Obama's Record-Breaking TWO-Years!!!!

[saveliberty]

Economic stimulus was a failure.

If you are clueless and call turning Great Depression II into a medium sized recession, yup, failure. If you have clue one, you say the stimulus worked but should have been bigger.

The only measuring stick offered by Obama was an unemployment estimate, which was grossly exceeded. The liquidity of loans has remained tight. You have absolutely no proof of your position.

Solar cells are not efficient enough to use on a large scale at this point.

Sure they are. You just have to put them in the right places and be able to get the juice where it needs to go.

Technical problems to which there are currently no good solutions.

Wind farms are an eysore and also not efficient sources of power for most of the country.

Which is why you put them in the wind corridor that i described and unify the grid. Duh.

A wind farm is an eyesore regardless of location. You still have distribution problems. Your plan has no basis in reality.

Nuclear would be a good choice, but liberals seem opposed to using it on a large scale.

Convince them. Shouldn't be hard in the scope of the entire program.

Your plan is contingent on ME convincing liberals?

We have unsecured borders in the US.

I wasn't talking about FEAR THE HISPANICS! I was talking economic plans. Part of the way the idiot righties get you to vote against your own best interests in favor of the interests of the super rich is by shovelling you this nativist clap-trap. Indeed, we're gonna need to let in a wave of immigration to fix the worker to recipient ratios in the major entitlement programs.

Your economic plan will fail if it doesn't help Americans. Illegals are not Americans.
Stealing from people should still be illegal.

And, of course, it is. The "taxation is theft" schpiel is the super rich feeding you a catch phrase so that you will vote against your own interests in favor of the super rich.

A liberal who has identified a group to hate. How unoriginal.

My replies in bold.

 

[sangha]

I see no use in helping you move the goalposts. You asked a question and I answered it. If a higher minimum wage followed by a decrease in jobs isn't enough for you then there really isn't much else to say.



Not with the same demand.



We're discussing concepts here, I'm not quoting a specific study done by a group of economists that have gotten all of this wrong.



No. I cannot sell more product because the demand for it has not risen. A factor in my decision to not expand into other products and services is directly tied to my costs. The labor portion of those costs increased. The labor and tax portions of those costs are expected in increase in 2 months. That's what is holding my business back.



I'm not going to post specifics of my business to unknowns.

Wingnuts can't even run a fictional business that they make up on the internet

Why are you even responding to me if that's your assumption?

If your costs (including taxes) are greater than the price you can sell it for, you're out of business because you're an incomptent businessperson.

Or external factors increase costs, some of them government actions.

If you costs (including taxes) are less than the selling price, you make a profit. If you can make a profit, and there is demand for the product, then why wouldn't you produce more?

Because I'm producing according to the current demand. I need in increase in demand in order to produce and sell more.

1) Because I like exposing wingnuts for the lying morons they are
2) I already mentioned costs. Idiot wingnuts don't know that businesses don't count costs twice.

Wingnuts don't realize that if selling price > cost, then you make a profit. They think there are "external factors" that aren't costs but increase costs

3) Exactly!! YOu just fell for it!!

If your demand remains the same, and the selling price exceeds your costs, then you produce the same amount.

You don't reduce production when you can make money producing. Only a wingnut would say otherwise

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama has destroyed FIRE, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Sectors

No Facts = Bullshit ​

The ChiComs do more investment banking that the USA...

....More-than-likely 'cause they're not scared, SHITLESS, of investing in infrastructure.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXbR_Ybwwvk[/ame]​

...our Insurance Industry is in shambles and headed for nationalization unless ObamaCare is repealed....

Yeah.....all-of-a-sudden, the Insurance Industry has forgotten how to play-their-game. ​

The Federal Government control 100% of the real estate lending in the country, FNMA, Freddie and FHA have 100% market share and there are no plans for them to take their hand off the throat of the housing markets.

Zero-facts = Bullshit​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Where is the progressive plan?

Unlike you, I have an actual plan! In the short run, stimulate the economy. Build wind farms from northern Texas to the Dakotas. Solar arrays all across the desert Southwest. Nuclear power plants by the hundreds. Unify the grid and make it smarter. Lay thousands of miles of high speed rail. Do all of this on the public dime. the investment will pay off for generations. Pay for some of it with a tax on fossil fuels.

Cut the Department of Defense by at least 30%. Our nation has STILL not demobilized from WWII and the armed forces we have are STILL structured to fight a major land war in Europe that simply isn't going to happen.

In the long term...redistribute wealth. The core problem with the economy is that wealth has been redistributed from the middle and the bottom to the top. As a result, the masses can't consume to a level equal to the output capacity of industry. End the Bush income tax cuts for the rich. Increase capital gains taxes. Bring back the estate tax, in spades. Expand the earned income tax credit. Expand Pell Grants. Expand subsidies for RENT. Institute single payer healthcare.

