Economics 101

[Rshermr]

We all know full well that the only method Republican Economic Stimulus = NO RULES.

Republican Economic Stimulus = capitalism. And capitalism has plenty of rules:

1) you must have the best product in the world and the lowest price in the world to raise the standard of living at the fastest possible rate just to survive.

2) if you pollute someone's water while being a capitalist, for example, he has a right to sue you for damages and to discourage others from buying your products.

1) you must have the best product in the world and the lowest price in the world to raise the standard of living at the fastest possible rate just to survive.

But does that relieve you from being responsible in your product or service?

2) if you pollute someone's water while being a capitalist, for example, he has a right to sue you for damages and to discourage others from buying your products.

Sure you do, but with the myriad of shell corporations you'd better have a lot of time (years) and money
(millions).

You must understand that Edward is the board troll. He is, essentially, a conservative congenital idiot. Not worth taking note of. I just ignore him.

You must understand that Edward is the board troll. He is, essentially, a conservative congenital idiot. Not worth taking note of. I just ignore him.

I know, I've been dealing with him for years. He's the recurring fungal infection of the USMB.

Yup. We are indeed talking about the same being

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We all know full well that the only method Republican Economic Stimulus = NO RULES.

Republican Economic Stimulus = capitalism. And capitalism has plenty of rules:

1) you must have the best product in the world and the lowest price in the world to raise the standard of living at the fastest possible rate just to survive.

2) if you pollute someone's water while being a capitalist, for example, he has a right to sue you for damages and to discourage others from buying your products.

1) you must have the best product in the world and the lowest price in the world to raise the standard of living at the fastest possible rate just to survive.

But does that relieve you from being responsible in your product or service?

2) if you pollute someone's water while being a capitalist, for example, he has a right to sue you for damages and to discourage others from buying your products.

Sure you do, but with the myriad of shell corporations you'd better have a lot of time (years) and money
(millions).

You must understand that Edward is the board troll. He is, essentially, a conservative congenital idiot. Not worth taking note of. I just ignore him.

I hate to agree with you, but Ed is an idiot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You don't screw someone over to make a buck.

its very hard to do that under capitalism since everyone is free not to get screwed. Under libsocialism its very easy to get screwed over since you are not free to object, you must submit. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, a conservative congenital idiot. .

Why not say what is idiotic about conservatism or libertarianism?

 

[Rshermr]

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

Name a job bill, me boy. Because he did not. You are lying again. And I do not appreciate listening to the dude say nothing about any specific jobs bill.

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?
Ok, so you admit there was no jobs bill. thanks. We all knew that to be true.

The only jobs bill the government should pass is a tax cut/deregulation bill.
Ah. So you are an economist? What are your credentials?
So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right. When Hoover sat and watched the ue rate go from under 4% to 25%? That worked out so well.
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof, he was smart enough to spend like crazy.
Too bad you are not smart enough.

All the make work, job creating shit is a waste of money.
Yeah. I know. You should only use it when you have to, like Reagan, eh, me poor stupid con tool. In the meantime, just keep reading those conservative talking points. No sense in actually thinking.

And the "me boy" talk makes you sound like a gay pirate. Are you a gay pirate?
No. You seem very familiar with gay pirates. Why is that, me boy.

Ok, so you admit ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?

So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?

You seem very familiar with gay pirates.

Just you.

Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

yes would love to hear a liberals objections to Friedman's libertarian ideas. I wonder why they run from explaining his mistakes?

 

[Indeependent]

I believe your stance is complete Market Freedom with zero government intervention.

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman

Were you lying when you said I disagreed with Friedman, or just confused?

Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.

I've never done that.

Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

At what time in your video does he do that?

So you DIDN'T watch the video because someone as intelligent as you would have caught what he said.
OR you're such an ideologue that you can't absorb what he said.
Later when I'm not so tired I'll point out the time.

I've seen the video. At what point did he blame the 1929 Crash on lack of bailouts?

I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...

2:00-2:30

5:12-5:30

5:38-5:54

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...

2:00-2:30

5:12-5:30

5:38-5:54

1) its drivel, not dribble
2) I assume you, as a typical liberal, lack ability to say why you disagree with Milton?

 

[edthecynic]

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water. Just like the GOP House's Zika bill is let your drinking water be polluted.

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water.

Link?

Notice how the wing-nuts didn't link to a single one of the actual "jobs" bills, which were only attacks on the EPA, regulations, and unions passed off as jobs bills just like spraying harmful pesticides on our fresh water sources is being passed off as a Zika bill.

