It's demand that drives the economy and other things Liberals get consistently wrong

[boedicca]

How many times have we heard the Progressive economic idea that demand drives the economy, so the best stimulus is to rob from the rich, redistribute some of that money (the government has to wet its beak) and viola! Demands get satisfied, economy grows, workers Paradise dead ahead!

But look at every economy running on this great Progressive idea: In Venezuela, they must have met all the demands for groceries, canned goods, toilet paper and all household items because there are none to be found; in Cuba, they must have meet all the demand for healthcare because their hospitals rewash surgical gloves; in Flint, they cannot even get potable drinking water, so the demand for drinking water must have been met. Progressives meet consumer demand with a one-fingered salute.

Does the USA have the world's #1 (or 2) economy) because we demand more than the rest? Can Progressives show me an economy that does not have demand? Is there a group of people on the planet that says, "Drinking water, TP, cars, yeah fuck it, don't need or want it"

So youre saying as a rep for the conservatives that if no one bought a car or a house, or clothes etc the economy would prosper?

No, don't people the world over demand housing and transportation? Yet, why is, or was, the USA the world's number 1 economy?

All the DEMAND for medical services spurred by ObamaCare has certainly caused a bunch of Doctors to spontaneously burst into existence!

 

[boedicca]

I still suggest annexing Mexico, it's a poorly run country with plentiful resources and a strategic location. We could clean it up and create real wealth in their country for the benefit of probably everyone.

absurd!! We could clean it up like we cleaned up Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Syria. We have too many liberals to make any progress here, let alone elsewhere. They would simply make Mexico a communist state failing worse than it is now.

Mexico is GOP utopia. The rich are rich and everyone else is poor and has no chance of becoming rich. Cheap labor

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

 

[Rshermr]

I still suggest annexing Mexico, it's a poorly run country with plentiful resources and a strategic location. We could clean it up and create real wealth in their country for the benefit of probably everyone.

absurd!! We could clean it up like we cleaned up Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Syria. We have too many liberals to make any progress here, let alone elsewhere. They would simply make Mexico a communist state failing worse than it is now.

Mexico is GOP utopia. The rich are rich and everyone else is poor and has no chance of becoming rich. Cheap labor

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

BOEDICCA SAID:
Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[ each[gop] talking point benefits only the wealthy .

Their main point is capitalism which just eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty when China switched to it. Do you realize eliminating poverty helps the poor not the wealthy? And that under capitalism you get wealthy by helping the poor??

Or that shipping 20 million illegals home creates 20 million new jobs with huge upward pressure on wages for poor people, not wealthy people? Sorry to rock your totally brainwashed world!!

 

[boedicca]

I still suggest annexing Mexico, it's a poorly run country with plentiful resources and a strategic location. We could clean it up and create real wealth in their country for the benefit of probably everyone.

absurd!! We could clean it up like we cleaned up Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Syria. We have too many liberals to make any progress here, let alone elsewhere. They would simply make Mexico a communist state failing worse than it is now.

Mexico is GOP utopia. The rich are rich and everyone else is poor and has no chance of becoming rich. Cheap labor

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

 

[Rshermr]

absurd!! We could clean it up like we cleaned up Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Syria. We have too many liberals to make any progress here, let alone elsewhere. They would simply make Mexico a communist state failing worse than it is now.

Mexico is GOP utopia. The rich are rich and everyone else is poor and has no chance of becoming rich. Cheap labor

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

Soros is a huge contributor, not a recipient. I am not sure you can understand the difference, but he GIVES to things he believes in He is number 10 on the list, with 8 conservatives and one liberal who give more. Where you get that he is making money at the expense of the poor shows you are ignorant.

Clintons?? I could not agree more. Though they do not have the earnings of some of the politicians. And I did not suggest that any specific dem was not getting wealthy. Because, you see, I have said (should you be capable of reading) that many do.

 

[sealybobo]

absurd!! We could clean it up like we cleaned up Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Syria. We have too many liberals to make any progress here, let alone elsewhere. They would simply make Mexico a communist state failing worse than it is now.

Mexico is GOP utopia. The rich are rich and everyone else is poor and has no chance of becoming rich. Cheap labor

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

You clearly hold Democrats to a higher standard

 

[Rshermr]

How many times have we heard the Progressive economic idea that demand drives the economy, so the best stimulus is to rob from the rich, redistribute some of that money (the government has to wet its beak) and viola! Demands get satisfied, economy grows, workers Paradise dead ahead!

