Now we know. It's the Tea Party's fault!!!

[The T]

I know it isn't funny--it is actually heartbreaking--but that does explain why you didn't object to giving California to Liberalland in the divorce thread.

The sad thing is that California already IS Liberalland.

Ninthe Circus has already seen to it as they have thwarted the will of the voters time and again.

 

[Mustang]

You need a lesson in fundamental Econ 101

ROFL;

Izzatrite? This should be fun...

In case you hadn't noticed, the economy slipped into a recession in 2007, and despite the fact that the recession is technically over, growth is anemic because (drumroll please) demand is down. The fact that demand is down is the reason for the following:

Wait a minute, Obama claimed that if we borrowed a trillion dollars, he could get the economy pumping again. So why, given your expertise in economics, did Obama's application of Keynesian theory not work?



That's rather unusual. In economic downturns of the past, 5 year recessions are unheard of. In fact, the last time a recession stretched out this long was also the last time Keynesian stimulus was employed...



Did you come up with that by yourself, or did you get some help from common dreams. Funny thing, they built a new loan sharking, er I mean, check cashing and payday loan place down the street. And they were hiring people, but the place hadn't opened, ergo there were no customers at all. So how could they hire with no customers? You know, based on your brilliant grasp of business economics?

Standard Disclaimer: Illegal immigration centers and payday loan sharking are the only new businesses opening in the peoples Republic of California.



So, your claim is total tax receipts for 2011 are less than 2007?



Isn't most infrastructure spending, i.e. capital investment, tax deferred or exempt? If I buy capital equipment, can't I depreciate it to alter the tax structure based on the estimate life of the fixed asset?

Are you sure you have any idea what you're talking about?



And what a brilliant move by Obama. Since income has dropped, the only thing for an economic genius, one who passed econ 101, to do is sharply increase expenditures.

Barack sure is smart...



Actually, that is an occurrence of increased public sector employment. Under Obama, SHARPLY increased public sector employment.



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

You Obamabots tried those lies already, only to be shot down.

Obama spent 24.1% of GDP in 2011, a record amount in U.S. history. Dubya hit 23.1% Obama way outspent.



Well that's brand new, prior to Jan. 20, 2009 there was not one item made in China - everything was domestically produced...

ROFL




Oh, about 1945 then?



Unlike Dear Leader, who only cares about Americans...

{Every nation thinks highly of itself, it seems, and America should get over the idea that it is anything special.}

Barack Uber-fuckup Obama.



Is THAT why there are high gas prices? Is that your final answer?



Your guess is a poor one, but you don't have any understanding of why.



The most effective way to help the American people is to keep Obama from causing more damage.



If pay were tied to performance, Obama would be writing us a check.



So, my opposition to Obama means I am a lackey of the Republicans, then?



I've just seen the worst recovery in 40 years based on the idea that a trillion dollars could be siphoned from the public treasury and given to public employee unions and the UAW.

Do you know what will happen next? The economy will contract BIG time, tax receipts will fall even further, and the future deficit and debt will make today's numbers look like the good ol' days.

That appears to be the goal of Obama and the socialist radicals of the DNC.

And, aside from all the human suffering that these ideologically-driven policies will create, the saddest thing may be the fact that they won't even acknowledge they were at fault for pushing these policies, just like they refuse to this day to take responsibility for all the havoc that was wrought on our economy by the financial deregulation pushed by the right.

The way you acknowledge the disaster Obama has created?

God, I hate it when people split posts up like that.

So, I'm only going to respond to the highlighted one, despite the temptation to respond to an amazing amount of nonsense.

The stimulus did work. Even the non partisan CBO acknowledges as much. By their estimates, the stimulus increased employment by 1-5 million jobs. But given the size of the US economy (approximately $15 Trillion per year), and the length of time that stimulus spending was used, $800 Billion was too small a stimulus amount which has now essentially ended. That's why public sector employees are now being laid off.

Now, I understand why Republicans want to make political hay and capitalize on the sluggish economy. It's to their benefit to do so because it helps pave the way to retake power. I also understand why the people who pushed the policies which deregulated the financial industry won't take responsibility for the havoc they caused. Aside from their professional reputations, the fact is that nobody wants to be held responsible for any problems at all, let alone one of this magnitude.

