Remember When The Neo-Cons Were Ignorining & Lying About The State of The Economy?

[sealybobo]

The real point of the thread was FURTHER proof that the talking heads, pundits and other RWers and neo-cons only do and say things that promote the GOP...even if it means to deny facts and/or outright lie and create new ones.

Capice Dr. House fanatic?

We didn't seem to have any media the last 8 years that would call the GOP out on all their lies. Maybe we had Keith Olberman, but what can one man do?

The rest of the media just reported the right's position and ignored the left's position when we were in the minority.

They didn't discuss what the right said, so we couldn't call them out for aiding the GOP in their lies. They just reported what was said.

They just let the GOP say nonsense and left it up to the viewers to figure out what was fact and what was fiction.

Thank God for the Daily Show and MSNBC.

 

[sealybobo]

This thread was shit to start off.....

If you aren't mega rich, you are really ignorant and brainwashed.

Imagine if Obama lied us into two wars, broke all the laws Bush/Chaney did and bankrupted the world economy.

Would you defend Obama after doing all that? No, you would try to impeach him.

Then why do you defend the GOP?

 

[oreo]

It was just a mere 2 years ago, when the country was full in economic-free-fall during Herr Bush's reign, when the facts, SOME parts of the media, liberals and others were TRYING to speak about the abysmal state of the economy.

Right-wingers and Neo-Cons didn't want to hear no part of that TRUTH.

Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bsIjGcZyI

Now all they can do is bitch, moan and whine about jobs being lost under Obama's watch and how terrible the economy is.

LOL!!!

Is that COMEDY or what?

ROTFLMAO!!!

2 years ago we were at 5.5% unemployment. Now we're at over 10% unemployment & this after Obama spent 787 BILLION dollars on an economic stimulus bill that wasn't. Full employment is considered 4.5% unemployment. At that time we are begging for workers.

Economists & the federal reserve expect unemployment in this country will remain over 9% for the entire 2010 year. When democrats speak of another stimulus bill--what they mean is extending unemployment benefits. The average check is $300.00 per week to the unemployed in this country. At $300.00 per week no one is going to spend one single dime more than what they have too. That is sub-survival pay. Which in turns mean that this economy will not grow. If it doesn't grow--it means that jobs will not be created. It means that the national deficit will continue to sky-rocket.

You libs are getting a real education: The difference between trickle down economics--(which works) versus Obama's flood the basement economics which doesn't work. That is unless you're someone who works on bridge & road construction.--




Now up to 12 trillion

 

[sealybobo]

It was just a mere 2 years ago, when the country was full in economic-free-fall during Herr Bush's reign, when the facts, SOME parts of the media, liberals and others were TRYING to speak about the abysmal state of the economy.

Right-wingers and Neo-Cons didn't want to hear no part of that TRUTH.

Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bsIjGcZyI

Now all they can do is bitch, moan and whine about jobs being lost under Obama's watch and how terrible the economy is.

LOL!!!

Is that COMEDY or what?

ROTFLMAO!!!

2 years ago we were at 5.5% unemployment. Now we're at over 10% unemployment & this after Obama spent 787 BILLION dollars on an economic stimulus bill that wasn't. Full employment is considered 4.5% unemployment. At that time we are begging for workers.

Economists & the federal reserve expect unemployment in this country will remain over 9% for the entire 2010 year. When democrats speak of another stimulus bill--what they mean is extending unemployment benefits. The average check is $300.00 per week to the unemployed in this country. At $300.00 per week no one is going to spend one single dime more than what they have too. That is sub-survival pay. Which in turns mean that this economy will not grow. If it doesn't grow--it means that jobs will not be created. It means that the national deficit will continue to sky-rocket.

You libs are getting a real education: The difference between trickle down economics--(which works) versus Obama's flood the basement economics which doesn't work. That is unless you're someone who works on bridge & road construction.--

View attachment 9124

Now up to 12 trillion

2 years ago they counted Haloburton and Blackwater jobs. Now they are HQ'ed in Dubai.