Unlike you, here is an example of a GOP "jobs" bill:

H.R.1203.

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to remove the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.

H.R.1203.

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cool story.
Let me know when you find the post where I disagreed with Friedman.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman

Were you lying when you said I disagreed with Friedman, or just confused?

Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.

I've never done that.

Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

At what time in your video does he do that?

So you DIDN'T watch the video because someone as intelligent as you would have caught what he said.
OR you're such an ideologue that you can't absorb what he said.
Later when I'm not so tired I'll point out the time.

I've seen the video. At what point did he blame the 1929 Crash on lack of bailouts?

I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...

2:00-2:30

5:12-5:30

5:38-5:54

2:00-2:30

He wasn't talking about the Crash or bailouts here.

5:12-5:30

Here either.

5:38-5:54

Or here.

Do you know what the money supply is or how the Fed can influence it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water. Just like the GOP House's Zika bill is let your drinking water be polluted.

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water.

Link?

Notice how the wing-nuts didn't link to a single one of the actual "jobs" bills, which were only attacks on the EPA, regulations, and unions passed off as jobs bills just like spraying harmful pesticides on our fresh water sources is being passed off as a Zika bill.

Unlike you, here is an example of a GOP "jobs" bill:

H.R.1203.

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to remove the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.

H.R.1203.

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

House Speaker John Boehner R-OH Briefing | Video | C-SPAN.org

At about the 12 minute mark. 46 jobs bills.

Name a job bill, me boy. Because he did not. You are lying again. And I do not appreciate listening to the dude say nothing about any specific jobs bill.

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?
Ok, so you admit there was no jobs bill. thanks. We all knew that to be true.

The only jobs bill the government should pass is a tax cut/deregulation bill.
Ah. So you are an economist? What are your credentials?
So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right. When Hoover sat and watched the ue rate go from under 4% to 25%? That worked out so well.
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof, he was smart enough to spend like crazy.
Too bad you are not smart enough.

All the make work, job creating shit is a waste of money.
Yeah. I know. You should only use it when you have to, like Reagan, eh, me poor stupid con tool. In the meantime, just keep reading those conservative talking points. No sense in actually thinking.

And the "me boy" talk makes you sound like a gay pirate. Are you a gay pirate?
No. You seem very familiar with gay pirates. Why is that, me boy.

Ok, so you admit ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?

So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?

You seem very familiar with gay pirates.

Just you.

Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.

Example?



Derp!

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work?

Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.

I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? By how much? Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget?

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water. Just like the GOP House's Zika bill is let your drinking water be polluted.

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water.

Link?

Notice how the wing-nuts didn't link to a single one of the actual "jobs" bills, which were only attacks on the EPA, regulations, and unions passed off as jobs bills just like spraying harmful pesticides on our fresh water sources is being passed off as a Zika bill.

Unlike you, here is an example of a GOP "jobs" bill:

H.R.1203.

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to remove the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.

H.R.1203.

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, his "jobs" bill was let corporations pollute your drinking water.

Link?

Notice how the wing-nuts didn't link to a single one of the actual "jobs" bills, which were only attacks on the EPA, regulations, and unions passed off as jobs bills just like spraying harmful pesticides on our fresh water sources is being passed off as a Zika bill.

Unlike you, here is an example of a GOP "jobs" bill:

H.R.1203.

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to remove the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.

H.R.1203.

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

 

[Rshermr]

Name a job bill, me boy. Because he did not. You are lying again. And I do not appreciate listening to the dude say nothing about any specific jobs bill.

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?
Ok, so you admit there was no jobs bill. thanks. We all knew that to be true.

The only jobs bill the government should pass is a tax cut/deregulation bill.
Ah. So you are an economist? What are your credentials?
So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right. When Hoover sat and watched the ue rate go from under 4% to 25%? That worked out so well.
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof, he was smart enough to spend like crazy.
Too bad you are not smart enough.

All the make work, job creating shit is a waste of money.
Yeah. I know. You should only use it when you have to, like Reagan, eh, me poor stupid con tool. In the meantime, just keep reading those conservative talking points. No sense in actually thinking.

And the "me boy" talk makes you sound like a gay pirate. Are you a gay pirate?
No. You seem very familiar with gay pirates. Why is that, me boy.

Ok, so you admit ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?

So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?

You seem very familiar with gay pirates.

Just you.

Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.

Example?

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.

