Economy: Question For Trump Supporter

[Iceweasel]

That's a unique definition and contrary to common sense, definitions and sanity.

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

You are a fool to prove your ignorance so willingly.

Glossary
Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.


Do you know what the word or means? It isn't the same as and. Depending on whether they are citing those working or not. Not those working and not working.

Holy fucking stupid. I really dont know what else to say at this point.

1 - employed
1 - unemployed

Labor Force is 2.

The sooner you understand this basic concept the sooner you will stop making an idiot out of yourself for everyone to witness.

That's not what the definition says. Another swingandamiss.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you mean "not nearly enough to start spending", do you imagine there is some sort of threshold on additional money in people's paychecks before they do something with it?

Your "giving money away to Democrat states" is completely made up bullshit.

There are serious estimates by economists who seriously study such effects, what you are doing here is baseless, wishful politicking.


Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output

That depends on what economist you are listening to.

A Verdict on Obama's 'Stimulus' Plan

Where Did Stimulus Money Really Go?

Right you are, Ray.

Difficult to determine whether the Obama supportes are more fools or more liars.
This President has an unbroken record of utter failure....and the 'Stimulus' certainly looms large in that constellation.



According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were fewer people employed after the 'Stimulus' than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed than in January 2009.

Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs.

In terms of employment, the private sector became smaller than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009



ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011

http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/obama-claims-4-million-new-jobs/



Population growth is about 1% annually.
Population growth (annual %) | Data



This from 2012:
"This continues to be the longest streak — 41 months — of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. And recall that back in 2009, Team Obama predicted that if Congress passed its $800 billion stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% today.

– Job growth during the three-year Obama recovery has averaged just 75,000 a month for a total of 2.7 million. During the first three years of the Reagan Recovery, job growth averaged 273,000 a month for a total of 9.8 million. If you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the Reagan Recovery averaged 360,000 jobs a month for a three-year total of 13 million jobs."

http://patdollard.com/2012/07/team-...employment-today-if-congress-passed-stimulus/



It takes a particular sort of moron to have re-voted for this failure.

Good work and very informative.

As I stated earlier, the only real jump we had in the economy is after fuel prices collapsed. That put money in everybody's pockets. At the time, some of my coworkers were saving well over $200.00 a month between natural gas and gasoline to get to work. That's real money people used to spend or to payoff bills. That's what helped the economy.

The Stimulus (as you pointed out) was a failure, and leftists want to use that to say years afterwards, the economy started to improve. But the truth is the economy started to improve only a few months after fuel prices fell. The Pork Bill was just as much of a failure as Cash for Clunkers where a majority of the auto purchases were foreign cars such as Toyota or Honda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

That’s exactly what they do, displayed as the “baseline projection” level in the graphic below from an April 14, 2010 report.

An inconvenient truth, at least for the Obama Administration, is that once upon a time, in their January 2009 Romer/Bernstein Report they told America that without their stimulus there would be 133.9 million jobs. That’s right, in order to make it look like their stimulus has “created or saved” 2.8 million jobs, the Obama Administration first had to whack 7 million jobs from their previous estimates.” Breitbart News Big Government



2. So...of the two pillars of support for government projects:
a) that they create jobs....
b) and the suggestion that they create wealth that would not otherwise be produced.
Both are false, basically because neither for considers the cost of taxation.

a. The taxes required for large government projects destroy as many jobs in other areas of the economy as it creates for the project. One must use the 'eye of imagination' to see the unbuilt private homes, the unmade kitchen appliances, and the lack of other numerous goods and services.


3. Fighting for the truth is an immense task, for several reasons. First, any objections will be labeled 'obstructionist,' or 'reactionary' or....in this milieu...'racist.'

Even more importantly, the bridge or the completed government project can be seen, as can the bridge workers....but the real costs, and damage to the economy, must be seen in the eye of imaging: only those educated to look beyond the surface will see it.

The argument for these government stimulus projects reminds of a line from George Bernard Shaw's "Saint Joan"...."What an utter fool! Couldn't he use his eyes?"


No....not eyes.
Brains.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes that is what people who have little understanding about economic terminology and statistics may say. But there are very good reasons these definitions.

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

You are a fool to prove your ignorance so willingly.

