It's a miracle the economy has grown for 71 straight months.

[TC_Triple3]

Let's see... if we actually did print a $million and hand it out to everyone, what would be the impact? A surge in spending, for sure. Enough to sustain an entire economy? maybe not because of the inclination to save what isn't needed. And even if everyone spent the entire amount, we'd just have to do it again later because thee same rules would apply - consistent spending over a long term drives the economy. What would be better would be to increase gainful employment.

Now, dear Ed, we come to the point you should listen carefully to because I think you might have forgotten this. Let's say that the government appropriated a huge block of cash (perhaps by borrowing against the future as we usually do) and then contracted to repair roads and bridges. This would create jobs which puts considerably less than a million in a lot of hands, but the cash earned also fuels spending - from the lowly local diner to luxury car manufacturers, everyone benefits from the influx of money. They themselves can now afford to spend more which causes prosperity to propagate far away from the targeted construction projects. The increase in available funds is even felt at the federal level in the form of more revenues obtained through the current tax base and allows it to actually pay down the debt incurred (although we both know that some conservative commie is just going to redirect those funds to another pet project like a race track or a bank office building). Increased spending can also trigger higher inflation rates, meaning that the value of the dollar can drop a little. This moves into the international part of our economy and makes US dollars less desirable to foreign companies, which in turn reduces our trade imbalance problems a little. This isn't socialist, or communist, or even libturd thinking. It's just plain old capitalistic thinking applied to the entire scope of the economy rather than what's in YOUR wallet.

Now tell ME that you have the wit to understand Econ 101.

Jobs would be created either way, but the jobs that are created by handing out wads of cash aren't as obvious as the jobs created by a public works project. Taxes will also be collected either way. Handing out wads of cash would cause an immediate spike in consumer spending whereas public works projects would be longer term, benefit a smaller group, and wouldn't register so much as a blip on the GDP radar. Either way the effects are the same, the only difference is the pace with which they occur.

 

[Agit8r]

ISM Manufacturing Remains Steady Hiring Slows

Economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in April for the 28th consecutive month, and the overall economy grew for the 71st consecutive month, say the nation’s supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM Report On Business.

--------------------------------------

I think it's a miracle. No matter how hard they've tried, Republicans haven't been able to derail all of the improvement. Sure, they've slowed it down, but they haven't been able to stop it completely.

Look at U-6 and then come back to apologize for your propaganda.

10.8%. Lowest since August 2008

 

[oldernwiser]

Let's see... if we actually did print a $million and hand it out to everyone, what would be the impact? A surge in spending, for sure. Enough to sustain an entire economy? maybe not because of the inclination to save what isn't needed. And even if everyone spent the entire amount, we'd just have to do it again later because thee same rules would apply - consistent spending over a long term drives the economy. What would be better would be to increase gainful employment.

Now, dear Ed, we come to the point you should listen carefully to because I think you might have forgotten this. Let's say that the government appropriated a huge block of cash (perhaps by borrowing against the future as we usually do) and then contracted to repair roads and bridges. This would create jobs which puts considerably less than a million in a lot of hands, but the cash earned also fuels spending - from the lowly local diner to luxury car manufacturers, everyone benefits from the influx of money. They themselves can now afford to spend more which causes prosperity to propagate far away from the targeted construction projects. The increase in available funds is even felt at the federal level in the form of more revenues obtained through the current tax base and allows it to actually pay down the debt incurred (although we both know that some conservative commie is just going to redirect those funds to another pet project like a race track or a bank office building). Increased spending can also trigger higher inflation rates, meaning that the value of the dollar can drop a little. This moves into the international part of our economy and makes US dollars less desirable to foreign companies, which in turn reduces our trade imbalance problems a little. This isn't socialist, or communist, or even libturd thinking. It's just plain old capitalistic thinking applied to the entire scope of the economy rather than what's in YOUR wallet.

