Just how fucked is the Republican Party?

[The Rabbi]

Well, we were smart enough to know that you can't spend your way out of debt...........

You can't deal with the debt until you get people back to work. First you get the economy going again, then you deal with the debt. You can't cut spending during a recession or you go right into a depression.

The debt is secondary to jobs.

Exactly what Obama's economic advisors believe.
And how has that worked out for us for the last 4 years?

 

[daveman]

Well, we were smart enough to know that you can't spend your way out of debt...........

You can't deal with the debt until you get people back to work. First you get the economy going again, then you deal with the debt. You can't cut spending during a recession or you go right into a depression.

The debt is secondary to jobs.

What happens to a job created by government money when the government money funding the job runs out?

I asked that question of the left all during the discussion before and after the stimulus.

Not one ever answered.

You wanna give it a shot?

 

[squeeze berry]

The psycho got out of bed.....

you do know he can use a laptop in bed

 

[Billo_Really]

What happens to a job created by government money when the government money funding the job runs out?

You mean like what Ronald Reagan did after Congress defunded his program to provide arms to Central American terrorists?

I asked that question of the left all during the discussion before and after the stimulus.

Not one ever answered.

You wanna give it a shot?

If we take this to its extreme conclusion, "money in/got job" and "money out/job lost", for that period of time, that person had an income, which resulted in paying tax on that income, as well as purchasing goods and services required for shelter, clothing and food, which fed money back into the economic system. Which is what we want. We want consumer spending. It makes up 70% of the economy. So for the period he had the job, it's all good. When the job ends, it's not so good.

But there's more than one way to fund a program. For me, we can stop funding programs that are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Programs we don't need to be spending on. Programs that are less important than getting American's back to work. Taking money from those programs and using it to generate jobs for American's. The more American's spending their paychecks, the more demand will go up in the economy. Once demand gets to a certain level, the private sector will kick in and start hiring to take advantage of that demand. Then government can back away and concentrate on reducing the debt.

Now I have a question for you

• Do we need to pay the Taliban to guard our convoys to remote outposts in Afghanistan?
• Do we need to be funding re-construction projects in other country's instead of this country?
• Do we need to be funding over a 1000 bases around the world?
• Do we need to be funding unecessary wars that are for reasons other than self-defense?
• Do we need to be funding other country's military budgets?
• Do we need to be funding al Qaeda cells in Syria?

Or should we be spending taxpayer dollars in other country's rather than here?

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly what Obama's economic advisors believe.
And how has that worked out for us for the last 4 years?

Not as well as we would like.

 

[daveman]

What happens to a job created by government money when the government money funding the job runs out?

You mean like what Ronald Reagan did after Congress defunded his program to provide arms to Central American terrorists?

I asked that question of the left all during the discussion before and after the stimulus.

Not one ever answered.

You wanna give it a shot?

If we take this to its extreme conclusion, "money in/got job" and "money out/job lost", for that period of time, that person had an income, which resulted in paying tax on that income, as well as purchasing goods and services required for shelter, clothing and food, which fed money back into the economic system. Which is what we want. We want consumer spending. It makes up 70% of the economy. So for the period he had the job, it's all good. When the job ends, it's not so good.

But there's more than one way to fund a program. For me, we can stop funding programs that are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Programs we don't need to be spending on. Programs that are less important than getting American's back to work. Taking money from those programs and using it to generate jobs for American's. The more American's spending their paychecks, the more demand will go up in the economy. Once demand gets to a certain level, the private sector will kick in and start hiring to take advantage of that demand. Then government can back away and concentrate on reducing the debt.

Now I have a question for you

• Do we need to pay the Taliban to guard our convoys to remote outposts in Afghanistan?
• Do we need to be funding re-construction projects in other country's instead of this country?
• Do we need to be funding over a 1000 bases around the world?
• Do we need to be funding unecessary wars that are for reasons other than self-defense?
• Do we need to be funding other country's military budgets?
• Do we need to be funding al Qaeda cells in Syria?

Or should we be spending taxpayer dollars in other country's rather than here?

So, lots of leftist blather -- but no answer. I'd be shocked, but that's exactly what I expected.

FYI, the correct answer is "The government-funded job goes away when the government money runs out."

 

[Billo_Really]

What happens to a job created by government money when the government money funding the job runs out?

You mean like what Ronald Reagan did after Congress defunded his program to provide arms to Central American terrorists?

I asked that question of the left all during the discussion before and after the stimulus.

Not one ever answered.

You wanna give it a shot?

If we take this to its extreme conclusion, "money in/got job" and "money out/job lost", for that period of time, that person had an income, which resulted in paying tax on that income, as well as purchasing goods and services required for shelter, clothing and food, which fed money back into the economic system. Which is what we want. We want consumer spending. It makes up 70% of the economy. So for the period he had the job, it's all good. When the job ends, it's not so good.

But there's more than one way to fund a program. For me, we can stop funding programs that are a waste of taxpayer dollars. Programs we don't need to be spending on. Programs that are less important than getting American's back to work. Taking money from those programs and using it to generate jobs for American's. The more American's spending their paychecks, the more demand will go up in the economy. Once demand gets to a certain level, the private sector will kick in and start hiring to take advantage of that demand. Then government can back away and concentrate on reducing the debt.

Now I have a question for you

• Do we need to pay the Taliban to guard our convoys to remote outposts in Afghanistan?
• Do we need to be funding re-construction projects in other country's instead of this country?
• Do we need to be funding over a 1000 bases around the world?
• Do we need to be funding unecessary wars that are for reasons other than self-defense?
• Do we need to be funding other country's military budgets?
• Do we need to be funding al Qaeda cells in Syria?

Or should we be spending taxpayer dollars in other country's rather than here?

So, lots of leftist blather -- but no answer. I'd be shocked, but that's exactly what I expected.

FYI, the correct answer is "The government-funded job goes away when the government money runs out."

That's what I said!

"money in/got job" and "money out/job lost" ​

Why ask me questions when you don't care about the answer?

But I did answer your question.

I asked you a question to, but you didn't have the balls to answer it.