Glossary
Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.


Do you know what the word or means? It isn't the same as and. Depending on whether they are citing those working or not. Not those working and not working.

Holy fucking stupid. I really dont know what else to say at this point.

1 - employed
1 - unemployed

Labor Force is 2.

The sooner you understand this basic concept the sooner you will stop making an idiot out of yourself for everyone to witness.

That's not what the definition says. Another swingandamiss.

Am I to assume conservatives here are too stupid to even be able to understand what basic terms mean?

Is there seriously not a single conservative here that will step in and tell this fucking idiot that he is wrong? He is clearly immune to reason if that reason happens to be stated by a liberal.

 

[Norman]

Has unemployment and job and GDP growth gone up or down during the Obama years?

OK CONS... START SPINNING, LYING and DENYING!

Answer: GDP growth has been the lowest in the entire history of united states . Employment has bounced back from the recession slower than in almost any recession.

The US economy is in terrible shape going forward.

 

[Iceweasel]

...which you can't supply.

Ofcourse I can silly.

[Labor Force] refers to people available to work and there are separate subset terms that specifically mean those without work and those looking for work - [Employed] and [Unemployed].

You are a fool to prove your ignorance so willingly.

Glossary
Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.


Do you know what the word or means? It isn't the same as and. Depending on whether they are citing those working or not. Not those working and not working.

Holy fucking stupid. I really dont know what else to say at this point.

1 - employed
1 - unemployed

Labor Force is 2.

The sooner you understand this basic concept the sooner you will stop making an idiot out of yourself for everyone to witness.

That's not what the definition says. Another swingandamiss.

Am I to assume conservatives here are too stupid to even be able to understand what basic terms mean?

Is there seriously not a single conservative here that will step in and tell this fucking idiot that he is wrong? He is clearly immune to reason if that reason happens to be stated by a liberal.

...and Anthony keeps swinging at the ball and missing while raking up the score in his mind.

 

[AntonToo]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

Some more of very same stupidity, but slightly re-wrapped.

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

 

[AntonToo]

Good work and very informative.

of course it is, after all no matter how stupid it is you will treat it uncritically because it confirms your bias.

As I stated earlier, the only real jump we had in the economy is after fuel prices collapsed. That put money in everybody's pockets. At the time, some of my coworkers were saving well over $200.00 a month between natural gas and gasoline to get to work.

Fuel prices collapsed at the onset of global recession and were low through 2010.

If gas prices is what fixes economy we should have had great economy instead of recessionary one in late 2008 through 2010, but even following the gas prices from there correlates very poorly with job growth.


But more seriously, on balance between energy jobs and profits lost and general benefit of lowered gas prices the overall effect on economy is questionable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/b...-oil-does-little-for-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

 

[PoliticalChic]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

Some more of very same stupidity, but slightly re-wrapped.

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

To state the above is gross ignorance of how economics work and why.

OK....well....let's continue with the education you so sorely need....
And...you'd benefit markedly from this book.
"Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt

To appear even more intelligent.....simply refrain from posting.


Now:

Stimulus To Solve Unemployment?

1. Upon ascending to the presidency, Obama urged his co-conspirators, the Democrat Congress, to spend taxpayer funds to stem unemployment. "The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a price tag of $770 billion....In January 2009, the administration projected that passing the bill would bring unemployment to 5 percent by the end of 2013 and ensure that it didn’t surpass 8 percent."
Obama The 2009 Stimulus Package Worked 8216 Despite What Everybody Claims 8217 TheBlaze.com

a. "The real price tag for stimulus: Between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion"
The real price tag for stimulus Between 1 trillion and 1.7 trillion - The Washington Post




2. The result of that "stimulus" reflects the result of all of Obama's policies: Failure
"In a February 2012 poll from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 66 percent of Americans said the federal government is having a negative impact on the way things are going in this country (versus 22 percent who say the impact is positive). A majority disapproves of the president’s 2009 stimulus, and according to a 2010 CNN poll, about three-quarters of Americans believe the money was mostly wasted."
Why the Stimulus Failed National Review Online





3. The reason is that stimulus by the government is a flawed policy when it is designed to cure unemployment. If the government decided a bridge were to be built, the reason behind that decision is monumentally important.

a. If the bridge is based on the public's clamor for better access, or less traffic, or related to transportation, well, this is necessary response, consistent with the functions of government.

b. But...if the bridge is being built "to provide employment," need for a bridge aside, it is merely an invention of a project, and inventing becomes the Democrat bureaucrat's function.