Corporate profits were up too. But wages for the middle class went down. And cost of living went up. Shell Oil profits don't mean shit to all of us.

And GM GOOD PAYING jobs used to be the largest employer, now its Wallmart. Try living on those wages stupid.

You are so ignorant. You aren't smart enough to realize what would happen if we cut off all those unemployed people.

And why should the bankers get all the bailout money?

I'm not going to cry that unemployed people are getting extentions.

And I also understand how much WORSE things would be if we let all those people just lose it all.

 

[MarcATL]

The real point of the thread was FURTHER proof that the talking heads, pundits and other RWers and neo-cons only do and say things that promote the GOP...even if it means to deny facts and/or outright lie and create new ones.

Capice Dr. House fanatic?

We didn't seem to have any media the last 8 years that would call the GOP out on all their lies. Maybe we had Keith Olberman, but what can one man do?

The rest of the media just reported the right's position and ignored the left's position when we were in the minority.

They didn't discuss what the right said, so we couldn't call them out for aiding the GOP in their lies. They just reported what was said.

They just let the GOP say nonsense and left it up to the viewers to figure out what was fact and what was fiction.

Thank God for the Daily Show and MSNBC.

The MSM's problem is they are AFRAID of the right and their nutjobs. The Right's constant false cries, moaning, wailing and screeching about the "biased librul MSM" has them doing double-time to bend-over backwards to PROVE that they are not. So much so they are no longer doing what the news media is supposed to do...which is REPORT news and break news stories...regardless of who or what it is or affects.

So all they do is parrot FOXNews and RW radio's false stories and say things that legimize them like "some Americans think/believe..." for every news story instead of telling it like it is.

It allowed BushCo to run roughshod over this nation causing havoc and turmoil here and abroad unchallenged. They still have not learned. Hence you will not see one tear shed by me when their asses go bellyup. In fact I long for the day when the internet and new-media topples the ancient and useless MSM. It will happen soon enough.

Thank God for shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Rachel Maddow Show and Air America. Of course NPR and PRI as well, where we can get a more fuller and acurate picture of whats really going on around us. I forgot BBC and PBS as well.

 

[antagon]

...trickle down economics--(which works)...

defend that garbage. where have you been the last 25 years?

 

[oreo]

...trickle down economics--(which works)...

defend that garbage. where have you been the last 25 years?

I have been in my own business for the last 30+ years--that's where I have been. I am a small business electrical contractor--with absolutely no work today. Why--there is no demand for our service. Americans have tucked in--they aren't spending money--they are in survival mode.

You liberals crack me up. I don't think you even know that prior to Ronald Reagan--there was one of your's that believed in trickle down economics. His name was John F. Kennedy--who also believed that by giving back Americans their own dam money--it would stimulate a stagnant economy. It worked for him too. In fact, prior to Reagan--JFK gave the largest tax cut to Americans & believe it or not businesse's too.

We have gone now from trickle down economics--to Obama's flood the basement economics. 787 BILLION dollars spent that has not created 1 single private sector job. It's such a failure--that they are now trying to claim the amount of jobs "saved"--which has never been done before in the history of the United States. It's laughable--

Your man is trying to do an FDR. In the 1930's we actually needed roads & bridges. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. In fact, our economy is so diverse from the 1930's that the ONLY way you stimulate the economy today--is to effect ALL sectors of the economy. The ONLY way you can do that is by giving tax cuts---while at the same time CUT the freakin spending--which this administration has not done.

The very first thing FDR did? He cut 100 million out of the federal budget. 100 million back in the 1930's was enormous. Your guy hasn't caught onto that yet--

 

[antagon]

...trickle down economics--(which works)...

defend that garbage. where have you been the last 25 years?

I have been in my own business for the last 30+ years--that's where I have been. I am a small business electrical contractor--with absolutely no work today. Why--there is no demand for our service. Americans have tucked in--they aren't spending money--they are in survival mode.