Now tell ME that you have the wit to understand Econ 101.

Jobs would be created either way, but the jobs that are created by handing out wads of cash aren't as obvious as the jobs created by a public works project. Taxes will also be collected either way. Handing out wads of cash would cause an immediate spike in consumer spending whereas public works projects would be longer term, benefit a smaller group, and wouldn't register so much as a blip on the GDP radar. Either way the effects are the same, the only difference is the pace with which they occur.

How do you figure that? If Congress committed to a 10 year infrastructure program for example, that would mean an immediate increase in new jobs. This means an almost immediate increase in spending with a subsequent rise in demand. Since it's a committed 10 year project, this won't be a simple spike - which means that other businesses could safely expand to meet new demand. That in itself would also stimulate more employment and even more spending and demand for other services. The overall benefit would be a dramatic increase in GDP, growth in all kinds of employment, a slight reduction in the earnings gap due to more competition for labor, and increased revenues for fees and taxes that could be used to fund the program (if conservatives can keep their fingers out of that stream) as well as to pump up local economies and revenues. If you really want to kill most of the social giveaways, this would be the way to do it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How do you figure that? If Congress committed to a 10 year infrastructure program for example, that would mean an immediate increase in new jobs.

100% stupid and 100% perfectly liberal!!! Govt is already committed to spending $8 trillion a year, of $16 trillion GDP, and we have high unemployment! Taxing for one make work public job eliminates one real private sector job.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[oldernwiser]

How do you figure that? If Congress committed to a 10 year infrastructure program for example, that would mean an immediate increase in new jobs.

100% stupid and 100% perfectly liberal!!! Govt is already committed to spending $8 trillion a year, of $16 trillion GDP, and we have high unemployment! Taxing for one make work public job eliminates one real private sector job.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Ed sweetheart - $8T on what exactly?

You know what I think Darlin? I think you can't find a plausible or rational reason to argue with so you pluck something out of thin air, wrap it up with "stupid", "liberal", and "ignorant" , and try to pass that off as the word of God. What other conclusion COULD be possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed sweetheart - $8T on what exactly?

dear, you want libcommie govt to spend money to create jobs when they already spend $8 trillion(half of GDP) a year and, surprise, we still have high unemployment. When they tax to create one make work public sector job they destroy one real private sector job. No net gain is possible. If it was possible unemployment would be a thing of the past.

Now do you understand why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible? If so what is the conclusion.

 

[oldernwiser]

Ed sweetheart - $8T on what exactly?

dear, you want libcommie govt to spend money to create jobs when they already spend $8 trillion(half of GDP) a year and, surprise, we still have high unemployment. When they tax to create one make work public sector job they destroy one real private sector job. No net gain is possible. If it was possible unemployment would be a thing of the past.

Now do you understand why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible? If so what is the conclusion.

Ed my love, you consistently avoid giving a direct answer to any direct question. $8T (half of GDP) per year was spent on what?
Let me help you. It wasn't spent on "make work". Where did that money go, Ed?
Let me help you some more, dear Ed. The federal government has been spending around 20% of GDP per year since the late 1970s.

And we aren't talking about taxing in order to spend here. We're actually saying that borrowing against the future in order to improve our current economic levels could in fact balance out with increased collections later so that no new taxes would even be necessary. Surely they taught you that in Econ 101? You DID take Econ 101, didn't you sweetie?

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance here, but I'm not so sure it's all coming from the progressive argument.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

$8T (half of GDP) per year was spent on what?
.

you idiot, fed state and local govt already spend $8 trillion a year on many things and still an idiot liberal like you thinks that if they just spend a $1trillion more there will be no unemployment. Its 100% impossible.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. We're actually saying that borrowing against the future in order to improve our current economic levels could in fact balance out with increased collections later so that no new taxes would even be necessary. Surely they taught you that in Econ 101? You DID take Econ 101, didn't you sweetie?
.