What I have a harder time accepting is the idea that people who are pursuing power are perfectly content to [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]either prevent a recovery (or even make things worse) in order to lay the groundwork for a return to power.

But that doesn't hold a candle to what I think about people who are perfectly prepared to engage in economic policies when those policies aren't supported by real world past experience.[/FONT] Cutting spending in a sluggish (and possibly even a slowing) economy is a perfect example of doing something that will have the opposite of the intended effect. Then what are they going to do? Double down and slash public sector spending even further even as private sector spending continues to decline?

The whole Austrian school of economic theory (and its adherents like Ron Paul) are disasters in the making if they ever get a chance to put their theories into practice with public policy. For example, despite their predictions that have failed to materialize (like their predictions of the onset of inflation or even hyperinflation in a depressed economy which they've made for years but hasn't happened), they march on as if evidence that their theories are valid is unnecessary. Apparently, just believing it is enough.

I remember when I first heard those predictions. I laughed my ass off because you're NOT going to have inflation in a depressed economy, PERIOD. It's excess demand that leads to inflation.

But carry on!

 

[Too Tall]

California and Greece have about as much in common as New York and Macedonia. In other words, they're not similar at all.

What color is the sky in your world?

Ours is blue.

Boskin and Cogan: California's Greek Tragedy - WSJ.com

The sky in your world is perpetually cloudy and threatening rain. You're the quintessential nabob of negativity in all things. Chicken Little is an optimist compared to you.

Aside from that, if I had a nickle for every time the WSJ has been dead wrong about something, particularly about economics, I'd have more than enough nickles to turn in for a fistful of hundred dollar bills. For example, for quite some time now, the WSJ has been predicting that interest rates on US borrowing costs would go WAY up unless deficits were reduced. Interest rates have actually declined even as overall debt has gone up.

California has a dynamic and diverse economy with a vibrant technology sector and one of the largest agriculturally productive areas in the whole world. It's also one of the largest economies in the world. It would rank number 8 if it was a country.

Greece doesn't fare so well. I just looked it up, and Greece ranks number 39 out of 43 in the European region.

Greece Economy: Facts, Data, & Analysis on Economic Freedom

The problem in California is a lot like the problem in Greece. The voters in two California cities have started to correct the problem.

In San Diego and San Jose, voters overwhelmingly approved ballot initiatives designed to help balance ailing municipal budgets by cutting retirement benefits for city workers.

Around 70 percent of San Jose voters favored the pension measure, while 66 percent of San Diego residents supported a similar measure.

"This is really important to our taxpayers," Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose, said Tuesday night. "We’ll get control over these skyrocketing retirement costs and be able to provide the services they are paying for."

I believe the Mayors of these cities are Democrats and they pushed the referendums. Now a statewide vote might save the state from bankruptcy. I lived in CA for 5 years and got out before the madness began.

 

[Uncensored2008]

God, I hate it when people split posts up like that.

And I hate it when people are too stupid to learn how to multi-quote. Context is a great thing, for those who have a point.

So, I'm only going to respond to the highlighted one, despite the temptation to respond to an amazing amount of nonsense.

The stimulus did work.

ROFL

Yeah it did, someone just forgot to tell all those unemployed people and the GDP the wonderful news.

Partisan hacks, no sense of reality....

The problem Mustang, is that you have zero understanding of economics. You are rabidly partisan, and toss out phrases that you think will support your party, but you haven't a hint of a clue what they mean.

You know that Keynesian ideas are promoted by hyper-partisan Krugman, so you support them. But you clearly don't know what the fuck Keynesian theory is all about.

You think that because Obama tossed money into the economy, and there was some activity, that the "stimulus worked."

Only it didn't work, not by any measure.

You, being a dolt, think that if the government borrows a dollar, puts it in the market, and we see one dollar's worth of economic activity, then the "stimulus worked." But that isn't true, nor is it what Lord Keynes postulated. Keynes held the theory that the business cycle could be alter in downturns based on stimulus because as the money was introduced to the public, the public would spend that money, and those who got it would spend it.

