Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

[Mustang]

Second: Many very wealthy people have never worked a day in their lives.

Neither have many poor people.

Gee, which is easier to accomplish?

Not working when you're rich?

OR

Not working when you're poor?

 

[rdean]

Bachman.

Really? Where?

Really? You want me to post all the times she has called for elimination of the EPA and the FDA?

The right wing doesn't recognize a connection between the EPA and clean water or the FDA and safe food. They insist, "let the market sort it out". But who wants their baby to be the one to find the poison?

 

[Political Junky]

Some people are saying no, see the 'argument' against, here:

Schumer's conspiracy theory: GOP sabotaging recovery | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The evidence suggests Schumer's on to something. The House of Representatives has offered no debate on the issue of unemployment and has passed only 18 bills since taking control in January. 15 of those bills were passed to name federal buildings after someone. This do-nothing congress sees no urgency as millions of Americans are out of work, work one or two or three part time jobs simply to pay rent or the morgage on a home underwater.

The GOP leadership in both houses of congress has opposed all efforts by the president, and even turned down an offer by President Obama to reduce the payroll tax for businees. It seems ideology is only an excuse, the real reason is their lust for power.

Yes

 

[bodecea]

Some people are saying no, see the 'argument' against, here:

Schumer's conspiracy theory: GOP sabotaging recovery | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The evidence suggests Schumer's on to something. The House of Representatives has offered no debate on the issue of unemployment and has passed only 18 bills since taking control in January. 15 of those bills were passed to name federal buildings after someone. This do-nothing congress sees no urgency as millions of Americans are out of work, work one or two or three part time jobs simply to pay rent or the morgage on a home underwater.

The GOP leadership in both houses of congress has opposed all efforts by the president, and even turned down an offer by President Obama to reduce the payroll tax for businees. It seems ideology is only an excuse, the real reason is their lust for power.

That's our Republican Congress people....makes one proud, don't it?

 

[bodecea]

What a most unsurprising unruly surmisation by the op ed. He mentioned nothing about the do nothing congress from 2006-2010. Well, we did receive a trillion dollar unstimulating bill that did nothing for our economy.

No federal buildings named by that group.....grrrrrrr!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We never had clean water before the EPA.

Not once.

Noe ever.

 

[Susan45]

But you have to see how that is not a pro-active policy. If you are anti-everything-Obama-does, then what happens when he does something you want? Like the times he has lower taxes, and the GOP opposed it. That's surreal!

The GOP is not FOR anything right now except maybe zero taxes. This is what I wonder about. What are you guys FOR? What has the GOP done that is positive for the economy?

What does the GOP want? "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Grover Norquist

And what does that mean? No meat inspections, No environmental protections, No civil rights protections, no consumer protections, no banking regulations (look where that's gotten us). It means the death of our Republic and a new nation conceived and dedicated to profit under the rule of Plutocrats.

No, it doesn't, you idiot.


I'd be ashamed of myself if I needed the government to make all my decisions for me.

Some people revel in it.

Are you crazy? I'd put money on it that you would have a very hard time convincing one of those folks that accidentally poisoned their pet that they should be ashamed for counting on a government agency to make sure our pet food was safe. Now just stretch that out to consider their children and e coli and you'll just see yourself standing mostly alone.

We had a whooping cough epidemic in some places in the last few years. I guess those good folks that lost a child should feel ashamed that they "needed" the government to help them out.

Yep, you're crazy.

 

[kaz]

Aggregate Spending is Y = C+I+G+X-M

Perhaps you don't know what the G stands for in that formula. Why don't you look it up, and then we can talk about how the Government takes away from the economy.

This doesn't contradict me. GDP is just the total size of the economy, or specifically all the transactions in the economy. I didn't say that government spending doesn't exist, I said it doesn't create jobs. Or more precisely it doesn't create net jobs. The economy grows by adding value. The G comes from another bucket, no value is created and no jobs are created. Value is destroyed. That doesn't mean all value in the economy is destroyed, that means the government portion of the spending reduced wealth because it spent without creating value and therefore didn't create jobs.

So, you're opinion then is this:

If a consumer (C) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.

When did I talk about borrowing? Putting words in my mouth is an indication of weakness and not strength in your argument. But as for consumer spending, it's good in the sense that consumers are voting with their wallet, they are buying the things that matter to them. Wealth by the way is defined by the market.

If a business borrows money from Canada to invest (I) here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.