4. Consider the argument that building the bridge will provide x number of jobs.....the unspoken belief is that those jobs would not otherwise come into existence.But...where did the money to pay for those jobs come from?
Answer: every dollar given to those bridge workers was taken from other workers in taxes.

So...if the bridge cost $50 million, then $50 million (at least) had to be taken from the economy, from taxpayers.
Bridge illustration taken from "Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt



a. And what would have happened to the $50 million had it not been taken?
Right....it would have remained in the economy producing jobs.

So...for every 'stimulus' job created by the bridge project, a private job has been destroyed.




The explanation for boondoggles such as Obama's 'Stimulus' is found here:

1. There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;

Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115



I hope you took notes so you don't appear so much of a fool in the future.

 

[AntonToo]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

Some more of very same stupidity, but slightly re-wrapped.

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

To state the above is gross ignorance of how economics work and why.

OK....well....

RetardedChick I have an idea - how about, instead of spamming your usual copy-and-paste, you DIRECTLY address the counter argument to the bullshit in your original post?

It's like you can't put a substantive sentence together in your own words and think that could be made up with endless spamming of copy-pastes that are tangent at best.

 

[AntonToo]

Answer: GDP growth has been the lowest in the entire history of united states .

GDP growth was -8% on annualized basis when Obama was getting into office (and passing Stimulus and bailing/reforming finance sector)

Obama will also have higher GDP growth than Bush's both terms, while making around 15 million jobs compared to...well right about no job growth for Bush W. and Sr. COMBINED.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

Some more of very same stupidity, but slightly re-wrapped.

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

To state the above is gross ignorance of how economics work and why.

OK....well....

RetardedChick I have an idea - how about, instead of spamming your usual copy-and-paste, you DIRECTLY address the counter argument to the bullshit in your original post?

It's like you can't put a substantive sentence together in your own words and think that could be made up with endless spamming of copy-pastes that are tangent at best.

Since you could not have read "Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt is this short time.....
...your post will be.....and is....as stupid as every other one you've posted.




Still....I'm gracious and generous....so...here's another lesson:

I will prove both, why 'Stimulus' was a sham....and what liars the Democrats are.



Why The Stimulus?

Short answer: as a slush fund to reward supporters, and provide a pathway for kick-backs. But certainly not as an anodyne (better look that up, dunce) for the economic disease that afflicted America.


1. First of all....the Stimulus didn't work. Even Obama said this: "It’s not growing quite as fast as we would like, because after a financial crisis, typically there’s a bigger drag on the economy for a longer period of time." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/20/remarks-president-facebook-town-hall

a. Reinhart and Rogoff tried to support this fabrication in their book, "This Time Is Different."

b. Bill Clinton went even further: "At a recent Democratic fundraising event, former President Bill Clinton did his level best to explain away the slow growth and high unemployment of the Obama era.
"If you go back 500 years," said Mr. Clinton, "whenever a country's financial system collapses, it takes between 5 and 10 years to get back to full employment. If you go back for the last 200 years, when buildings had been widely owned by individuals and companies, if there's a mortgage collapse it almost always takes 10 years." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577378772704541942.html

And there's a man whose word one can count on.....not.


2. "Neither historical data nor recent international comparison support Reinhart's and Rogoff's claim about the weakness of recoveries after financial crises." Lott, "At The Brink," p. 113.

a. "A large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion." Milton Friedman, "The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau," ch.12, in "The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays."

b. "...since the 1880's, the average annual growth rate of real GDP during financial recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%, while the growth rate from non-financial crisis recessions was 6.9%."
Bardo and Haubrich, "Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence From the American Record," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June 2012.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf


c. "U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007–2008." http://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/pubscf/nftv_1110.cfm




Get that, you dolt????

"...recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%...."
When Obama wasn't in charge.

When he is:
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



Facts....you ignorant little twit: everything I post is a fact!!!
Especially my analysis of your IQ.