You liberals crack me up. I don't think you even know that prior to Ronald Reagan--there was one of your's that believed in trickle down economics. His name was John F. Kennedy--who also believed that by giving back Americans their own dam money--it would stimulate a stagnant economy. It worked for him too. In fact, prior to Reagan--JFK gave the largest tax cut to Americans & believe it or not businesse's too.

We have gone now from trickle down economics--to Obama's flood the basement economics. 787 BILLION dollars spent that has not created 1 single private sector job. It's such a failure--that they are now trying to claim the amount of jobs "saved"--which has never been done before in the history of the United States. It's laughable--

Your man is trying to do an FDR. In the 1930's we actually needed roads & bridges. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. In fact, our economy is so diverse from the 1930's that the ONLY way you stimulate the economy today--is to effect ALL sectors of the economy. The ONLY way you can do that is by giving tax cuts---while at the same time CUT the freakin spending--which this administration has not done.

The very first thing FDR did? He cut 100 million out of the federal budget. 100 million back in the 1930's was enormous. Your guy hasn't caught onto that yet--

im sorry to hear that, man, about your business. im on vacation at the moment, but in a week i'll be back in building myself. i kept poking until i found some niches that saved my 2009.

so you know, if your clients are scarce out of lack of liquidity, especially as a b2c contractor, that is a demand-side concern, not a trickle-down supply-side concern.

on the supply side, tax burden inspires more investment than tax cuts do. when tax-time comes around, your investments, especially new hires, really come in handy for their deductibility.

where sweeping tax cuts are made, private enterprise policies gravitate away from deductible investments. because supply-side econ is targetted way above the typical small business toward bigger businesses and international concerns, some of these companies reduced their deductibility stateside in lieu of chasing profits with overseas production. 'cut-taxes' policy can be tied to overseas outsourcing and deindustrialization.

i credit the nature of the clinton recovery, with its strong employment component to this phenomenon, citing the reagan recovery as its antithesis: a jobless recovery with significant increase in outsourcing and deindustrialization. the thatcher economy is an even more vivid example. while reagan's economy was unprecedented, the jobs performance was lack-luster and tax-cuts were too deep for their budgets by his second term... enter voodoo economics.

the laffer curve was right on in 82 perhaps, and again with clinton, but that you propose sweeping tax cuts and bush enacted sweeping tax cuts while on the path to war are demonstrations of ineptitude on the topic. targetted tax cuts like bush's 100k deductibility for start-ups could be fruitful.

supply-side econ chiefly targets large businesses which are publicly traded, and the institutions which trade them. i ignore the dow as an indicator. i dont think it has anything to do with privately owned mainstreet business.

supply-side econ has its merits, but both sides of the economy are important. that said, trickle-down is bullshit. wealth doesnt trickle down. it does not trickle into employment. it doesnt trickle into small biz.

 

[ihopehefails]

The recession was very light and the economy picked up and continued to roll until 06 when the dems took over. At that point, every business decided to stop trying because they knew that the government was coming after them.

Anyways, your criticism of the Bush econonmy is completely unfounded. I know you watch MSNBC and think it is God's truth but every day you heard some negative report about the economy when it was pretty good but now that things are in the shit they don't report shit. There is no consistency in the reporting accept for the fact when a republican is in office.

 

[ihopehefails]

defend that garbage. where have you been the last 25 years?

I have been in my own business for the last 30+ years--that's where I have been. I am a small business electrical contractor--with absolutely no work today. Why--there is no demand for our service. Americans have tucked in--they aren't spending money--they are in survival mode.

You liberals crack me up. I don't think you even know that prior to Ronald Reagan--there was one of your's that believed in trickle down economics. His name was John F. Kennedy--who also believed that by giving back Americans their own dam money--it would stimulate a stagnant economy. It worked for him too. In fact, prior to Reagan--JFK gave the largest tax cut to Americans & believe it or not businesse's too.