But look at every economy running on this great Progressive idea: In Venezuela, they must have met all the demands for groceries, canned goods, toilet paper and all household items because there are none to be found; in Cuba, they must have meet all the demand for healthcare because their hospitals rewash surgical gloves; in Flint, they cannot even get potable drinking water, so the demand for drinking water must have been met. Progressives meet consumer demand with a one-fingered salute.

Does the USA have the world's #1 (or 2) economy) because we demand more than the rest? Can Progressives show me an economy that does not have demand? Is there a group of people on the planet that says, "Drinking water, TP, cars, yeah fuck it, don't need or want it"

So, let me help you, cf. Because you are a con tool, you are making the really, really stupid mistake that con tools often make. So, try to pay attention. There is want. You call that demand. It is not. If there is want without the means to purchase, it is simple want and has no help for the economy. Then there is economic demand, normally shortened to demand when talking about, say, an aggregate demand recession. Economic Demand has the added attribute that it has as a component the ability to buy. Making it different from WANT.
So, no, all economies do not have sufficient demand for keeping the economy going. They have what you call demand, but which is actually simply want. And it helps an economy not at all.

So, being a con tool, you seem to think that since there is demand (actually want) everywhere, that all you need to do is produce supply. But here is the problem, cs. The people who produce product are not as stupid as you. In fact, they are generally not at all stupid. So, they know that if there is not sufficient economic demand (not want, me boy) then producing more will only increase costs for them. So, they do not produce, but rather they put their money into some sort of savings.
Which is why almost all economists believe in treating a recession made up of insufficient economic DEMAND by producing stimulus. Which is what was done in the Great Republican Recession of 2008, with excellent results. It stopped a depression, while producing more (supply side economics) would almost certainly led to a very bad recession, or more likely, another Republican Depression.
So, no, neither liberals, independents, economists, or other rational people think wrongly about demand. It is you, and other cons, who have it wrong. Obviously

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many times have we heard the Progressive economic idea that demand drives the economy, so the best stimulus is to rob from the rich, redistribute some of that money (the government has to wet its beak) and viola! Demands get satisfied, economy grows, workers Paradise dead ahead!

But look at every economy running on this great Progressive idea: In Venezuela, they must have met all the demands for groceries, canned goods, toilet paper and all household items because there are none to be found; in Cuba, they must have meet all the demand for healthcare because their hospitals rewash surgical gloves; in Flint, they cannot even get potable drinking water, so the demand for drinking water must have been met. Progressives meet consumer demand with a one-fingered salute.

Does the USA have the world's #1 (or 2) economy) because we demand more than the rest? Can Progressives show me an economy that does not have demand? Is there a group of people on the planet that says, "Drinking water, TP, cars, yeah fuck it, don't need or want it"

So, let me help you, cf. Because you are a con tool, you are making the really, really stupid mistake that con tools often make. So, try to pay attention. There is want. You call that demand. It is not. If there is want without the means to purchase, it is simple want and has no help for the economy. Then there is economic demand, normally shortened to demand when talking about, say, an aggregate demand recession. Economic Demand has the added attribute that it has as a component the ability to buy. Making it different from WANT.
So, no, all economies do not have sufficient demand for keeping the economy going. They have what you call demand, but which is actually simply want. And it helps an economy not at all.

So, being a con tool, you seem to think that since there is demand (actually want) everywhere, that all you need to do is produce supply. But here is the problem, cs. The people who produce product are not as stupid as you. In fact, they are generally not at all stupid. So, they know that if there is not sufficient economic demand (not want, me boy) then producing more will only increase costs for them. So, they do not produce, but rather they put their money into some sort of savings.
Which is why almost all economists believe in treating a recession made up of insufficient economic DEMAND by producing stimulus. Which is what was done in the Great Republican Recession of 2008, with excellent results. It stopped a depression, while producing more (supply side economics) would almost certainly led to a very bad recession, or more likely, another Republican Depression.
So, no, neither liberals, independents, economists, or other rational people think wrongly about demand. It is you, and other cons, who have it wrong. Obviously

^ This is why every Progressive, redistribution economy (ChiCom, Venezuela, Brazil, Greece, USSR, Cuba, etc) ends in poverty and misery

 

[there4eyeM]

Psychology drives demand. Reason would set humane standards of consumption. Obviously, reason is not at work.