Again, when did I talk about borrowing? Again putting words in my mouth. But businesses investing is good since they only invest if they believe they can create wealth and they will hire people to perform the tasks and make a profit which will either be reinvested or distributed to shareholders who will put it back in the economy through spending and investment.

If the government (G) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that is the worst possible thing that could happen, GDP will drop and jobs will be destroyed.

Again you said "borrow." And you used the word "worst." I said it destroys (net) jobs. Yes, because we owe Canada the money and that will be paid by future taxpayers. When the money is removed from the economy may change the timing on the damage, but it doesn't change the inevitability of it. When money is earned, it can be kept in the economy or removed from it by government. Companies create wealth which drives the economy and creates jobs, government creates nothing, the money is spent.

Seriously, you don't get this? A farm community hires someone from the city to do cartwheels all day until he gets tired. They pay him, which he buys a house, goes to the store. But he doesn't create anything. He only consumes the community's resources. There is no possible way you can not get that the community paying that person to do nothing adds to the community whereas if his wages were kept by the people who earned it they would either invest it in their farms/businesses or at least buy something they want. It's not that hard.

Again I conceded if you want to argue that your liberal sense of fairness dictates that government is good and you want to destroy jobs growing it then fine. But to argue that the sky is not blue isn't rational or productive to anything.

I'd love to see you explain how that happens, but I'm really more curious to know what you think happens when X increases. Do we get invaded by Martians?

Exports are good, imports are good, any free market transaction is good. What have I said counter to that ever? I haven't, I support free markets. Sniff glue much?

 

[bodecea]

I think the left has become a very desperate bunch of losers. I hope so anyway. If we can just keep them from digging up dead people and making them pay taxes.

It's worse then that, they dig up the dead so they can vote for us to pay more taxes. Which is why the left is against checking ID. They are the party of election fraud, and they know it. Whatever it takes to elect a liberal...

Could someone dig up the founders so we could have a redo?

You don't want them...they were Liberals.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What a most unsurprising unruly surmisation by the op ed. He mentioned nothing about the do nothing congress from 2006-2010. Well, we did receive a trillion dollar unstimulating bill that did nothing for our economy.

No federal buildings named by that group.....grrrrrrr!

No, just trillions more in debt. I wish they would all leave and never pass anything else.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's worse then that, they dig up the dead so they can vote for us to pay more taxes. Which is why the left is against checking ID. They are the party of election fraud, and they know it. Whatever it takes to elect a liberal...

Could someone dig up the founders so we could have a redo?

You don't want them...they were Liberals.

Classic liberals. Big difference. They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with today's pathetic excuses for politicians. They'd be on the next clipper outta here as soon as they saw the miscreants running this country now.

 

[Avorysuds]

Aggregate Spending is Y = C+I+G+X-M

Perhaps you don't know what the G stands for in that formula. Why don't you look it up, and then we can talk about how the Government takes away from the economy.

This doesn't contradict me. GDP is just the total size of the economy, or specifically all the transactions in the economy. I didn't say that government spending doesn't exist, I said it doesn't create jobs. Or more precisely it doesn't create net jobs. The economy grows by adding value. The G comes from another bucket, no value is created and no jobs are created. Value is destroyed. That doesn't mean all value in the economy is destroyed, that means the government portion of the spending reduced wealth because it spent without creating value and therefore didn't create jobs.

So, you're opinion then is this:

If a consumer (C) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.
If a business borrows money from Canada to invest (I) here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.
If the government (G) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that is the worst possible thing that could happen, GDP will drop and jobs will be destroyed.

I'd love to see you explain how that happens, but I'm really more curious to know what you think happens when X increases. Do we get invaded by Martians?

Uhhh, duh?

 

[kaz]

Second: Many very wealthy people have never worked a day in their lives.

Neither have many poor people.

Gee, which is easier to accomplish?

Not working when you're rich?

OR

Not working when you're poor?

Which is easier to accomplish?

Being rich when you work?

Being rich when you don't work?

I mean unless a Democratic politician is involved...

 

[Avorysuds]

This doesn't contradict me. GDP is just the total size of the economy, or specifically all the transactions in the economy. I didn't say that government spending doesn't exist, I said it doesn't create jobs. Or more precisely it doesn't create net jobs. The economy grows by adding value. The G comes from another bucket, no value is created and no jobs are created. Value is destroyed. That doesn't mean all value in the economy is destroyed, that means the government portion of the spending reduced wealth because it spent without creating value and therefore didn't create jobs.

So, you're opinion then is this:

If a consumer (C) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.
If a business borrows money from Canada to invest (I) here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.
If the government (G) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that is the worst possible thing that could happen, GDP will drop and jobs will be destroyed.

