Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'll give you a hint: You are dead wrong on every issue. DOes the term "stagflation" mean anything to you? There was more money through the economy (M1 rose) but no wealth was created.
Money is not intangible. Real and personal property are not finite (how many CAT scan machines existed in 1900?).
You're really batting 1000 here.
OK, I won't take that personally, because you're probably just having trouble coming to terms with how much of an idiot you are. But if you read carefully, I haven't even issued an opinion on the issue. I've just laid out some basic elements of what's taken place, and tried to extrapolate how much understanding there is in this thread about what economic expansion actually is. You "Defined" economic expansion as follows:
Economic expansion means that companies are hiring, that consumer spending and business investment are increasing, and that demand is rising.
That doesn't indicate you have much of an understanding at all. You know what tends to happen when an economy is expanding, but you don't understand how an economy gets to that point; That is, what's actually taking place that allows those indicators to happen. It's ok, I'm not anti-idiot, but being an idiot there's a place far more suited to people of your education level.
Sean Hannity Discussion
Try it out, you'll find plenty of people on your own level who also have a 5th grade understanding of global issues, but will think you're just brilliant for blaming every thing that ails everyone on Democrats.
Ya know, people who are accomplished and knwo what they're talking about can talk down to other people.
You aren't one of them. You have no, zero, idea what you are talking about. You don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, wouldn't know it if it bit you.
Sorry, dude. You are just too fucking stupid and ill informed to even debate. It just isn't worthwhile because you dont know what you dont know.
Deciding not to take me to task is probably the smartest move you could make here. Package it as "Not worth the time" or whatever helps you save face, but once again consider yourself my chattel property. God making you look dumb never gets old!
Miester want to contest fagnola for dumbass of the day.
Fact dem presidents = .5% better annual return on the DOW
Now for you poor trailer trash republiklans pumping the tea party kool aid that might not sound like much. Personally I'll take it.
Translation: I'm Mister Disengenuous Dumbfuck, I have nothing and I can't be honest.
Meister agains zippo on disputing the facts. Please tell me you invested in the broad market during 01-08 I need a good laugh.
Topspin, I made enough money under Clinton and Bush's market to be able to retire at 57. Maybe you should STFU, when you don't have a clue what your talking about. Both Bush and Obama inherited a recession, Bush had to deal with what 9-11 did to the markets. Please get an education.
got an acctg degree and an MBA
And I made lots under Bush I and Clinton and my old stocks were the only ones that did well under Junior. You might not mind that the market was down 22% under Bush, most others do. Like I said, don't mind the facts. I know exactly what I'm talking about. you think the house of cards economy Bush propped up was good then you got lucky making money.
Once again, sonny..... where was the market in 2007 when the dems took control of the Senate, and Congress? If you refuse to answer that, please don't bother responding to my posts because you are who I said you are....a disengenuous fuck.
Well if we're only discussing the court of public opinion, we have no argument to be had. I know Obama is being blamed by plenty. The only question is, why is he being blamed, and does he in fact really deserve all the blame he gets. I could tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty that no matter who got elected, 1. There would have been a massive 'stimulus' (or similar program, perhaps packaged differently), and 2. The economic situation would only be marginally different. Perhaps a little better, perhaps a little worse. That goes for any candidate running, including both primaries, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. I think he would've had the "hands off" approach and we'd be slipping into the 3rd world now.
PS. Love the sig line!
The problem with what was called the Stimulus was both that it did not stimulate and was incapable of stimulating because it was not intended to stimulate anything except Democarat party loyalty. A trillion dollar pep rally. Rah!
A stimulus stimulates spending. One dollar of stimulus should stimuate 4 or 5 dollars of spending. This "Stimulus" actually reduced spending by indidviduals and by corporations.
When you start of bad, it's hard to say that any particular point in the ongoing failure is the point of absolute failure. However, success is a pretty easy read. How do you read the situation right now?
