Can any con here tell me the difference between a moderate liberal and an extremist?

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, that comes from BLS statistics, Jake. That's as peer reviewed as you get.

Which has been blog misinterpreted without review. Tuff that. Stimulus worked. Tuff that too.

can you show where the 'recovery' happened after the stimulus.? all i see is a major problem...

You must explain it if you are going to post it. Is causation not correlation, and why.

 

[Kosh]

The far left can not accept the fact that the money laundering scheme called "the stimulus" did not work.

 

[Billy000]

The far left can not accept the fact that the money laundering scheme called "the stimulus" did not work.

Well see you need to prove that statement with facts. Otherwise you are just being partisan.

 

[Kosh]

The far left can not accept the fact that the money laundering scheme called "the stimulus" did not work.

Well see you need to prove that statement with facts. Otherwise you are just being partisan.

The irony of those comments from a far left Obama drone.

 

[Billy000]

The far left can not accept the fact that the money laundering scheme called "the stimulus" did not work.

Well see you need to prove that statement with facts. Otherwise you are just being partisan.

The irony of those comments from a far left Obama drone.

So the right is correct 100% of the time. Is that your rationale for me being a "far left Obama drone"

It is imperative that critical thinking be apart of public schooling. I demand it.

 

[HenryBHough]

The difference between an actual Obama drone and a figurative Obama drone:

The actual Obama drone murders innocent people with weapons.

The figurative Obama drone slays people with comedy.

 

[Billy000]

The difference between an actual Obama drone and a figurative Obama drone:

The actual Obama drone murders innocent people with weapons.

The figurative Obama drone slays people with comedy.

Comedy because you refuse to face facts for what they are.

 

[HenryBHough]

We've just certified our first "figurative" ^^^^^

 

[KGB]

I definitely question this. Where does this come from? Based on what facts?

The blue lines are from the Obama Administration's sales pitch for the stimulus:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

The red line is the actual unemployment rate.

Ah I see. Why am I not surprised this is from a conservative blog? Well heres the problem with this: this graph is only based on the failure of the prediction of how well the stimulus would turn out. That doesn't mean the stimulus didn't work. It just didn't work as well as we hoped. Here is the evidence that it did work from a non partisan perspective:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

It would have created more jobs had it been bigger.

you seriously going to argue in favor of welfaring your way to prosperity????

 

[Billy000]

The blue lines are from the Obama Administration's sales pitch for the stimulus:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

The red line is the actual unemployment rate.

Ah I see. Why am I not surprised this is from a conservative blog? Well heres the problem with this: this graph is only based on the failure of the prediction of how well the stimulus would turn out. That doesn't mean the stimulus didn't work. It just didn't work as well as we hoped. Here is the evidence that it did work from a non partisan perspective:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

It would have created more jobs had it been bigger.

you seriously going to argue in favor of welfaring your way to prosperity????

Obviously you didn't even read the article.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Anyone to the left of Goldwater is an extremist to the reactionary conservatives.

Normal cons know the diff between lib and extremist.

you mean like Sallow and Dean?......

 

[KGB]

Ah I see. Why am I not surprised this is from a conservative blog? Well heres the problem with this: this graph is only based on the failure of the prediction of how well the stimulus would turn out. That doesn't mean the stimulus didn't work. It just didn't work as well as we hoped. Here is the evidence that it did work from a non partisan perspective:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

It would have created more jobs had it been bigger.

you seriously going to argue in favor of welfaring your way to prosperity????

Obviously you didn't even read the article.

actually, I did read the article, but obviously you didn't understand what it said. It may provide a short term gain, but over the long term, it isn't sustainable. That article was written back in 2008, it is now 2014. The article talks about people using it to buy essentials (food, rent, clothing, etc.)--all well and good & obviously necessary. However, it doesn't provide disposable income for people to spend money on goods & services that sustain industries. In other words, we need people spending money on big screen TVs, trips to Florida, buying tech gadgets, etc. Paying for food, shelter & clothing is implied. This is where the stimulus act of 2008 was more successful. It provided people disposable income.

Did the 2008 US tax rebates work? | vox

 

[Harry Dresden]

Can any con here tell me the difference between a moderate liberal and an extremist?

Easy. Liberals are a small part of a diverse party called "Democrats.

Extremists are what the vast majority of the 90% white Republican Party are.

This is what many Republicans have to say:

Tank: Homosexuality, welfare, unemployment, dropouts, STD.s. obesity, fatherless children, abortion, rape, murder are not Republican values, so thats why blacks, hispanics and gays are democrats

Here's the difference: the later exists. the former doesn't.

BTW, deenie, "extremist" isn't a euphemism meaning "Republican."

Failed "trickle down" economic policy.