I'd love to see you explain how that happens, but I'm really more curious to know what you think happens when X increases. Do we get invaded by Martians?

Uhhh, duh?

LOL, I’m gonna quote myself here and ask DBS a question…

SO, DBS… Why does the US Government not just borrow 48 Trillion dollars from (let’s say) Canada and “invest” it here in the states? It should work like a business no?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's hard to take a Party seriously who believe that bank ATM and airport kiosks are harming the economy.

 

[Susan45]

This doesn't contradict me. GDP is just the total size of the economy, or specifically all the transactions in the economy. I didn't say that government spending doesn't exist, I said it doesn't create jobs. Or more precisely it doesn't create net jobs. The economy grows by adding value. The G comes from another bucket, no value is created and no jobs are created. Value is destroyed. That doesn't mean all value in the economy is destroyed, that means the government portion of the spending reduced wealth because it spent without creating value and therefore didn't create jobs.

So, you're opinion then is this:

If a consumer (C) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.

When did I talk about borrowing? Putting words in my mouth is an indication of weakness and not strength in your argument. But as for consumer spending, it's good in the sense that consumers are voting with their wallet, they are buying the things that matter to them. Wealth by the way is defined by the market.


Again, when did I talk about borrowing? Again putting words in my mouth. But businesses investing is good since they only invest if they believe they can create wealth and they will hire people to perform the tasks and make a profit which will either be reinvested or distributed to shareholders who will put it back in the economy through spending and investment.

If the government (G) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that is the worst possible thing that could happen, GDP will drop and jobs will be destroyed.

Again you said "borrow." And you used the word "worst." I said it destroys (net) jobs. Yes, because we owe Canada the money and that will be paid by future taxpayers. When the money is removed from the economy may change the timing on the damage, but it doesn't change the inevitability of it. When money is earned, it can be kept in the economy or removed from it by government. Companies create wealth which drives the economy and creates jobs, government creates nothing, the money is spent.

Seriously, you don't get this? A farm community hires someone from the city to do cartwheels all day until he gets tired. They pay him, which he buys a house, goes to the store. But he doesn't create anything. He only consumes the community's resources. There is no possible way you can not get that the community paying that person to do nothing adds to the community whereas if his wages were kept by the people who earned it they would either invest it in their farms/businesses or at least buy something they want. It's not that hard.

Again I conceded if you want to argue that your liberal sense of fairness dictates that government is good and you want to destroy jobs growing it then fine. But to argue that the sky is not blue isn't rational or productive to anything.

I'd love to see you explain how that happens, but I'm really more curious to know what you think happens when X increases. Do we get invaded by Martians?

Exports are good, imports are good, any free market transaction is good. What have I said counter to that ever? I haven't, I support free markets. Sniff glue much?

I'm really curious...when has there ever been a well run country that used a free market system? Has it ever worked anywhere? And if it did, where is it?

 

[WillowTree]

So, you're opinion then is this:

If a consumer (C) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.

When did I talk about borrowing? Putting words in my mouth is an indication of weakness and not strength in your argument. But as for consumer spending, it's good in the sense that consumers are voting with their wallet, they are buying the things that matter to them. Wealth by the way is defined by the market.


Again, when did I talk about borrowing? Again putting words in my mouth. But businesses investing is good since they only invest if they believe they can create wealth and they will hire people to perform the tasks and make a profit which will either be reinvested or distributed to shareholders who will put it back in the economy through spending and investment.


Again you said "borrow." And you used the word "worst." I said it destroys (net) jobs. Yes, because we owe Canada the money and that will be paid by future taxpayers. When the money is removed from the economy may change the timing on the damage, but it doesn't change the inevitability of it. When money is earned, it can be kept in the economy or removed from it by government. Companies create wealth which drives the economy and creates jobs, government creates nothing, the money is spent.

Seriously, you don't get this? A farm community hires someone from the city to do cartwheels all day until he gets tired. They pay him, which he buys a house, goes to the store. But he doesn't create anything. He only consumes the community's resources. There is no possible way you can not get that the community paying that person to do nothing adds to the community whereas if his wages were kept by the people who earned it they would either invest it in their farms/businesses or at least buy something they want. It's not that hard.

Again I conceded if you want to argue that your liberal sense of fairness dictates that government is good and you want to destroy jobs growing it then fine. But to argue that the sky is not blue isn't rational or productive to anything.

I'd love to see you explain how that happens, but I'm really more curious to know what you think happens when X increases. Do we get invaded by Martians?