100% perfect and typical idiot liberal doofus. We've already borrowed $20 trillion against the future and have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and yet the liberal wants to try even more borrowing.

It is really too stupid for words, i.e., its 100% liberal.

 

[oldernwiser]

$8T (half of GDP) per year was spent on what?
.

you idiot, fed state and local govt already spend $8 trillion a year on many things and still an idiot liberal like you thinks that if they just spend a $1trillion more there will be no unemployment. Its 100% impossible.

Really Ed? I'm surprised that someone as learned as you say you are wouldn't take the time to actually look up the real data before you slung terms like "idiot" around. Just so that we're using real numbers, this is what the US Treasury reported for FY 2014 (it's a summary, but we should be OK with that since we're talking about your open-ended $8T number):

Total Federal Outlays: $3.504 trillion
Total Federal Receipts: $3.021 trillion
Federal Deficit: $483 billion
Total Federal Debt: $17.8 trillion

FY 2014's total GDP was a little over $17.4 T, which means that the total outlays for FY 2014 amounted to 20% (yes, I rounded a bit) which is considerably less than the 50% you claimed, wouldn't you agree my love?

Also, notice that the Federal Government's outlays (that's what it spent - but you knew that already) of $3.5T is considerably less than $8T. Wouldn't you agree, sweetie? Where did your extra $4.5T come from? And why didn't the Treasury Dept report that as an outlay? Surely you can see the source of my confusion... or maybe it's yours?

And I know that our government spends the $3.504T on "many things" and I can itemize that for you too, but specifically dear, what item relates back to increasing employment and improving sagging demand? This is YOUR complaint sweetie, you should be able to tell us chapter and verse where we've got things wrong. (Although, if you can't get the numbers right in your initial argument, it's very hard to take you seriously.)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Also, notice that the Federal Government's outlays (that's what it spent - but you knew that already) of $3.5T is considerably less than $8T. Wouldn't you agree, sweetie?

will someone tell the idiot liberal I said fed local and state amounted to $8 trillion!!!!!

 

[rdean]

Let's see... if we actually did print a $million and hand it out to everyone, what would be the impact? A surge in spending, for sure. Enough to sustain an entire economy? maybe not because of the inclination to save what isn't needed. And even if everyone spent the entire amount, we'd just have to do it again later because thee same rules would apply - consistent spending over a long term drives the economy. What would be better would be to increase gainful employment.

Now, dear Ed, we come to the point you should listen carefully to because I think you might have forgotten this. Let's say that the government appropriated a huge block of cash (perhaps by borrowing against the future as we usually do) and then contracted to repair roads and bridges. This would create jobs which puts considerably less than a million in a lot of hands, but the cash earned also fuels spending - from the lowly local diner to luxury car manufacturers, everyone benefits from the influx of money. They themselves can now afford to spend more which causes prosperity to propagate far away from the targeted construction projects. The increase in available funds is even felt at the federal level in the form of more revenues obtained through the current tax base and allows it to actually pay down the debt incurred (although we both know that some conservative commie is just going to redirect those funds to another pet project like a race track or a bank office building). Increased spending can also trigger higher inflation rates, meaning that the value of the dollar can drop a little. This moves into the international part of our economy and makes US dollars less desirable to foreign companies, which in turn reduces our trade imbalance problems a little. This isn't socialist, or communist, or even libturd thinking. It's just plain old capitalistic thinking applied to the entire scope of the economy rather than what's in YOUR wallet.

Now tell ME that you have the wit to understand Econ 101.

Jobs would be created either way, but the jobs that are created by handing out wads of cash aren't as obvious as the jobs created by a public works project. Taxes will also be collected either way. Handing out wads of cash would cause an immediate spike in consumer spending whereas public works projects would be longer term, benefit a smaller group, and wouldn't register so much as a blip on the GDP radar. Either way the effects are the same, the only difference is the pace with which they occur.

