeding the troll, people.
 
2014-07-17 08:35:29 AM  

DrPainMD: somedude210: DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom

We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt (personal and business debt plummeted during the GD, and personal and business savings skyrocketed). Eisenhower eliminated the deficit... IOW, every penny of federal spending under Eisenhower was accompanied by a penny of decreased spending by the taxpayers (spending-neutral in the aggregate). The Great Depression, like today's mess, is nothing more than the economy correcting itself after a bubble... of course attempting to prop up the bubble didn't work and the bubble immediate resumed deflating when Congress cut FDR's spending. This really isn't that complicated.


You're a freakin Moran! GOP Op?
 
2014-07-17 08:35:40 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: The GOP doesn't care about cutting the size of government. They just want to make the president look bad. The Tea Party saboteurs who registered Republican might be different; it's difficult to speculate on the motives of semi-literate, marble mouthed hicks who stumbled out of the hills at night. Maybe they're just confused by the bright lights of modern America, and are angrily thrashing about. It's a bad time for such a temper, but anyone who's ever dealt with small children and dogs can tell you a bad time is the exact time non-sentient creatures will act up.


I kind of want to hug this post.
 
2014-07-17 08:36:46 AM  
Considering CAP is super left-wing lib/proggy, I'm not surprised. Although they love to describe themselves as non-partisan. Funny, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
 
2014-07-17 08:36:48 AM  
Her Him

crooksandliars.com
 
2014-07-17 08:37:26 AM  

Benjamin_Ghazi: DrPainMD: somedude210: DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom

We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt (personal and business debt plummeted during the GD, and personal and business savings skyrocketed). Eisenhower eliminated the deficit... IOW, every penny of federal spending under Eisenhower was accompanied by a penny of decreased spending by the taxpayers (spending-neutral in the aggregate). The Great Depression, like today's mess, is nothing more than the economy correcting itself after a bubble... of course attempting to prop up the bubble didn't work and the bubble immediate resumed deflating when Congress cut FDR's spending. This really isn't that complicated.

I really hope you're a troll, but I don't think you are-

Here's the thing, society benefits from money changing hands. when you cut spending, money doesn't change hands, it just sits where it is. Social programs cycle money through the machine that's known as civilization, and by that process happening, many people benefit.


The economy benefits from GOODS AND SERVICES changing hands. Shuffling money around by itself (i.e., paying a group of people to spread trash in a field, then paying another group to pick it up, as was done in the GD) is a negative sum game, as you have to tax somebody who will then buy fewer things that DO have value in order to pay for something that has NO value. Make-work jobs are a huge part of why the GD was the longest depression in our history. A couple of years ago a poll of NABE (National Association of Business Economics) showed that less than half of its members were of the opinion that the New Deal got us out of the GD, and that number is dropping still.
 
2014-07-17 08:37:47 AM  
Cost 'us'? That's adorable.

i60.tinypic.com
 
2014-07-17 08:37:54 AM  

SilentStrider: Stop feeding the troll, people.


Sigh.  Good luck with that.
 
2014-07-17 08:38:17 AM  

DrD'isInfotainment: DrPainMD: somedude210: DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom

We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt (personal and business debt plummeted during the GD, and personal and business savings skyrocketed). Eisenhower eliminated the deficit... IOW, every penny of federal spending under Eisenhower was accompanied by a penny of decreased spending by the taxpayers (spending-neutral in the aggregate). The Great Depression, like today's mess, is nothing more than the economy correcting itself after a bubble... of course attempting to prop up the bubble didn't work and the bubble immediate resumed deflating when Congress cut FDR's spending. This really isn't that complicated.

You're a freakin Moran! GOP Op?


Then refute what I've said. Or is "freakin Moran" all you have?
 
2014-07-17 08:38:41 AM  
Yeah, I'm sure for the 'smarter' ones, that was the goal.
 