Exports are good, imports are good, any free market transaction is good. What have I said counter to that ever? I haven't, I support free markets. Sniff glue much?

I'm really curious...when has there ever been a well run country that used a free market system? Has it ever worked anywhere? And if it did, where is it?

spoken like a true communist.

 

[DontBeStupid]

We never had clean water before the EPA.

Not once.

Noe ever.

Yeah, and we never had crime before cops so clearly we can get rid of them too.

 

[kaz]

So, you're opinion then is this:

If a consumer (C) borrows money from Canada and spends it here, that will be good, GDP will rise and net jobs will be created.

When did I talk about borrowing? Putting words in my mouth is an indication of weakness and not strength in your argument. But as for consumer spending, it's good in the sense that consumers are voting with their wallet, they are buying the things that matter to them. Wealth by the way is defined by the market.


Again, when did I talk about borrowing? Again putting words in my mouth. But businesses investing is good since they only invest if they believe they can create wealth and they will hire people to perform the tasks and make a profit which will either be reinvested or distributed to shareholders who will put it back in the economy through spending and investment.


Again you said "borrow." And you used the word "worst." I said it destroys (net) jobs. Yes, because we owe Canada the money and that will be paid by future taxpayers. When the money is removed from the economy may change the timing on the damage, but it doesn't change the inevitability of it. When money is earned, it can be kept in the economy or removed from it by government. Companies create wealth which drives the economy and creates jobs, government creates nothing, the money is spent.

Seriously, you don't get this? A farm community hires someone from the city to do cartwheels all day until he gets tired. They pay him, which he buys a house, goes to the store. But he doesn't create anything. He only consumes the community's resources. There is no possible way you can not get that the community paying that person to do nothing adds to the community whereas if his wages were kept by the people who earned it they would either invest it in their farms/businesses or at least buy something they want. It's not that hard.

Again I conceded if you want to argue that your liberal sense of fairness dictates that government is good and you want to destroy jobs growing it then fine. But to argue that the sky is not blue isn't rational or productive to anything.

I'd love to see you explain how that happens, but I'm really more curious to know what you think happens when X increases. Do we get invaded by Martians?

Exports are good, imports are good, any free market transaction is good. What have I said counter to that ever? I haven't, I support free markets. Sniff glue much?

I'm really curious...when has there ever been a well run country that used a free market system? Has it ever worked anywhere? And if it did, where is it?

The more free market countries are the better they do. As we've become less free market we're continually doing worse. I always enjoy the argument that if a country's not completely free market then we don't need any freedom in our markets at all, while socialism isn't challenged in any such way.

 

[Susan45]

When did I talk about borrowing? Putting words in my mouth is an indication of weakness and not strength in your argument. But as for consumer spending, it's good in the sense that consumers are voting with their wallet, they are buying the things that matter to them. Wealth by the way is defined by the market.


Again, when did I talk about borrowing? Again putting words in my mouth. But businesses investing is good since they only invest if they believe they can create wealth and they will hire people to perform the tasks and make a profit which will either be reinvested or distributed to shareholders who will put it back in the economy through spending and investment.


Again you said "borrow." And you used the word "worst." I said it destroys (net) jobs. Yes, because we owe Canada the money and that will be paid by future taxpayers. When the money is removed from the economy may change the timing on the damage, but it doesn't change the inevitability of it. When money is earned, it can be kept in the economy or removed from it by government. Companies create wealth which drives the economy and creates jobs, government creates nothing, the money is spent.

Seriously, you don't get this? A farm community hires someone from the city to do cartwheels all day until he gets tired. They pay him, which he buys a house, goes to the store. But he doesn't create anything. He only consumes the community's resources. There is no possible way you can not get that the community paying that person to do nothing adds to the community whereas if his wages were kept by the people who earned it they would either invest it in their farms/businesses or at least buy something they want. It's not that hard.

Again I conceded if you want to argue that your liberal sense of fairness dictates that government is good and you want to destroy jobs growing it then fine. But to argue that the sky is not blue isn't rational or productive to anything.



Exports are good, imports are good, any free market transaction is good. What have I said counter to that ever? I haven't, I support free markets. Sniff glue much?

I'm really curious...when has there ever been a well run country that used a free market system? Has it ever worked anywhere? And if it did, where is it?

spoken like a true communist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I'll bet you're going to miss watching Glenn Beck. HAHAHAHA!!!

No answer to the questions huh? Somehow I'm not surprised. I've watched how versed you all are in history.