There's an outline. I can expand it on request.

Economic stimulus was a failure.

Yeah....just ask REPUBLICANS about that!!!




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w894xqReOdo[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You aren't getting it Shaman. No matter that the Repugs won't be able to repeal anything. If they have the House, the wingnuts will simply use the old ad hoc ergo propter hoc. The economy got better with a Republican House! That's what did it.

Kinda like how Daddy Bush's recession spawned Clintonomics. Yeah...I've heard.​

It won't matter that they won't be able to point to anything that the Republican House actually did.

....And, there's no way the general-public is gonna allow them to put the brakes on a recovering-economy, either!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There is no Republican plan except some empty promises to roll everything back to where it was before the Democrats took over, which, essentially,

would roll everything back to where it was when we were just going over the brink.

Good plan

Like we discussed, before......Where ARE all o' those jobs, that were SUPPOSED to be a result of the (pre$ent) BUSH TAX-CUTS??!!!!


​

They were there before increased government involvement happened. See 2007.

....And, magically-disappeared, before Obama got anywhere-near the situation.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ[/ame]

*

Now.....exactly WHICH increased government involvement did BUSHCO implement....to sabotage the jobs they created?????????

​

 

[LiberalNut]

Because I'm producing according to the current demand. I need in increase in demand in order to produce and sell more.

Holy shit! YES!!!!!

So, no matter how much money you get in a tax cut, you simply will not produce more, hire more workers to produce more, buy new equipment to produce more, unless demand increases, RIGHT?!

Way to demolish the economic theories of the Republicans since Reagan my man. Outstanding!

So, what needs to be done is to STIMULATE DEMAND! YES?

 

[LiberalNut]

The only measuring stick offered by Obama was an unemployment estimate

And, being mindless yourself, you can't look beyond an estimate that turned out to be wrong? You can't bring yourself to differentiate between the notions that a projection was wrong and a policy was a failure? I guess that's why you're a wingnut.

You have absolutely no proof of your position.

Oh, but I do. An economy that was shedding private sector jobs at about 800,000 per month was turned into an economy that was adding them at about 60,000 per month. The stimulus did that. yeah, unemployment went higher than projected. So what? Take the stimulus money out of the equation and unemployment goes much higher.

C+I+G+-X=GDP

Where C= consumption, I = investment, G = GOVERNMENT SPENDING and X = net exports

There is simply no econometric model anywhere in which increasing government spending hurts GDP or creates unemployment. This idea that increased government spending MUST increase GDP and support employment is NON-CONTROVERSIAL among actual economist.

A liberal who has identified a group to hate. How unoriginal.

Dude, you're clueless. I don't friggin' labor anymore! I know what does and doesn't spur investment. I'm the friggin' capitalist and you're the friggin' laborer. You're accusing me of hating myself and you are advocating in my financial best interests to the detriment of your own. You have been duped by hate speech, fear mongering and nonsensical rhetoric to support a class of people that you are not a part of and that you will never be a part of.

I mean, you wanted the conservative majority on the SCOTUS so that Roe would be overturned, right? Why do you figure that they haven't gotten around to that but they couldn't fucking wait to do the corporations are people with free speech rights thing? Hmmm?

THINK!

 

[asterism]

It's becoming clear that you aren't interested in a conversation, but I'll try one more time.

If a higher minimum wage followed by a decrease in jobs isn't enough for you

And the clueless one defends the fallacy. If an increase in AIDS cases in Africa following the rise of American personal computers isn't enough for you...Duh.

Not with the same demand.

Especially with the same demand! I'm selling widgets. My costs went up 2%. My expected demand stays stable. I cut production? On what fucking planet?

That's not what I said. In that scenario I won't increase production, I'll cut costs. If I can increase productivity, I'll do that. I certainly won't hire more people.

We're discussing concepts here, I'm not quoting a specific study

No, you're discussing bullshit rhetoric that has no empirical evidence underpinning it. Essentially you're saying...the world is this way because I say it is so. Religion in a nutshell.

You're being disingenuous.

I cannot sell more product because the demand for it has not risen.

Well, fucking duh! And, in the lack of increased demand, you will NEVER invest in more production. We can give you tax cuts till the cows come home and you aren't gonna produce one damned more thing just to have it sit on the shelf, right?

Correct. I will (and am) look for other places to make money, other products, other lines of business. Increased costs discourage that.

I'm not going to post specifics of my business to unknowns.

Good Lord you are so full of shit.

Full of shit because I won't post specifics of my business?

 

[asterism]

Laughable.

Yup, laughable, that's what you are. You just compared two projections to a reality and tried to make the argument that government spending CAUSED unemployment. Tell me genius, how does government spending cause unemployment?