In other words, the worker digging holes and then filling them is paid $5. He buys a loaf of bread and a beer. The market then spends the $5 to the Baker and brewery, but instead of just replenishing stock, he adds a little extra and gets $7 of bread and $3 of beer, creating a multiplier effect, increasing the economic activity beyond the original capital. Each point where money changes hands is known as a "turn." Typically the capital will have 4 turns and generate a multiplier of 3.5 - or our original $5 spawns $18 in economic activity.

Now with the Obama stimulus, we not only did NOT experience a 3.5 multiplier, we in fact failed to break even. The $850 billion pumped into the market generated about $530 billion in activity - which is an utter failure from a Keynesian standpoint.

So WHY did it fail so completely?

Well, even if Keynesian theory worked, which it doesn't, Obama didn't really provide a stimulus. This was a robbery. Most of the money was stolen on behalf of unions. So Obama poured $40 billion to the state of California, who used it to fund pensions for the public employees. No capital introduced into the marked, no multiplier, no positive effect on the economy, just increased debt. Well over half of the porkulus money was squandered down a rat hole, used as payolla for Obama's union supporters.

Even from a purely Keynesian standpoint, porkulus was doomed to failure, and an utter failure it was.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe the Mayors of these cities are Democrats and they pushed the referendums. Now a statewide vote might save the state from bankruptcy. I lived in CA for 5 years and got out before the madness began.

Jerry Sanders is a Republican, and San Diego is a conservative city. I too applaud their austerity measures. I'm about an hour North of SD, and it is by far my favorite city in the state.

 

[Mustang]

Then they damn well better develop a working knowledge of
economics

Wouldn't it be better if you developed a working knowledge first? Because son, you aren't going to be passing and econ 101 class.

(knowledge of how economics actually works in the real world) as opposed to embracing an ideological-driven theory about how they think economics should work. Otherwise, they're going to do some serious damage to the economy by embracing austerity.

LOL

Unabated raiding of the public treasury by well connected looters supported with massive deficits is your idea of a sound economic policy?



Then it must be terribly complicated to you...



Ah yes, you read a Krugman column once and now think you are qualified to pontificate on macro economic systems.

To be kind, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You are tossing out buzz words that you believe support your party.

Tell me this sparky, how much demand was there for the iPhone in 2005? None? Because there WAS NO iPhone?

So then, based on your lack of grasp of the words of that fraud Krugman distorting Keynes, how in the FUCK did the iPhone come to exist? Didn't there have to be demand, so that Apple would make iPhones to meet it?

Because you have never had an introductory course in economics, you've never heard of Says law. But the fact is, that demand for the iPhone was create by the supply of iPhones. Jobs and co created product, people saw the product and desired the benefit of that product. It was the supply that created the demand, no amount of demand can create a supply.

Or try it the other way around. In 1970 in Cambodia, 3 million people starved to death. These people desired food, they demanded food, yet the demand resulted in no supply at all. Because demand cannot and does not create supply - supply creates demand.

That's another way of saying reduced spending. So, to cut gov't spending at a time of reduced private sector spending only serves to contract aggregate spending even further.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you perhaps mean "aggregate demand?" Yet another term you've heard, but have no clue what is the actual meaning of...

That additional decrease in overall spending (regardless of its source) results in a drop of overall income which FURTHER reduces private sector household spending as people cut back even further. It's a downward spiral. But that's not the worst of it. It's quite possible that in an effort to decrease the national debt too soon (prior to an economic expansion) the debt as a percentage of GDP could rise. What that means in laymen's terms is that attempts to focus in on cutting the debt at the wrong time could very well create a greater debt to GDP ratio than we have now.

Wow dude, you are completely clueless.

I am a Rothbardian - but even from a purely Keynesian perspective, you are utterly clueless. You have no idea what you're babbling about.

What you wrote in the highlighted area is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone post.

Supply (the availability of something) doesn't automatically create an effective demand any more than demand, in and of itself, creates a supply of anything.

 

[Mustang]

God, I hate it when people split posts up like that.

And I hate it when people are too stupid to learn how to multi-quote. Context is a great thing, for those who have a point.

So, I'm only going to respond to the highlighted one, despite the temptation to respond to an amazing amount of nonsense.