We have gone now from trickle down economics--to Obama's flood the basement economics. 787 BILLION dollars spent that has not created 1 single private sector job. It's such a failure--that they are now trying to claim the amount of jobs "saved"--which has never been done before in the history of the United States. It's laughable--

Your man is trying to do an FDR. In the 1930's we actually needed roads & bridges. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. In fact, our economy is so diverse from the 1930's that the ONLY way you stimulate the economy today--is to effect ALL sectors of the economy. The ONLY way you can do that is by giving tax cuts---while at the same time CUT the freakin spending--which this administration has not done.

The very first thing FDR did? He cut 100 million out of the federal budget. 100 million back in the 1930's was enormous. Your guy hasn't caught onto that yet--

im sorry to hear that, man, about your business. im on vacation at the moment, but in a week i'll be back in building myself. i kept poking until i found some niches that saved my 2009.

so you know, if your clients are scarce out of lack of liquidity, especially as a b2c contractor, that is a demand-side concern, not a trickle-down supply-side concern.

on the supply side, tax burden inspires more investment than tax cuts do. when tax-time comes around, your investments, especially new hires, really come in handy for their deductibility.

where sweeping tax cuts are made, private enterprise policies gravitate away from deductible investments. because supply-side econ is targetted way above the typical small business toward bigger businesses and international concerns, some of these companies reduced their deductibility stateside in lieu of chasing profits with overseas production. 'cut-taxes' policy can be tied to overseas outsourcing and deindustrialization.

i credit the nature of the clinton recovery, with its strong employment component to this phenomenon, citing the reagan recovery as its antithesis: a jobless recovery with significant increase in outsourcing and deindustrialization. the thatcher economy is an even more vivid example. while reagan's economy was unprecedented, the jobs performance was lack-luster and tax-cuts were too deep for their budgets by his second term... enter voodoo economics.

the laffer curve was right on in 82 perhaps, and again with clinton, but that you propose sweeping tax cuts and bush enacted sweeping tax cuts while on the path to war are demonstrations of ineptitude on the topic. targetted tax cuts like bush's 100k deductibility for start-ups could be fruitful.

supply-side econ chiefly targets large businesses which are publicly traded, and the institutions which trade them. i ignore the dow as an indicator. i dont think it has anything to do with privately owned mainstreet business.

supply-side econ has its merits, but both sides of the economy are important. that said, trickle-down is bullshit. wealth doesnt trickle down. it does not trickle into employment. it doesnt trickle into small biz.

You guys really can't get the idea that free enterprise works better than a managed economy that the soviet union tried. I know you got a nice working theory that tax deductions somehow spur new economic growth but they only do the things that the tax deductions want them to do witch is something created by the government. Now a person owning a business has to make decisions based on their profitability and what if the correct thing to do involves doing something that is not tax deductable? That tax deduction, which you think helps them stay in business longer, is not not doable because the correct thing to do would something that is away from that tax deduction.

So now that business owner is being penalized for doing the correct thing and that correct thing now cost more money than doing the tax deductable incorrect thing because he has to pay the tax on doing the correct thing. It would just be easier to lower the rate so that the business has the incentive to keep working witch is the real incentive for any business to begin with.

 

[ihopehefails]

defend that garbage. where have you been the last 25 years?

I have been in my own business for the last 30+ years--that's where I have been. I am a small business electrical contractor--with absolutely no work today. Why--there is no demand for our service. Americans have tucked in--they aren't spending money--they are in survival mode.

You liberals crack me up. I don't think you even know that prior to Ronald Reagan--there was one of your's that believed in trickle down economics. His name was John F. Kennedy--who also believed that by giving back Americans their own dam money--it would stimulate a stagnant economy. It worked for him too. In fact, prior to Reagan--JFK gave the largest tax cut to Americans & believe it or not businesse's too.

We have gone now from trickle down economics--to Obama's flood the basement economics. 787 BILLION dollars spent that has not created 1 single private sector job. It's such a failure--that they are now trying to claim the amount of jobs "saved"--which has never been done before in the history of the United States. It's laughable--

Your man is trying to do an FDR. In the 1930's we actually needed roads & bridges. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. In fact, our economy is so diverse from the 1930's that the ONLY way you stimulate the economy today--is to effect ALL sectors of the economy. The ONLY way you can do that is by giving tax cuts---while at the same time CUT the freakin spending--which this administration has not done.