You seem to have lost track of the points being made here, especially that last one where you said the stimulus was not a failure. I posted the projections made by those who designed the stimulus and the results.

I never claimed that government spending causes unemployment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rolling back would reduce the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 300 billion, why is that so wrong?

No it wouldn't. 90% of the deficits are from either the recession/slowdown, or Bush policies.

Don't forget as well, the Obama administration put the cost of the wars on-budget; no one seems to point that out when they go off on the recent deficits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Democrats haven't done anything, why are so many on the right throwing fits over what they claim are all the terrible things the Democrats have done?

You misunderstand: The Democrats haven't done anything beneficial...unless you're a Democrat special interest group.

So the new G.I. Bill was for that Democratic special interest group known as veterans?

So, just curious,

how many of you here agree with daveman that our troops and our veterans are just one more Democrat SPECIAL INTEREST??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why are you sitting and waiting for answers? I thouhgt you were hope and change. Where is the progressive plan? Or are you simply acknowledging your side has no plan and would like one?

Hell....OUR PLANS are (already) IN PLACE!!!!!

Whatta ya' gonna DO ABOUT IT!!!!!!!

And you see the results of your plans right?

Yeah....you've got a losing-fight on-your-hands!

 

[LiberalNut]

Correct. I will (and am) look for other places to make money, other products, other lines of business. Increased costs discourage that.

::sigh::

Try to dissaciate yourself from your own MICRO situation for a second. We're talking about the MACRO economy. If AGGREGATE demand does not increase, AGGREGATE employment will not increase. Even if you find a niche to make more money because you can make a better mousetrap than somebody else, the OVERALL economy will go nowhere.

The core problem is not your inability to invest. If there's fucking profit to be made, investment will be made. if not by you personally, then by someone else, like me. There's no lack of capital out there friend. The problem is that the masses can't afford to buy the output capacity of industry. Demand is stuck at a less than full employment equilibrium. The market WILL NOT self-correct.

 

[asterism]

Wingnuts can't even run a fictional business that they make up on the internet

Why are you even responding to me if that's your assumption?



Or external factors increase costs, some of them government actions.

If you costs (including taxes) are less than the selling price, you make a profit. If you can make a profit, and there is demand for the product, then why wouldn't you produce more?

Because I'm producing according to the current demand. I need in increase in demand in order to produce and sell more.

1) Because I like exposing wingnuts for the lying morons they are

So you think you're exposing me as a liar? Funny. Well at least I know there is no point in discussing this with you since you don't want to listen, you just want to play some silly game. Just remember that in order for you to actually expose someone as a liar you need to prove they are lying, not just speculate.

Good luck with that.

2) I already mentioned costs. Idiot wingnuts don't know that businesses don't count costs twice.

Wingnuts don't realize that if selling price > cost, then you make a profit. They think there are "external factors" that aren't costs but increase costs

3) Exactly!! YOu just fell for it!!

If your demand remains the same, and the selling price exceeds your costs, then you produce the same amount.

You don't reduce production when you can make money producing. Only a wingnut would say otherwise

You seem to think increased labor costs as a result of legislation and tax rate increases as a result of legislation aren't external factors.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You know, Hitler had some ground-breaking years as well..... as did Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.

 

[LiberalNut]

You seem to have lost track of the points being made here

See post 108 dude. Try to comprehend. Please.

 

[asterism]

Like we discussed, before......Where ARE all o' those jobs, that were SUPPOSED to be a result of the (pre$ent) BUSH TAX-CUTS??!!!!


​

They were there before increased government involvement happened. See 2007.

....And, magically-disappeared, before Obama got anywhere-near the situation.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ[/ame]

*

Now.....exactly WHICH increased government involvement did BUSHCO implement....to sabotage the jobs they created?????????

​

Disappeared before Obama got near it? Unemployment was at 7.7% when Obama was inaugurated. What is it now?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[asterism]

Because I'm producing according to the current demand. I need in increase in demand in order to produce and sell more.

Holy shit! YES!!!!!

So, no matter how much money you get in a tax cut, you simply will not produce more, hire more workers to produce more, buy new equipment to produce more, unless demand increases, RIGHT?!

Way to demolish the economic theories of the Republicans since Reagan my man. Outstanding!

So, what needs to be done is to STIMULATE DEMAND! YES?

No. Artificially stimulating demand failed. What's needed is innovation and an environment for entrepreneurs to take a risk.

 

[LiberalNut]

Artificially stimulating demand failed.

I can't stand it. You're a moron! I posted the facts in 108. That post smashes this ignorant talking point. You countered nothing. Yet you will just infinitely repeat the lie.

You're a brainwashed drone. There's nothing I can do about it. maybe some lurker learned something.

::sigh::