Trillions in debt for "freeing" a Middle Eastern theocracy that hates our guts.

Letting Bin Laden go scott free.

"Let him die" masquerading as "health care".

A redistribution of wealth to the top 1%.

Wrecking the economy.

Hatred for education and science.

If that isn't "extremist", then what is?

a poster named Rdean.....

 

[norwegen]

To the right of the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. A real fear among Americans of the 1780s was that without a revised Articles, America would devolve into licentiousness, and eventually anarchy.

To the left was Toryism, most notably an advocacy for implied powers and a central bank. To the left of this is liberalism, a rather extreme departure from American Constitutionalism.

 

[Billy000]

you seriously going to argue in favor of welfaring your way to prosperity????

Obviously you didn't even read the article.

actually, I did read the article, but obviously you didn't understand what it said. It may provide a short term gain, but over the long term, it isn't sustainable. That article was written back in 2008, it is now 2014. The article talks about people using it to buy essentials (food, rent, clothing, etc.)--all well and good & obviously necessary. However, it doesn't provide disposable income for people to spend money on goods & services that sustain industries. In other words, we need people spending money on big screen TVs, trips to Florida, buying tech gadgets, etc. Paying for food, shelter & clothing is implied. This is where the stimulus act of 2008 was more successful. It provided people disposable income.

Did the 2008 US tax rebates work? | vox

What you are saying is completely moronic. Food, housing and clothing are basic essentials therefore there is huge demand for them. How we do know? Because the stimulus created 16.7 billion a month in economic demand. Overall it raised our GDP by 2%. The 2008 stimulus was barely a success. Middle class people received tax rebates. They just sat on the money initially. Demand was very slow and drawn out.

 

[KGB]

Obviously you didn't even read the article.

actually, I did read the article, but obviously you didn't understand what it said. It may provide a short term gain, but over the long term, it isn't sustainable. That article was written back in 2008, it is now 2014. The article talks about people using it to buy essentials (food, rent, clothing, etc.)--all well and good & obviously necessary. However, it doesn't provide disposable income for people to spend money on goods & services that sustain industries. In other words, we need people spending money on big screen TVs, trips to Florida, buying tech gadgets, etc. Paying for food, shelter & clothing is implied. This is where the stimulus act of 2008 was more successful. It provided people disposable income.

Did the 2008 US tax rebates work? | vox

What you are saying is completely moronic. Food, clothing and clothing are basic essentials therefore there is huge demand for them. How we do know? Because the stimulus created 16.7 billion a month in economic demand. Overall it raised our GDP by 2%. The 2008 stimulus was barely a success. Middle class people received tax rebates. They just sat on the money initially. Demand was very slow and drawn out.

Every great economic boom had one commonality: vast disposable income. You aren't rich if you can just buy the essentials. And if you read the link I provided, it clearly states that people did not sit on the money....

 

[Billy000]

actually, I did read the article, but obviously you didn't understand what it said. It may provide a short term gain, but over the long term, it isn't sustainable. That article was written back in 2008, it is now 2014. The article talks about people using it to buy essentials (food, rent, clothing, etc.)--all well and good & obviously necessary. However, it doesn't provide disposable income for people to spend money on goods & services that sustain industries. In other words, we need people spending money on big screen TVs, trips to Florida, buying tech gadgets, etc. Paying for food, shelter & clothing is implied. This is where the stimulus act of 2008 was more successful. It provided people disposable income.

Did the 2008 US tax rebates work? | vox

What you are saying is completely moronic. Food, clothing and clothing are basic essentials therefore there is huge demand for them. How we do know? Because the stimulus created 16.7 billion a month in economic demand. Overall it raised our GDP by 2%. The 2008 stimulus was barely a success. Middle class people received tax rebates. They just sat on the money initially. Demand was very slow and drawn out.

Every great economic boom had one commonality: vast disposable income. You aren't rich if you can just buy the essentials. And if you read the link I provided, it clearly states that people did not sit on the money....

It doesn't make any sense for unemployed people to spend money on shit like that. Seriously think about these things. The stimulus was meant to give income to people who would not be spending anything at all otherwise.

You think tax rebates are free? No. Less revenue means more government borrowing.

 

[Kosh]

AS you can see the far left wants to spend without limits and constraints.

Although I doubt you would ever see the far left do this with their own money.

 

[Meathead]

I don't think any of you can. I have never seen anyone here make the distinction. You instead choose to believe all liberals think the same way as if we are part of some giant clubhouse. I wish you understood how simple minded this kind of thinking is.

Or better yet, how about you also explain the difference between a moderate conservative and a conservative extremist,

Simply degrees of stupidity and ignorance. Extremists are extremely stupid and ignorant.

 

[Politico]

No difference. They're all idiots.