2014-07-17 08:40:57 AM  
Some people just don't get the concept of a "fiat currency" and how you actually create wealth through economic activity. So if invested in the right places such as infrastructure, education, and other things which encourage economic growth; a nation can actually "spend itself into prosperity". They still see a finite money supply as if it were based on gold holdings in Fort Knox, and printing more devalues it no matter what the nation's economic output is. The austerity measures actually slowly devalue the cash already held by individuals due to them slowing economic growth. By promoting them, people are actually impeding their own financial recovery.
 
2014-07-17 08:41:30 AM  

DrPainMD: Then refute what I've said.


you've said nothing of substance, why do you expect a substantial refutation?
 
2014-07-17 08:42:53 AM  
  By austerity measure I assume you mean ours caused by the rampant counterfeiting that has sucked all of the wealth out of the capital capitalism needs to function.  They wouldn't know austerity if it bit them on the ass.
 
2014-07-17 08:42:53 AM  
The broad spending cuts that were the fruits of the Republican Congress' budget obsession of the past few years have already cost the U.S. economy $351 billion in lost economic activity, according to a new study by the Center for American Progress.

Likewise, I have a new study by three alcoholics that show a fifth of bourbon a day is good for you.
 
2014-07-17 08:43:17 AM  
Why would you talk to a republican about the economy?
 
2014-07-17 08:44:35 AM  
If the government borrowed a trillion dollars right now and employed every unemployed person to build a gigantic statue of Barack Obama, would our economy be better off?

If the government borrowed a trillion dollars right now and employed every unemployed person to upgrade our infrastructure and educate our children, would our economy be better off?

Why do we look at things in absolute numbers when we should look at what we're spending money on.  If the GOP cut a statue of Barack Obama to save money, they should be lauded.  If the GOP cut money from education budgets, they should be vilified.  Just saying they cut money doesn't mean anything.
 
2014-07-17 08:45:10 AM  

StokeyBob: By austerity measure I assume you mean ours caused by the rampant counterfeiting that has sucked all of the wealth out of the capital capitalism needs to function.  They wouldn't know austerity if it bit them on the ass.


What did I just read?
 
2014-07-17 08:45:26 AM  

heavymetal: Some people just don't get the concept of a "fiat currency" and how you actually create wealth through economic activity. So if invested in the right places such as infrastructure, education, and other things which encourage economic growth; a nation can actually "spend itself into prosperity". They still see a finite money supply as if it were based on gold holdings in Fort Knox, and printing more devalues it no matter what the nation's economic output is. The austerity measures actually slowly devalue the cash already held by individuals due to them slowing economic growth. By promoting them, people are actually impeding their own financial recovery.


And if that money is spent in the wrong places, like the military or on unproductive senior citizens - what happens?
 
2014-07-17 08:45:36 AM  

DrPainMD: DrD'isInfotainment: DrPainMD: somedude210: DrPainMD: Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that we got out of the worst economic depression in our history by spending a farkton of money. Then Congress tried to cut back on FDR's spending and, you know what happened? The economy started to tank. Eisenhower did a great deal of domestic spending to put us in a boom

We most certainly did not get out of the Great Depression by spending; we did it by saving money and paying down debt (personal and business debt plummeted during the GD, and personal and business savings skyrocketed). Eisenhower eliminated the deficit... IOW, every penny of federal spending under Eisenhower was accompanied by a penny of decreased spending by the taxpayers (spending-neutral in the aggregate). The Great Depression, like today's mess, is nothing more than the economy correcting itself after a bubble... of course attempting to prop up the bubble didn't work and the bubble immediate resumed deflating when Congress cut FDR's spending. This really isn't that complicated.

You're a freakin Moran! GOP Op?

Then refute what I've said. Or is "freakin Moran" all you have?



Yeah, freakin Moran is all I need in your case. Most of your assertions are dead wrong. I don't have to refute them, you have...simply by stating your own "facts" which are laughable.
 