Even if the multiplier worked, it gets eaten up in the bureaucracy it takes to enforce the tax laws and to pay all those nice AFSCME lackey administrators.This is mainly because the "Keynesian multiplier" is a myth. Government cannot spend money. It can only re-allocate money from one party to another, typically from the more productive to the less productive. How will that stimulate anything?
got an acctg degree and an MBA
And I made lots under Bush I and Clinton and my old stocks were the only ones that did well under Junior. You might not mind that the market was down 22% under Bush, most others do. Like I said, don't mind the facts. I know exactly what I'm talking about. you think the house of cards economy Bush propped up was good then you got lucky making money.
Once again, sonny..... where was the market in 2007 when the dems took control of the Senate, and Congress? If you refuse to answer that, please don't bother responding to my posts because you are who I said you are....a disengenuous fuck.
Are you saying the market tanked? Here's the Google roundup for 2007 as posted by various financial pages, and while there might have been fluctuations, there was nothing very dramatic.
Once again, sonny..... where was the market in 2007 when the dems took control of the Senate, and Congress? If you refuse to answer that, please don't bother responding to my posts because you are who I said you are....a disengenuous fuck.
Are you saying the market tanked? Here's the Google roundup for 2007 as posted by various financial pages, and while there might have been fluctuations, there was nothing very dramatic.
Maggie......the dems took over in January of 2007, by Oct 2007 the market peaked and was on the down turn......'nuff said
Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
Are you saying the market tanked? Here's the Google roundup for 2007 as posted by various financial pages, and while there might have been fluctuations, there was nothing very dramatic.
Maggie......the dems took over in January of 2007, by Oct 2007 the market peaked and was on the down turn......'nuff said
Dow Jones Industrial Average (2000 - Present Daily) - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com
So? The market goes up and down all the time. It recovered quickly that time as the linked articles tell you. It can fluctuate dramatically within minutes, too, as traders can be responsible for misreading an indicator and start madly flicking to buy or sell.
How does the economy tell where the money came from to know wether to be stimulated or not?
How does the economy tell where the money came from to know wether to be stimulated or not?
That's easy. If the Trillion had been spent as a tax credits for reimbursing any expenditure allocated to improving one's residence, be it a rental or an owned dwelling, there would have been a multiplier.
Let's say that the tax credit was 25 cents on the dollar spent. For ever dollar of stimulus allocated, there would have been 5 dollars pumped into the economy.
A 5 Trillion dollar stimulus with a 1 Trillion dollar cost to the tax payer. Actually, that cost would immediately begin to be eroded as the 5 Trillion caused folks to get hired and to therefore pay taxes.
The economy "knows" where money came from only byu the stimulative effect. No multiplier? No stimulus. That's how it works.
That's why Cash for Cluinkers stimulated the economy and why Cash for Clunkers was immediately stopped. As soon as the stimulative effect was recognized, the program was stopped.
This administration does not want producers. It wants dependants.
How does the economy tell where the money came from to know wether to be stimulated or not?
That's easy. If the Trillion had been spent as a tax credits for reimbursing any expenditure allocated to improving one's residence, be it a rental or an owned dwelling, there would have been a multiplier.
Let's say that the tax credit was 25 cents on the dollar spent. For ever dollar of stimulus allocated, there would have been 5 dollars pumped into the economy.
A 5 Trillion dollar stimulus with a 1 Trillion dollar cost to the tax payer. Actually, that cost would immediately begin to be eroded as the 5 Trillion caused folks to get hired and to therefore pay taxes.
The economy "knows" where money came from only byu the stimulative effect. No multiplier? No stimulus. That's how it works.
That's why Cash for Cluinkers stimulated the economy and why Cash for Clunkers was immediately stopped. As soon as the stimulative effect was recognized, the program was stopped.
This administration does not want producers. It wants dependants.
That might be the most clueless post of the day.
First off, there is no "multiplier" to gov't spending. None that is more than 1 anyway.
Second, taking money from productive people to give to less productive people to invest in diminishing assets like home improvement will not stimulate anything except waste and fraud.
The only tax cuts that do any good are ones aimed at changing behavior to make people more productive. Thus, cutting marginal tax rates encourages people to work more because they get to keep more of it. Cutting amortization time for purchases of new equipment encourages businesses to buy newer, more efficient equipment. And so on. These are the only tax cuts that will stimulate anything.
That's easy. If the Trillion had been spent as a tax credits for reimbursing any expenditure allocated to improving one's residence, be it a rental or an owned dwelling, there would have been a multiplier.