The stimulus did work.

ROFL

Yeah it did, someone just forgot to tell all those unemployed people and the GDP the wonderful news.

Partisan hacks, no sense of reality....

The problem Mustang, is that you have zero understanding of economics. You are rabidly partisan, and toss out phrases that you think will support your party, but you haven't a hint of a clue what they mean.

You know that Keynesian ideas are promoted by hyper-partisan Krugman, so you support them. But you clearly don't know what the fuck Keynesian theory is all about.

You think that because Obama tossed money into the economy, and there was some activity, that the "stimulus worked."

Only it didn't work, not by any measure.

You, being a dolt, think that if the government borrows a dollar, puts it in the market, and we see one dollar's worth of economic activity, then the "stimulus worked." But that isn't true, nor is it what Lord Keynes postulated. Keynes held the theory that the business cycle could be alter in downturns based on stimulus because as the money was introduced to the public, the public would spend that money, and those who got it would spend it.

In other words, the worker digging holes and then filling them is paid $5. He buys a loaf of bread and a beer. The market then spends the $5 to the Baker and brewery, but instead of just replenishing stock, he adds a little extra and gets $7 of bread and $3 of beer, creating a multiplier effect, increasing the economic activity beyond the original capital. Each point where money changes hands is known as a "turn." Typically the capital will have 4 turns and generate a multiplier of 3.5 - or our original $5 spawns $18 in economic activity.

Now with the Obama stimulus, we not only did NOT experience a 3.5 multiplier, we in fact failed to break even. The $850 billion pumped into the market generated about $530 billion in activity - which is an utter failure from a Keynesian standpoint.

So WHY did it fail so completely?

Well, even if Keynesian theory worked, which it doesn't, Obama didn't really provide a stimulus. This was a robbery. Most of the money was stolen on behalf of unions. So Obama poured $40 billion to the state of California, who used it to fund pensions for the public employees. No capital introduced into the marked, no multiplier, no positive effect on the economy, just increased debt. Well over half of the porkulus money was squandered down a rat hole, used as payolla for Obama's union supporters.

Even from a purely Keynesian standpoint, porkulus was doomed to failure, and an utter failure it was.

You calling ME partisan is purely projection on your part as the highlighted parts of your post clearly show.

My problem with partisans of any stripe is that they don't care about proof, or supporting evidence. And they particularly don't care about contradictory evidence which actually makes a mockery of many of their poor arguments and preconceived conclusions. They (which means people like you) almost always start with a premise of what they WANT to be true because it's what they already believe, and then they formulate an argument (usually a very poor one) which will allow them to reach that preordained conclusion.

So, whether it's the Catholic Church and their supporters who created an elaborate (and frankly, nonsensical) series of diagrams of circuitous planetary orbits in an effort to support their religion-based theory of a geocentric universe, or a US Senator like Jim Inhofe's unscientific book, "The Greatest Hoax," which attempts to dismiss scientific numbers as something akin to a massive conspiracy in his view of scientists' supposed effort to push nonexistent climate change for nefarious reasons, or Ron Paul's whacky theories of monetary policy and hyperinflation predictions which never materialize, it's pretty much always the same story. While the subject/topic may be different, and the principle actors may be different people, it's always the same story. These are people who, for a variety of differing motivations, are intent on promoting something other than objective truth.

I, on the other hand, embrace Sir Francis Bacon's fondness for empiricism exemplified by the scientific method, regardless of where that leads. And that's because people can't truly have a high degree of confidence in the probability of making good decisions if they're not dealing with factually accurate and true information.

Edit to add: But there's another reason I support objective truth reached by critical analyses as opposed to the promotion of purely subjective ideas that we're supposed to usually accept on faith alone. And that's because if and when bad ideas are accepted (or at least put into practice as public policy), and they fail (as they almost certainly will), the promoters of these bad ideas ALWAYS look for someone else to blame. And then they want to try them again. The latest member of that club is Alan Greenspan. After fighting the CFMA of 2000 and undermining the CFTC, promoting the oxymoron concept of 'self-regulation' in financial markets, and also providing essentially free money to banks during the housing bubble, Greenspan actually seemed contrite (because he was in shock) in the aftermath of the financial meltdown when he made the following statements in his 2008 Congressional testimony.