 

[Iceweasel]

Facts....you ignorant little twit: everything I post is a fact!!!
Especially my analysis of your IQ.

He has an IQ? I call bull.

 

[AntonToo]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

Some more of very same stupidity, but slightly re-wrapped.

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

To state the above is gross ignorance of how economics work and why.

OK....well....

RetardedChick I have an idea - how about, instead of spamming your usual copy-and-paste, you DIRECTLY address the counter argument to the bullshit in your original post?

It's like you can't put a substantive sentence together in your own words and think that could be made up with endless spamming of copy-pastes that are tangent at best.

Since you could not have read "Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt is this short time.....
...your post will be.....and is....as stupid as every other one you've posted.




Still....I'm gracious and generous....so...here's another lesson:

I will prove both, why 'Stimulus' was a sham....and what liars the Democrats are.



Why The Stimulus?

Short answer: as a slush fund to reward supporters, and provide a pathway for kick-backs. But certainly not as an anodyne (better look that up, dunce) for the economic disease that afflicted America.


1. First of all....the Stimulus didn't work. Even Obama said this: "It’s not growing quite as fast as we would like, because after a financial crisis, typically there’s a bigger drag on the economy for a longer period of time." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/20/remarks-president-facebook-town-hall

a. Reinhart and Rogoff tried to support this fabrication in their book, "This Time Is Different."

b. Bill Clinton went even further: "At a recent Democratic fundraising event, former President Bill Clinton did his level best to explain away the slow growth and high unemployment of the Obama era.
"If you go back 500 years," said Mr. Clinton, "whenever a country's financial system collapses, it takes between 5 and 10 years to get back to full employment. If you go back for the last 200 years, when buildings had been widely owned by individuals and companies, if there's a mortgage collapse it almost always takes 10 years." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577378772704541942.html

And there's a man whose word one can count on.....not.


2. "Neither historical data nor recent international comparison support Reinhart's and Rogoff's claim about the weakness of recoveries after financial crises." Lott, "At The Brink," p. 113.

a. "A large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion." Milton Friedman, "The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau," ch.12, in "The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays."

b. "...since the 1880's, the average annual growth rate of real GDP during financial recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%, while the growth rate from non-financial crisis recessions was 6.9%."
Bardo and Haubrich, "Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence From the American Record," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June 2012.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf


c. "U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007–2008." http://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/pubscf/nftv_1110.cfm




Get that, you dolt????

"...recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%...."
When Obama wasn't in charge.

When he is:
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



Facts....you ignorant little twit: everything I post is a fact!!!
Especially my analysis of your IQ.

Not a single word here ACTUALLY addresses my counter argument to your original post. You just did the same thing you do every time - mindless copy-and-paste to obscure the fact that you are fucking retarded and CAN'T understand, let alone sanely address anything.

Here is AGAIN my original counter argument to what you said:

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

Can you find ANYTHING in your posts that directly responds or even acknowledges it? No, you can't.

I'm pretty sure I can write a posting bot program that will be more convincing as having real intellect than you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Facts....you ignorant little twit: everything I post is a fact!!!
Especially my analysis of your IQ.

He has an IQ? I call bull.

My mistake....when discussing his IQ, it should be written in lower case.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The best approach for supporting the Stimulus, it seems...is to lie:

1. And when the projections fall short: “The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs.

Some more of very same stupidity, but slightly re-wrapped.

There are many factors in economy, stimulus is just one and so it is impossible to show from actuals on number of jobs how many were caused specifically by Stimulus or Bush's tax-cuts or any other policy.

Real state bubble deflating for example causes job losses reflected in the actual job counts, does that prove stimulus didn't add any? Of course not. But in stupidomics conservatives propose it does.

To state the above is gross ignorance of how economics work and why.

OK....well....

RetardedChick I have an idea - how about, instead of spamming your usual copy-and-paste, you DIRECTLY address the counter argument to the bullshit in your original post?

It's like you can't put a substantive sentence together in your own words and think that could be made up with endless spamming of copy-pastes that are tangent at best.

Since you could not have read "Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt is this short time.....
...your post will be.....and is....as stupid as every other one you've posted.