Let's say that the tax credit was 25 cents on the dollar spent. For ever dollar of stimulus allocated, there would have been 5 dollars pumped into the economy.
A 5 Trillion dollar stimulus with a 1 Trillion dollar cost to the tax payer. Actually, that cost would immediately begin to be eroded as the 5 Trillion caused folks to get hired and to therefore pay taxes.
The economy "knows" where money came from only byu the stimulative effect. No multiplier? No stimulus. That's how it works.
That's why Cash for Cluinkers stimulated the economy and why Cash for Clunkers was immediately stopped. As soon as the stimulative effect was recognized, the program was stopped.
This administration does not want producers. It wants dependants.
That might be the most clueless post of the day.
First off, there is no "multiplier" to gov't spending. None that is more than 1 anyway.
Second, taking money from productive people to give to less productive people to invest in diminishing assets like home improvement will not stimulate anything except waste and fraud.
The only tax cuts that do any good are ones aimed at changing behavior to make people more productive. Thus, cutting marginal tax rates encourages people to work more because they get to keep more of it. Cutting amortization time for purchases of new equipment encourages businesses to buy newer, more efficient equipment. And so on. These are the only tax cuts that will stimulate anything.
So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?
That's easy. If the Trillion had been spent as a tax credits for reimbursing any expenditure allocated to improving one's residence, be it a rental or an owned dwelling, there would have been a multiplier.
Let's say that the tax credit was 25 cents on the dollar spent. For ever dollar of stimulus allocated, there would have been 5 dollars pumped into the economy.
A 5 Trillion dollar stimulus with a 1 Trillion dollar cost to the tax payer. Actually, that cost would immediately begin to be eroded as the 5 Trillion caused folks to get hired and to therefore pay taxes.
The economy "knows" where money came from only byu the stimulative effect. No multiplier? No stimulus. That's how it works.
That's why Cash for Cluinkers stimulated the economy and why Cash for Clunkers was immediately stopped. As soon as the stimulative effect was recognized, the program was stopped.
This administration does not want producers. It wants dependants.
That might be the most clueless post of the day.
First off, there is no "multiplier" to gov't spending. None that is more than 1 anyway.
Second, taking money from productive people to give to less productive people to invest in diminishing assets like home improvement will not stimulate anything except waste and fraud.
The only tax cuts that do any good are ones aimed at changing behavior to make people more productive. Thus, cutting marginal tax rates encourages people to work more because they get to keep more of it. Cutting amortization time for purchases of new equipment encourages businesses to buy newer, more efficient equipment. And so on. These are the only tax cuts that will stimulate anything.
So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?
That might be the most clueless post of the day.
First off, there is no "multiplier" to gov't spending. None that is more than 1 anyway.
Second, taking money from productive people to give to less productive people to invest in diminishing assets like home improvement will not stimulate anything except waste and fraud.
The only tax cuts that do any good are ones aimed at changing behavior to make people more productive. Thus, cutting marginal tax rates encourages people to work more because they get to keep more of it. Cutting amortization time for purchases of new equipment encourages businesses to buy newer, more efficient equipment. And so on. These are the only tax cuts that will stimulate anything.
So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?
That;'s correct. That's because they cannot "pump" even one dollar into the economy. All they can do is cycle the money from somewhere else. That somewhere else could be using hte money for more productive purposes.
That might be the most clueless post of the day.
First off, there is no "multiplier" to gov't spending. None that is more than 1 anyway.
Second, taking money from productive people to give to less productive people to invest in diminishing assets like home improvement will not stimulate anything except waste and fraud.
The only tax cuts that do any good are ones aimed at changing behavior to make people more productive. Thus, cutting marginal tax rates encourages people to work more because they get to keep more of it. Cutting amortization time for purchases of new equipment encourages businesses to buy newer, more efficient equipment. And so on. These are the only tax cuts that will stimulate anything.
So, to be clear, you don't think that pumping 5 Trillion dollars into the economy would boost the economy?
The government could pump 5 trillion into the economy the wrong way, and they would get very little bump out of it.....kinda like the trillion with really no benefit already done.
If you believe the end of the world as was sold to you 2 years ago it's a small miracle we are back this far.