In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[53] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said. "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan replied. "You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."[82] Greenspan admitted fault[83] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

The last I heard, Greenspan is rethinking his contrition. Apparently, he now sees the events of 2008 as an aberration of otherwise sound ideas. We don't need to go down that road again, whether it's 50 years from now or 5 years from now. But you know what? We have been down that road before -- in 1929.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you wrote in the highlighted area is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone post.

ROFL

{Say's law is simple and almost truistic and self-evident, and it is hard to escape the conviction that it has stirred up a series of storms only because of its obvious political implications and consequences. Essentially Say's law is a stern and proper response to the various economic ignoramuses as well as self-seekers who, in every economic recession or crisis, begin to complain loudly about the terrible problem of general "overproduction" or, in the common language of Say's day, a "general glut" of goods on the market.}

Say's Law of Markets - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

That you lack the foundation to grasp fundamental economic principles, simply speaks to your lack of education, not to the notion that Says law is "dumb."

Supply (the availability of something) doesn't automatically create an effective demand any more than demand, in and of itself, creates a supply of anything.

No one claims that anything is automatic. A product must fill a need or desire among consumers to spur demand.

An automatic toe remover would likely spur very little demand among the public. An automatic brain remover, on the other hand, would no doubt excite party member seeking to create more democrats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You calling ME partisan is purely projection on your part as the highlighted parts of your post clearly show.

Son, you don't even grasp what it is you think you support. You are utterly clueless in regard to economic theory.

My problem with partisans of any stripe is that they don't care about proof, or supporting evidence.

My problem with ignoramuses is that you come on here, spouting nonsense in service of partisan goals, then when you get caught by those actually knowledgeable on the subject at hand, you spin off into the ether.

I don't give a rats ass about your love of your party, nor your hatred of infidel Republicans. You came in here making claims of certain economic principles, you stepped into MY yard, now you try to sputter and stumble your way out.

Demonstrate that Obama's porkulus created a multiplier? Demonstrate that aggregate demand was lacking prior to porkulus, and that it was increased systemically by the deficit expenditures.

You can do neither, because we only experienced a spike in response to direct cash infusion, in fact there was zero increase in sustainable economic activity. I'm not looking at this from an Austrian or even Chicago perspective, from a purely Keynesian view, porkulus was an utter failure. From a purely Keynesian perspective, Porkulus HAD to fail, was designed to fail.

The simple fact is that it was a robbery, not a stimulus. This was not an infusion of cash into the market to stimulate activity. It was the theft of cash that was given to well connected looter who used it to service their own debt, creating no economic activity at all. Obama bailed out the unions, simple fact - there was no stimulus.

 

[Mustang]

You calling ME partisan is purely projection on your part as the highlighted parts of your post clearly show.

Son, you don't even grasp what it is you think you support. You are utterly clueless in regard to economic theory.

My problem with partisans of any stripe is that they don't care about proof, or supporting evidence.

My problem with ignoramuses is that you come on here, spouting nonsense in service of partisan goals, then when you get caught by those actually knowledgeable on the subject at hand, you spin off into the ether.

I don't give a rats ass about your love of your party, nor your hatred of infidel Republicans. You came in here making claims of certain economic principles, you stepped into MY yard, now you try to sputter and stumble your way out.

Demonstrate that Obama's porkulus created a multiplier? Demonstrate that aggregate demand was lacking prior to porkulus, and that it was increased systemically by the deficit expenditures.

You can do neither, because we only experienced a spike in response to direct cash infusion, in fact there was zero increase in sustainable economic activity. I'm not looking at this from an Austrian or even Chicago perspective, from a purely Keynesian view, porkulus was an utter failure. From a purely Keynesian perspective, Porkulus HAD to fail, was designed to fail.

The simple fact is that it was a robbery, not a stimulus. This was not an infusion of cash into the market to stimulate activity. It was the theft of cash that was given to well connected looter who used it to service their own debt, creating no economic activity at all. Obama bailed out the unions, simple fact - there was no stimulus.