The very first thing FDR did? He cut 100 million out of the federal budget. 100 million back in the 1930's was enormous. Your guy hasn't caught onto that yet--

im sorry to hear that, man, about your business. im on vacation at the moment, but in a week i'll be back in building myself. i kept poking until i found some niches that saved my 2009.

so you know, if your clients are scarce out of lack of liquidity, especially as a b2c contractor, that is a demand-side concern, not a trickle-down supply-side concern.

on the supply side, tax burden inspires more investment than tax cuts do. when tax-time comes around, your investments, especially new hires, really come in handy for their deductibility.

where sweeping tax cuts are made, private enterprise policies gravitate away from deductible investments. because supply-side econ is targetted way above the typical small business toward bigger businesses and international concerns, some of these companies reduced their deductibility stateside in lieu of chasing profits with overseas production. 'cut-taxes' policy can be tied to overseas outsourcing and deindustrialization.

i credit the nature of the clinton recovery, with its strong employment component to this phenomenon, citing the reagan recovery as its antithesis: a jobless recovery with significant increase in outsourcing and deindustrialization. the thatcher economy is an even more vivid example. while reagan's economy was unprecedented, the jobs performance was lack-luster and tax-cuts were too deep for their budgets by his second term... enter voodoo economics.

the laffer curve was right on in 82 perhaps, and again with clinton, but that you propose sweeping tax cuts and bush enacted sweeping tax cuts while on the path to war are demonstrations of ineptitude on the topic. targetted tax cuts like bush's 100k deductibility for start-ups could be fruitful.

supply-side econ chiefly targets large businesses which are publicly traded, and the institutions which trade them. i ignore the dow as an indicator. i dont think it has anything to do with privately owned mainstreet business.

supply-side econ has its merits, but both sides of the economy are important. that said, trickle-down is bullshit. wealth doesnt trickle down. it does not trickle into employment. it doesnt trickle into small biz.

What tax deduction spurred the clinton recovery? You said that they spurred the economy but did you realize that he raised taxes several times?

Are you aware that it was during the clinton years that we had the most outsourcing and what was the unemployment rate during the Reagen years? I believe it was pretty low.

 

[Article 15]

Are you aware that it was during the clinton years that we had the most outsourcing and what was the unemployment rate during the Reagen years? I believe it was pretty low.

Edit: Sorry my first link was bad.

Just plug in the Reagan years and find out ...

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

... pay close attention to the first two and a half years of his first term ...

 

[antagon]

I have been in my own business for the last 30+ years--that's where I have been. I am a small business electrical contractor--with absolutely no work today. Why--there is no demand for our service. Americans have tucked in--they aren't spending money--they are in survival mode.

You liberals crack me up. I don't think you even know that prior to Ronald Reagan--there was one of your's that believed in trickle down economics. His name was John F. Kennedy--who also believed that by giving back Americans their own dam money--it would stimulate a stagnant economy. It worked for him too. In fact, prior to Reagan--JFK gave the largest tax cut to Americans & believe it or not businesse's too.

We have gone now from trickle down economics--to Obama's flood the basement economics. 787 BILLION dollars spent that has not created 1 single private sector job. It's such a failure--that they are now trying to claim the amount of jobs "saved"--which has never been done before in the history of the United States. It's laughable--

Your man is trying to do an FDR. In the 1930's we actually needed roads & bridges. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. In fact, our economy is so diverse from the 1930's that the ONLY way you stimulate the economy today--is to effect ALL sectors of the economy. The ONLY way you can do that is by giving tax cuts---while at the same time CUT the freakin spending--which this administration has not done.