When priorities are set by rational minds, any economic system functions in a human and humane fashion. When we see systems that don't function that way, we know the cause.

 

[boedicca]

Mexico is GOP utopia. The rich are rich and everyone else is poor and has no chance of becoming rich. Cheap labor

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

Soros is a huge contributor, not a recipient. I am not sure you can understand the difference, but he GIVES to things he believes in He is number 10 on the list, with 8 conservatives and one liberal who give more. Where you get that he is making money at the expense of the poor shows you are ignorant.

Clintons?? I could not agree more. Though they do not have the earnings of some of the politicians. And I did not suggest that any specific dem was not getting wealthy. Because, you see, I have said (should you be capable of reading) that many do.

AHAHAHAHA! You clearly don't grok how Cronyism works. Soros has been a huge recipient of the benefits of the Big Government regulation promoted by the Dems.

 

[sealybobo]

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

Soros is a huge contributor, not a recipient. I am not sure you can understand the difference, but he GIVES to things he believes in He is number 10 on the list, with 8 conservatives and one liberal who give more. Where you get that he is making money at the expense of the poor shows you are ignorant.

Clintons?? I could not agree more. Though they do not have the earnings of some of the politicians. And I did not suggest that any specific dem was not getting wealthy. Because, you see, I have said (should you be capable of reading) that many do.

AHAHAHAHA! You clearly don't grok how Cronyism works. Soros has been a huge recipient of the benefits of the Big Government regulation promoted by the Dems.

So have the American people who aren't rich.

 

[Rshermr]

Exactly. And since the wealthy run the republican party, you can look at their hundreds of talking points and see that each talking point benefits only the wealthy and the tools that those wealthy people pay. Money in politics IS the problem. And the con tools love it.
Your statement that Mexico is GOP utopia is exactly correct. It is a two tiered economy:the wealthy, and everyone else. And for the wealthy in the US, it provides a great source of cheap labor while they try to get close to the libertarian ideal in this country. Ain't lousy income distribution great? And the really funny thing is, con tools love it because it tells them what to believe and what to do.

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

Soros is a huge contributor, not a recipient. I am not sure you can understand the difference, but he GIVES to things he believes in He is number 10 on the list, with 8 conservatives and one liberal who give more. Where you get that he is making money at the expense of the poor shows you are ignorant.

Clintons?? I could not agree more. Though they do not have the earnings of some of the politicians. And I did not suggest that any specific dem was not getting wealthy. Because, you see, I have said (should you be capable of reading) that many do.

AHAHAHAHA! You clearly don't grok how Cronyism works. Soros has been a huge recipient of the benefits of the Big Government regulation promoted by the Dems.

So, if soros has been a huge recipient, please provide proof. You know, like thinking people do. From an impartial source.

 

[boedicca]

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

Soros is a huge contributor, not a recipient. I am not sure you can understand the difference, but he GIVES to things he believes in He is number 10 on the list, with 8 conservatives and one liberal who give more. Where you get that he is making money at the expense of the poor shows you are ignorant.

Clintons?? I could not agree more. Though they do not have the earnings of some of the politicians. And I did not suggest that any specific dem was not getting wealthy. Because, you see, I have said (should you be capable of reading) that many do.

AHAHAHAHA! You clearly don't grok how Cronyism works. Soros has been a huge recipient of the benefits of the Big Government regulation promoted by the Dems.

So, if soros has been a huge recipient, please provide proof. You know, like thinking people do. From an impartial source.

How do you think he got rich? He's an Uber Big Government Crony. This is from 2004; think about subsequent developments:


Despite his vision of an “open society,” he operates an unregulated “hedge fund,” open only to the super-rich, and is currently fighting a proposal from the Bush-appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and monitor these offshore entities. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said on national television that no one really knows where the Soros money comes from.

Soros has categorically denied receiving money from drug cartels or any form of criminal activity. The fact remains, however, that at least some of his financial operations have been based offshore, in banking and financial centers that are widely reported to be considered conducive to money-laundering. The Soros fund is based in the Netherlands Antilles, a self-governing federation of five Caribbean islands. A CIA factbook describes the region as “a transshipment point for South American drugs bound for the US and Europe; money-laundering center.”