2014-07-17 08:46:02 AM  

DrPainMD: shower_in_my_socks: The GOP is so obsessed with cutting the size of government that they even forced it during the absolute worst time you could cut government spending.

Dwight Eisenhower, Calvin Coolidge, and pretty much every president before Coolidge, not to mention the entire economic history of the human race, disagrees.


You don't know much about Presidential history, do you?  Or the Economic history of the US.  Or... anything.  Could you maybe point out some amount of basic proof for your assertion?  Or are you just going to place the burden of proof on anyone that disagrees with your idiotic statement?
 
2014-07-17 08:46:14 AM  

DrPainMD: Shuffling money around by itself (i.e., paying a group of people to spread trash in a field, then paying another group to pick it up, as was done in the GD) is a negative sum game, as you have to tax somebody who will then buy fewer things that DO have value in order to pay for something that has NO value


No that this is what happened (bridges, roads, etc aren't just littering then picking up) but if the money those poeple made went directly into goods and services (normally happens when poor people make money) and most of the money came from rich peopel, yes it does help the economy.
 
2014-07-17 08:46:48 AM  

DrD'isInfotainment: Yeah, freakin Moran is all I need in your case. Most of your assertions are dead wrong. I don't have to refute them, you have...simply by stating your own "facts" which are laughable.


I always love this tactic - your arguments are completely wrong and it would trivial to show you how they're wrong, but nahhhhh.
 
2014-07-17 08:47:06 AM  

DrPainMD: Because borrowing prosperity is such a wise thing to do.


You ever take out a mortgage or a car loan?
 
2014-07-17 08:47:42 AM  

DrPainMD: Yes. I've studied it extensively. The policies were contradictory, wasteful, and designed only to get votes. Massive spending (and jobs) just before elections, with massive layoffs after.


citation needed.

DrPainMD: Americans' standard of living fell continuously during WW2, because those jobs (and the bulk of the New Deal jobs) weren't creating goods and services to be consumed by the public (which is what the economy is... consumed goods and services).


except for the fact that our various industries ramped up production tenfold to meet the demands of our wartime economy, sure, no evidence whatsoever.

DrPainMD: There's not a speck of evidence to back your claim.


says the man providing no evidence of anything he's claiming.
 
2014-07-17 08:47:44 AM  

MattStafford: DrD'isInfotainment: Yeah, freakin Moran is all I need in your case. Most of your assertions are dead wrong. I don't have to refute them, you have...simply by stating your own "facts" which are laughable.

I always love this tactic - your arguments are completely wrong and it would trivial to show you how they're wrong, but nahhhhh.


We've tried, man. We've tried. At this point we just make fun of you because it's just sad.
 
2014-07-17 08:47:46 AM  
The economic trolls are arriving.
 
2014-07-17 08:48:41 AM  

Lsherm: The broad spending cuts that were the fruits of the Republican Congress' budget obsession of the past few years have already cost the U.S. economy $351 billion in lost economic activity, according to a new study by the Center for American Progress.

Likewise, I have a new study by three alcoholics that show a fifth of bourbon a day is good for you.


Can't refute the study, eh?
 
2014-07-17 08:48:50 AM  

MattStafford: If the government borrowed a trillion dollars right now and employed every unemployed person to build a gigantic statue of Barack Obama, would our economy be better off?

If the government borrowed a trillion dollars right now and employed every unemployed person to upgrade our infrastructure and educate our children, would our economy be better off?

Why do we look at things in absolute numbers when we should look at what we're spending money on.  If the GOP cut a statue of Barack Obama to save money, they should be lauded.  If the GOP cut money from education budgets, they should be vilified.  Just saying they cut money doesn't mean anything.


Are you serious? This is a bit much, even for you.
 
2014-07-17 08:49:16 AM  

Alphax: The economic trolls are arriving.


The good news is, I know I'm having something with coconut for lunch.
 
Displayed 50 of 733 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report