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.
Please go get your example in history where this has born out as true?
This implies that high Keynesian spending and taxes promote economic growth.
The example would be the economic growth under the "Reagan Era" of governance: roughly, 1984 to 2000. But you wouldn't understand why that was true.
true...
So I inadvertantly went off topic....
But I noticed how I many times brought it up how tax cuts DID create jobs...citing the examples I cited above...yet no one on the left ever responds....yet I still see the left continually post threads and comments about how the Bush tax cuts did absolutely nothing to promote hiring.....
But whatever....
Maybe it was the deficit spending that created jobs in the '00's. Maybe it was ramping up to fight 2 wars, without extracting any money from the economy to pay for them that created jobs in the '00's.
and maybe Hussein would have used WMDs by now on Israel if we did not intervene.
And maybe there would be another 9-11 type of attacvk of it were not for Bush's military policies
Maybe not......
We can say "maybe" in an effort to win any debate.....
So your suggestion is we go back to being an agrarian society?
With slaves, of course.
Of course not, the south was populated with southern democrats.
Maybe it was the deficit spending that created jobs in the '00's. Maybe it was ramping up to fight 2 wars, without extracting any money from the economy to pay for them that created jobs in the '00's.
and maybe Hussein would have used WMDs by now on Israel if we did not intervene.
And maybe there would be another 9-11 type of attacvk of it were not for Bush's military policies
Maybe not......
We can say "maybe" in an effort to win any debate.....
The difference is, what I referred to actually happened. Deficits increased substantially in the '00's. What is a deficit?
A deficit occurs when you spend money - into the economy - but since you borrow the money - you don't take the cost of the spending back out of the economy.
The result is a net positive infusion of money into the economy, much of which will go directly or indirectly to pay for jobs.
Deficit spending is always stimulative to the economy, unless the spending went somewhere else.
Please go get your example in history where this has born out as true?
This implies that high Keynesian spending and taxes promote economic growth.
The example would be the economic growth under the "Reagan Era" of governance: roughly, 1984 to 2000. But you wouldn't understand why that was true.
Reagan raised taxes
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
With slaves, of course.
Of course not, the south was populated with southern democrats.
The opperative word in your sentance is "was".
So your suggestion is we go back to being an agrarian society?
With slaves, of course.
Of course not, the south was populated with southern democrats.
This implies that high Keynesian spending and taxes promote economic growth.
The example would be the economic growth under the "Reagan Era" of governance: roughly, 1984 to 2000. But you wouldn't understand why that was true.
Reagan raised taxes
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Only because the Shitbag Dems reniged on promises made in earlier budget deals that they would not.
Nice try.
With slaves, of course.
Of course not, the south was populated with southern democrats.
looks like we've got another uneducated con who's never heard of the southern strategy. why do people who don't know anything about politics care about politics? i don't get it. seriously, if you're so uninformed about politics and history that you don't know about the southern strategy, why don't you direct your attention to something else?
and maybe Hussein would have used WMDs by now on Israel if we did not intervene.
And maybe there would be another 9-11 type of attacvk of it were not for Bush's military policies
Maybe not......
We can say "maybe" in an effort to win any debate.....
The difference is, what I referred to actually happened. Deficits increased substantially in the '00's. What is a deficit?
A deficit occurs when you spend money - into the economy - but since you borrow the money - you don't take the cost of the spending back out of the economy.
The result is a net positive infusion of money into the economy, much of which will go directly or indirectly to pay for jobs.
Deficit spending is always stimulative to the economy, unless the spending went somewhere else.
we injected 500 billion into the economy in a matter of months and it did nothig to increase hiring...
SO I think that sort of negates your theory.....although I will admit, the theory is sound as a theory....but the stimulus proved it to be not factual.
Cutting services for the most vulnerable and cutting taxes for the wealthy is NO WAY to end a economic downturn.
It is a historically failed idea.
Cutting services for the most vulnerable and cutting taxes for the wealthy is NO WAY to end a economic downturn.
It is a historically failed idea.
Such as when?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*HA
Like the right would not lower taxes if they could.
Cutting services for the most vulnerable and cutting taxes for the wealthy is NO WAY to end a economic downturn.
It is a historically failed idea.
Such as when?
Yes when.
You guys are the ones claiming it will work.
Show us the time in history when it worked?