 

[Rshermr]

Notice how the wing-nuts didn't link to a single one of the actual "jobs" bills, which were only attacks on the EPA, regulations, and unions passed off as jobs bills just like spraying harmful pesticides on our fresh water sources is being passed off as a Zika bill.

Unlike you, here is an example of a GOP "jobs" bill:

H.R.1203.

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to remove the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the specification, or restrict the use, of an area as a disposal site for discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the discharge.

H.R.1203.

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't give a shit. He said 46 bills. You don't believe him.....so what?
Ok, so you admit there was no jobs bill. thanks. We all knew that to be true.

The only jobs bill the government should pass is a tax cut/deregulation bill.
Ah. So you are an economist? What are your credentials?
So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right. When Hoover sat and watched the ue rate go from under 4% to 25%? That worked out so well.
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof, he was smart enough to spend like crazy.
Too bad you are not smart enough.

All the make work, job creating shit is a waste of money.
Yeah. I know. You should only use it when you have to, like Reagan, eh, me poor stupid con tool. In the meantime, just keep reading those conservative talking points. No sense in actually thinking.

And the "me boy" talk makes you sound like a gay pirate. Are you a gay pirate?
No. You seem very familiar with gay pirates. Why is that, me boy.

Ok, so you admit ....

.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?

So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof

Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?

You seem very familiar with gay pirates.

Just you.

Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.

Ah. So you are an economist?

As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.

So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.

Example?

Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.

No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.

And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.

I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.

But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.

Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.

Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,

Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.

Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.

He's economically illiterate.

from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.

And huge tax hikes in 1932.

Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,

And the economy boomed. Weird.

and again in 1929.

Nope, 1925.

No, but it allows SPENDING

Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.

Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.

Yes. Without helping economic growth.

Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.

Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.

consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts

Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.

In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest

Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

H.R.1203.

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to disapprove a permit after it has been issued by the Secretary of the Army under section 404 of such Act.

That's not a jobs bill. It sounds like it relieves a conflict between 2 governmental bodies.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Exactly, but it is one of the many "jobs" bills the GOP House had offered as a "jobs" bill.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

That wasn't one of the jobs bills the GOP offered, as you can see at the link.

The GOP have has numerous lists of "jobs" bills they have offered, some passed as offered and some got changed. That bill was only offered but not passed in that form. It passed as HR 2018 which was on their list of "30 jobs bills" which only had 27 listed on their website.

Page not found - gop.gov

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Not there. 46 others are.

There are no jobs bills. Just bills that make the wealthy happy. Jesus, me boy, they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.
Have you always been a simple con tool, or have you had to work on it. Dipshit.

they even call the pipeline bill a jobs bill.

Building a pipeline creates jobs. Derp!

 

[Indeependent]

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman...Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.
Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman

Were you lying when you said I disagreed with Friedman, or just confused?

Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.

I've never done that.

Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

At what time in your video does he do that?

So you DIDN'T watch the video because someone as intelligent as you would have caught what he said.
OR you're such an ideologue that you can't absorb what he said.
Later when I'm not so tired I'll point out the time.

I've seen the video. At what point did he blame the 1929 Crash on lack of bailouts?

I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...

2:00-2:30

5:12-5:30

5:38-5:54

2:00-2:30

He wasn't talking about the Crash or bailouts here.

5:12-5:30

Here either.

5:38-5:54

Or here.

Do you know what the money supply is or how the Fed can influence it?

I had no doubt in my mind that no matter the context your ego would not process his hypocrisy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem is that you AGREE with Friedman

Were you lying when you said I disagreed with Friedman, or just confused?

Free Market crashes and then you blame the crash on an absence of Government Bailouts.

I've never done that.

Yes, that's what he expounds in the video.

At what time in your video does he do that?

So you DIDN'T watch the video because someone as intelligent as you would have caught what he said.
OR you're such an ideologue that you can't absorb what he said.
Later when I'm not so tired I'll point out the time.

I've seen the video. At what point did he blame the 1929 Crash on lack of bailouts?

I have excluded Miltie's ego driven dribble...

2:00-2:30

5:12-5:30

5:38-5:54

2:00-2:30

He wasn't talking about the Crash or bailouts here.

5:12-5:30

Here either.

5:38-5:54

Or here.

Do you know what the money supply is or how the Fed can influence it?

I had no doubt in my mind that no matter the context your ego would not process his hypocrisy.

Do you feel that preventing the collapse of the money supply is a bailout?

What is the duty of a lender of last resort?