LOL! Demonstrate that aggregate demand was lacking prior to the stimulus??? We were in a recession, you knot head!! If an economic contraction isn't proof enough for you, you're even more clueless than I thought.

If there was any problem with the stimulus, it's that it was too small based on both the overall size of the economy and the fact that it was stretched out over an extended period of time.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that if Romney was elected, both he and the Republicans in Congress would cobble together some kind of comprehensive public spending plan(s), give it a different name, and push it has a recovery plan. He certainly couldn't be stupid enough to think that austerity is a recovery plan. Austerity would probably only result in the debt rising as a ratio of a falling GDP.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a member of any political party. I've never made a campaign contribution in my life. How 'bout you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL! Demonstrate that aggregate demand was lacking prior to the stimulus??? We were in a recession, you knot head!! If an economic contraction isn't proof enough for you, you're even more clueless than I thought.

I keep forgetting that you have literally no knowledge of economics. You hear words, but you have no clue what they mean.

If there was any problem with the stimulus, it's that it was too small based on both the overall size of the economy and the fact that it was stretched out over an extended period of time.

I realize that you either read Krugman, or more likely, read pundits who read Krugman. But what do you think more funds would do when the funds that were looted weren't even used for the stimulus? Do you really think that another hundred billion put into CALPERS would have any effect on the economy?

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that if Romney was elected, both he and the Republicans in Congress would cobble together some kind of comprehensive public spending plan(s), give it a different name, and push it has a recovery plan. He certainly couldn't be stupid enough to think that austerity is a recovery plan. Austerity would probably only result in the debt rising as a ratio of a falling GDP.

Very little would surprise me with Romney. One thing is certain, the Obama economy is an utter and complete failure.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a member of any political party. I've never made a campaign contribution in my life. How 'bout you?

Dims to conservative for you?

I'm a registered Libertarian. When I vote for Romney in November, he will be the first GOP candidate I've voted for since Reagan.

But Obama is a cancer, and must be stopped.

 

[Too Tall]

I believe the Mayors of these cities are Democrats and they pushed the referendums. Now a statewide vote might save the state from bankruptcy. I lived in CA for 5 years and got out before the madness began.

Jerry Sanders is a Republican, and San Diego is a conservative city. I too applaud their austerity measures. I'm about an hour North of SD, and it is by far my favorite city in the state.

Once you visit the San Diego Zoo, all of the other Zoo's are a disappointment.

 

[Mustang]

LOL! Demonstrate that aggregate demand was lacking prior to the stimulus??? We were in a recession, you knot head!! If an economic contraction isn't proof enough for you, you're even more clueless than I thought.

I keep forgetting that you have literally no knowledge of economics. You hear words, but you have no clue what they mean.

If there was any problem with the stimulus, it's that it was too small based on both the overall size of the economy and the fact that it was stretched out over an extended period of time.

I realize that you either read Krugman, or more likely, read pundits who read Krugman. But what do you think more funds would do when the funds that were looted weren't even used for the stimulus? Do you really think that another hundred billion put into CALPERS would have any effect on the economy?

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that if Romney was elected, both he and the Republicans in Congress would cobble together some kind of comprehensive public spending plan(s), give it a different name, and push it has a recovery plan. He certainly couldn't be stupid enough to think that austerity is a recovery plan. Austerity would probably only result in the debt rising as a ratio of a falling GDP.

Very little would surprise me with Romney. One thing is certain, the Obama economy is an utter and complete failure.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a member of any political party. I've never made a campaign contribution in my life. How 'bout you?

Dims to conservative for you?

I'm a registered Libertarian. When I vote for Romney in November, he will be the first GOP candidate I've voted for since Reagan.

But Obama is a cancer, and must be stopped.

Why don't you share with everyone how exactly it can happen that aggregate demand isn't down in a recession. Feel free to consult any textbooks you please.

 

[Mustang]

I guess nonsensical2008 has got his Ouija Board out and is channeling Murray Rothbard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why don't you share with everyone how exactly it can happen that aggregate demand isn't down in a recession. Feel free to consult any textbooks you please.

Aggregate demand does fall during economic downturns, no one is disputing that.

Tell me, when were the first ARRA disbursements made? Was GDP declining or increasing at the time?

Understand?