Still....I'm gracious and generous....so...here's another lesson:

I will prove both, why 'Stimulus' was a sham....and what liars the Democrats are.



Why The Stimulus?

Short answer: as a slush fund to reward supporters, and provide a pathway for kick-backs. But certainly not as an anodyne (better look that up, dunce) for the economic disease that afflicted America.


1. First of all....the Stimulus didn't work. Even Obama said this: "It’s not growing quite as fast as we would like, because after a financial crisis, typically there’s a bigger drag on the economy for a longer period of time." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/20/remarks-president-facebook-town-hall

a. Reinhart and Rogoff tried to support this fabrication in their book, "This Time Is Different."

b. Bill Clinton went even further: "At a recent Democratic fundraising event, former President Bill Clinton did his level best to explain away the slow growth and high unemployment of the Obama era.
"If you go back 500 years," said Mr. Clinton, "whenever a country's financial system collapses, it takes between 5 and 10 years to get back to full employment. If you go back for the last 200 years, when buildings had been widely owned by individuals and companies, if there's a mortgage collapse it almost always takes 10 years." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577378772704541942.html

And there's a man whose word one can count on.....not.


2. "Neither historical data nor recent international comparison support Reinhart's and Rogoff's claim about the weakness of recoveries after financial crises." Lott, "At The Brink," p. 113.

a. "A large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion." Milton Friedman, "The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau," ch.12, in "The Optimum Quantity of Money and Other Essays."

b. "...since the 1880's, the average annual growth rate of real GDP during financial recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%, while the growth rate from non-financial crisis recessions was 6.9%."
Bardo and Haubrich, "Deep Recessions, Fast Recoveries, and Financial Crises: Evidence From the American Record," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June 2012.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2012/wp1214.pdf


c. "U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007–2008." http://www.frbatlanta.org/cenfis/pubscf/nftv_1110.cfm




Get that, you dolt????

"...recoveries from financial crisis recession was 8%...."
When Obama wasn't in charge.

When he is:
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "... annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama's Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. ".... first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire



Facts....you ignorant little twit: everything I post is a fact!!!
Especially my analysis of your IQ.

Not a single word here ACTUALLY addresses my counter argument to your original post. You just did the same thing you do every time - mindless copy-and-paste to obscure the fact that are fucking retarded and CAN'T understand, let alone sanely address anything.

So....let's stipulate:

You could find nary a single thing in my posts that you could dispute.


Excellent.



Now get to work on that book.

 

[AntonToo]

[
So....let's stipulate:

You could find nary a single thing in my posts that you could dispute.


Excellent.



Now get to work on that book.

Stipulation means condition to agreement...what conditions are you proposing?...I don't even know why I bother, you are seriously insane.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just to nail down what a buffoon Obama is...and his boy-supporter above....let's place this question into the realm of the Scientific Method, wherein we pose the question:

"Did Obama Policies Ruin The Economy?"

Of course the answer is clear and evident.




But...for proof, let's use Canada's economy as a control, as they were lucky enough to avoid Obama and the Scam-ulous.


1. "Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...

....It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus.

In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since."
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.



a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level.
Lott, Op. Cit.


b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %.
Lott, Op. Cit.




Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.

And their supporters will never learn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
So....let's stipulate:

You could find nary a single thing in my posts that you could dispute.


Excellent.



Now get to work on that book.

Stipulation means condition to agreement...what conditions are you proposing?...I don't even know why I bother, you are seriously insane.

I never words I can't define....of course I knew what 'stipulate' meant.


As you have been unable to deny, refute, or disprove anything I have posted.....
...all of which is linked,sourced and documented....
...we are stipulating that you are a fool, and I ...

...a genius with humility.



Agreed?
Good.



Now, get to work on that book I assigned you to assuage (better look that up) the lack of education from government schooling.

 

[AntonToo]

I never [USE] words I can't define....of course I knew what 'stipulate' meant.

So what the fuck did you stipulate?

Here is the summation of fruitless attempt to meaningfully converse with your crazy self:

1. You stated something.
2. I disputed it.
3. Instead of directly addressing my dispute you went on another copying and pasting spree that DOESN'T address my argument at all.
4. You claim I didn't dispute anything.