Soros reportedly purchased a major stake in one of Colombia’s biggest banks, at a time when the Drug Enforcement Administration, in its study, “Colombian Economic Reform: The Impact on Drug Money Laundering within the Colombian Economy,” was documenting how major drug kingpins were taking advantage of the liberalization of the economy to put illicit drug revenue into legitimate businesses. The report stated: “U.S. and Colombian Government authorities have evidence of drug proceeds being deposited in every major bank in Colombia… A Colombian source indicated that many banks and businesses are owned covertly by principal members of the Cali cartel.”

His complex web of financial interests, companies and foundations makes Halliburton look like a Mom & Pop operation.

The charge we read in the press is that Halliburton gets government contracts and makes money from the Iraq war. Far less attention has been paid to the fact that the company has lost 54 employees as a result of that war. Nobody in the press mentions that Soros profits from the Kosovo war, which he supported as a preemptive strike against Yugoslavia, because he runs an investment fund that now does business there. Even though he pays big bucks to advertise his opposition to the Bush policy of democracy-building in Iraq, reporters still describe him as someone with a reputation for building democracy abroad.

However, his position on Iraq may be a diversion from the real reason he wants to get rid of Bush ? his longstanding desire to adopt a national “retreat and defeat” approach to the drug problem.

Soros’ long-time goal has been to subvert the national anti-drug policy of the U.S. Government, to move away from the use of national and global law enforcement resources against the drug trade. He calls this “harm reduction,” meaning that criminal activity associated with the use of drugs will supposedly be reduced if the government takes over the drug trade and provides drugs and drug paraphernalia, including needles, to addicts. But law enforcement would still be required to keep drugs out of the hands of children. If this is not the case, then Soros intends to allow substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to be distributed to children.

If Soros is able to capture the White House and implement his drug policy nationally, millions more people could be led to experiment with dangerous psychoactive substances and damage themselves, their families, and society. Even marijuana, depicted by the media as a “soft” drug, has extremely negative consequences. In the new book, “Marijuana and Madness,” one of the editors, Prof. Robin Murray of Britain’s Institute of Psychiatry, cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis....

The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power
and-political-power/

And Human Events has a very accurate assessment of him:

George Soros: Top 10 Reasons He Is Dangerous | Human Events

 

[Rshermr]

Do you think The Poor run the Democrat party?

No, not at all. But unlike the republican party, there are a few dem politicians that have concern for the poor. But given time, the money will buy them too, in my opinion. What I do think is that unlike conservatives, who have a very defined belief system, that the rest of the population of our country has a fair capability to be interested in the working people of the nation. And not just the wealthy.

Yeah, like Soros and the Clintons. They Truly Madly Deeply CARE....for their lining their own pockets at the expense of The Poor.

Soros is a huge contributor, not a recipient. I am not sure you can understand the difference, but he GIVES to things he believes in He is number 10 on the list, with 8 conservatives and one liberal who give more. Where you get that he is making money at the expense of the poor shows you are ignorant.

Clintons?? I could not agree more. Though they do not have the earnings of some of the politicians. And I did not suggest that any specific dem was not getting wealthy. Because, you see, I have said (should you be capable of reading) that many do.

AHAHAHAHA! You clearly don't grok how Cronyism works. Soros has been a huge recipient of the benefits of the Big Government regulation promoted by the Dems.

So, if soros has been a huge recipient, please provide proof. You know, like thinking people do. From an impartial source.

So BOEDICCA SAID:
How do you think he got rich? He's an Uber Big Government Crony. This is from 2004; think about subsequent developments:


Despite his vision of an “open society,” he operates an unregulated “hedge fund,” open only to the super-rich, and is currently fighting a proposal from the Bush-appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and monitor these offshore entities. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said on national television that no one really knows where the Soros money comes from.

Soros has categorically denied receiving money from drug cartels or any form of criminal activity. The fact remains, however, that at least some of his financial operations have been based offshore, in banking and financial centers that are widely reported to be considered conducive to money-laundering. The Soros fund is based in the Netherlands Antilles, a self-governing federation of five Caribbean islands. A CIA factbook describes the region as “a transshipment point for South American drugs bound for the US and Europe; money-laundering center.”

Soros reportedly purchased a major stake in one of Colombia’s biggest banks, at a time when the Drug Enforcement Administration, in its study, “Colombian Economic Reform: The Impact on Drug Money Laundering within the Colombian Economy,” was documenting how major drug kingpins were taking advantage of the liberalization of the economy to put illicit drug revenue into legitimate businesses. The report stated: “U.S. and Colombian Government authorities have evidence of drug proceeds being deposited in every major bank in Colombia… A Colombian source indicated that many banks and businesses are owned covertly by principal members of the Cali cartel.”