Besides in a delusion, where did you see wads of cash handed out? And to whom?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what item relates back to increasing employment and improving sagging demand?

total idiot liberal!!! govt can spend on defense or bridges or anything and create millions of make work jobs but even after $8 trillion a year and $20 trillion in debt you still want to do it more thinking it will finally work to create real jobs and stimulate the economy ?

How 100% stupid and perfectly liberal is that?? are you beginning to see how brainwashed you've been?

 

[rdean]

. We're actually saying that borrowing against the future in order to improve our current economic levels could in fact balance out with increased collections later so that no new taxes would even be necessary. Surely they taught you that in Econ 101? You DID take Econ 101, didn't you sweetie?
.

100% perfect and typical idiot liberal doofus. We've already borrowed $20 trillion against the future and have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and yet the liberal wants to try even more borrowing.

It is really too stupid for words, i.e., its 100% liberal.

Bust Tax cuts - three trillions plus
Iraq war - three trillion plus
Tens of thousands maimed in Iraq - unknown number of trillions more
Medicare Part D (drugs for votes) - another trillion
Millions of jobs moved to China from 2001 to 2008 - trillions in lost revenue
Over 40,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008 - trillions in lost revenue.

And somehow, it's 100% liberal? Really? Oh, because they didn't stop it. Then why did the GOP use reconciliation three times when Republicans held all three branches of government? After all, they had liberal help, right?

Republicans think you can pay off debt without working. How fucking stupid. No, really. How fucking stupid.

 

[oldernwiser]

Also, notice that the Federal Government's outlays (that's what it spent - but you knew that already) of $3.5T is considerably less than $8T. Wouldn't you agree, sweetie?

will someone tell the idiot liberal I said fed local and state amounted to $8 trillion!!!!!

Ed hon, I'm losing patience with you. It's been fun, but I fear you're losing your mind.

You didn't say "Fed local and state", you said "govt". But let's consider that's what you meant for a second. What that implies is that the totality local governments are collecting and spending roughly a third more than the federal government does. Please tell me that doesn't make sense to you.

No matter how hard you try my love, the $8T number was derived anally. Let's just admit to that and we can move on.

 

[oldernwiser]

what item relates back to increasing employment and improving sagging demand?

total idiot liberal!!! govt can spend on defense or bridges or anything and create millions of make work jobs but even after $8 trillion a year and $20 trillion in debt you still want to do it more thinking it will finally work to create real jobs and stimulate the economy ?

How 100% stupid and perfectly liberal is that?? are you beginning to see how brainwashed you've been?

Dear Ed, how incredibly resistant to facts you are. I show you that your $8T is a fiction, and you still use that as a basis for your argument. I ask you specific questions about your argument, and you respond by calling me an idiot liberal and reiterating fictitious numbers. I'm beginning to think that you really don't have a clue - since you're more interested in childish outbursts than you are in responding with facts and data. You're wrong Ed, and worse than that, we both know it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Dear Ed, how incredibly resistant to facts you are. I show you that your $8T is a fiction, and you still use that as a basis for your argument..

total idiot liberal its not basis of argument!!! Whether govt spends $8 or 10 or 5 trillion it does not create real jobs. One make work liberal job eliminates 1 real private sector job. If libcommie spending created jobs unemployment would be a thing of the past and Europe would be leading the way!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I ask you specific questions about your argument, and you respond by calling me an idiot liberal.

show the specific question I didn't answer or admit to being a liar.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You didn't say "Fed local and state", .

dear, check out post #68. Doofus liberal???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No matter how hard you try my love, the $8T number was derived anally. Let's just admit to that and we can move on.

dear, do you notice that you want to talk about the accuracy of the number and a not defend your idiotic point that govt spending creates real jobs and that we have unemployment because govt doesn't spend enough?

Feel stupid and liberal yet?? Ask yourself, do I want to be a liberal all my life? You should meet your maker clean!!