His complex web of financial interests, companies and foundations makes Halliburton look like a Mom & Pop operation.

The charge we read in the press is that Halliburton gets government contracts and makes money from the Iraq war. Far less attention has been paid to the fact that the company has lost 54 employees as a result of that war. Nobody in the press mentions that Soros profits from the Kosovo war, which he supported as a preemptive strike against Yugoslavia, because he runs an investment fund that now does business there. Even though he pays big bucks to advertise his opposition to the Bush policy of democracy-building in Iraq, reporters still describe him as someone with a reputation for building democracy abroad.

However, his position on Iraq may be a diversion from the real reason he wants to get rid of Bush ? his longstanding desire to adopt a national “retreat and defeat” approach to the drug problem.

Soros’ long-time goal has been to subvert the national anti-drug policy of the U.S. Government, to move away from the use of national and global law enforcement resources against the drug trade. He calls this “harm reduction,” meaning that criminal activity associated with the use of drugs will supposedly be reduced if the government takes over the drug trade and provides drugs and drug paraphernalia, including needles, to addicts. But law enforcement would still be required to keep drugs out of the hands of children. If this is not the case, then Soros intends to allow substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to be distributed to children.

If Soros is able to capture the White House and implement his drug policy nationally, millions more people could be led to experiment with dangerous psychoactive substances and damage themselves, their families, and society. Even marijuana, depicted by the media as a “soft” drug, has extremely negative consequences. In the new book, “Marijuana and Madness,” one of the editors, Prof. Robin Murray of Britain’s Institute of Psychiatry, cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis....

The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power
and-political-power/

And Human Events has a very accurate assessment of him:

George Soros: Top 10 Reasons He Is Dangerous | Human Events[

Like most con tools, you have failed. I requested an non partial source. You, of course, chose a far right wing nut case site that spends it's time attacking the president, and all politicians, AS LONG AS THEY ARE DEMOCRATS, 24/7/365. DIPSHIT.
AIM IS SO WELL KNOWN, I WOLD HAVE THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TRIED A LESS WELL KNOWN NUT CASE CRAZY CON SITE, THEN YOU USE THE VENERABLE, AND ALSO VERY WELL KNOWN FAR RIGHT BATSHIT CRAZY CON SITE, HUMAN EVENTS. THE SAME SITE THAT CALLED SENATOR GRAHAM, A REPUBLICAN, A BITCH FOR SUPPORTING SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE KAGAN.
In the thinking world, we do not listen to nut case crazy sites, be they con or lib. You see, we tend to value truth.
But, as a nut case and stupid con tool, I did not suspect you would find a truthful and impartial source. You spend your time with con talking points and bat shit crazy con web sites, as you have proven. Dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If there is want without the means to purchase, it is simple want and has no help for the economy.

ya know dear if you tried college you could perhaps understand basic concepts.Want and demand are identical. Everyone wanted and demanded the first cars invented, for example. When Ford saw that not everyone could afford his cars he tried and tried to make them cheaper and largely succeeded. That is how economies grow and standards of living genuinely rise.

Providing welfare merely churns an economy producing mal investment while diminishing and obscuring the need to invent new products and find new efficiencies. This is 1+1=2 if you go to college. Sorry.

 

[Agit8r]

Keynesian economics is a center-right concept, that Republicans have generally practiced when in charge. See also our tax code.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Keynesian economics is a center-right concept, that Republicans have generally practiced when in charge. See also our tax code.

of course thats stupid since Keynes is despised by Republicans as a liberal interventionist.

 

[Rshermr]

Keynesian economics is a center-right concept, that Republicans have generally practiced when in charge. See also our tax code.

of course thats stupid since Keynes is despised by Republicans as a liberal interventionist.

Wow. That was stupid. Now, if you look at recent history (Not you, dipshit, you just cut and paste nonsense) you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on when the recession that he had created got really bad. He found that stimulus through government spending worked very well for him. And he did not worry at all about the tripling of the national debt or the huge increase in size of the federal government. Funny how cons always pass over those truths as they try to re-write Reagan's history.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you would find that R. Reagan, who all cons find to be a right wing republican, used it to good effect from 1929 on.

actually Reagan was not president until 1980. Why not try college?? You learn things there.