The very first thing FDR did? He cut 100 million out of the federal budget. 100 million back in the 1930's was enormous. Your guy hasn't caught onto that yet--

im sorry to hear that, man, about your business. im on vacation at the moment, but in a week i'll be back in building myself. i kept poking until i found some niches that saved my 2009.

so you know, if your clients are scarce out of lack of liquidity, especially as a b2c contractor, that is a demand-side concern, not a trickle-down supply-side concern.

on the supply side, tax burden inspires more investment than tax cuts do. when tax-time comes around, your investments, especially new hires, really come in handy for their deductibility.

where sweeping tax cuts are made, private enterprise policies gravitate away from deductible investments. because supply-side econ is targetted way above the typical small business toward bigger businesses and international concerns, some of these companies reduced their deductibility stateside in lieu of chasing profits with overseas production. 'cut-taxes' policy can be tied to overseas outsourcing and deindustrialization.

i credit the nature of the clinton recovery, with its strong employment component to this phenomenon, citing the reagan recovery as its antithesis: a jobless recovery with significant increase in outsourcing and deindustrialization. the thatcher economy is an even more vivid example. while reagan's economy was unprecedented, the jobs performance was lack-luster and tax-cuts were too deep for their budgets by his second term... enter voodoo economics.

the laffer curve was right on in 82 perhaps, and again with clinton, but that you propose sweeping tax cuts and bush enacted sweeping tax cuts while on the path to war are demonstrations of ineptitude on the topic. targetted tax cuts like bush's 100k deductibility for start-ups could be fruitful.

supply-side econ chiefly targets large businesses which are publicly traded, and the institutions which trade them. i ignore the dow as an indicator. i dont think it has anything to do with privately owned mainstreet business.

supply-side econ has its merits, but both sides of the economy are important. that said, trickle-down is bullshit. wealth doesnt trickle down. it does not trickle into employment. it doesnt trickle into small biz.

What tax deduction spurred the clinton recovery? You said that they spurred the economy but did you realize that he raised taxes several times?

Are you aware that it was during the clinton years that we had the most outsourcing and what was the unemployment rate during the Reagen years? I believe it was pretty low.

no.... we all remember clinton raised taxes. its my point: that businesses seek deductibility under tax burden.

the recession ended itself early in the clinton era. maybe getting out of desert storm was a boost. then the whole dot-com thing. im not one to credit the government with the expansion, however, i think the comensurate employment performance can be attributed to the tax environment based on my deductibility/shelter mechanism.

no.... reagan's economy is classical supply-side: higher and more persistent unemployment. roughly 5.5points when it was good and 9points when it was bad. while the economy was good, the employment was stubborn... the 'jobless recovery'.

i dont advocate high taxes, believe me. there is no connection, however between sweeping tax cuts and hiring. its bs campaign talk. a hoax.

perhaps targetted tax cuts and excises could direct businesses to invest through shelter. pig-taxing. im a fan.

 

[California Girl]

Frank... Shhhhh......

Democratics are sleeping...

Democrats Nightly Prayer.

Now I lie and get some sleep
I pray Obama's here to keep
All the bad conservative joes
From voting again - the bastards and hos.

Liberals would happily see the vote taken away from anyone who does not agree with them.

Liberals are scum.

 

[Article 15]

Frank... Shhhhh......

Democratics are sleeping...

Liberals would happily see the vote taken away from anyone who does not agree with them.

Liberals are scum.

Why do you make statements like these?

 

[Gunny]

It was just a mere 2 years ago, when the country was full in economic-free-fall during Herr Bush's reign, when the facts, SOME parts of the media, liberals and others were TRYING to speak about the abysmal state of the economy.

Right-wingers and Neo-Cons didn't want to hear no part of that TRUTH.

Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bsIjGcZyI

Now all they can do is bitch, moan and whine about jobs being lost under Obama's watch and how terrible the economy is.

LOL!!!

Is that COMEDY or what?

ROTFLMAO!!!

No. I DO know it tanked just about the same time Obama was nominated.

Odd that, isn't it?

And while you are trying to sound all intellectual and stuff, why would you put a topic on the economy in politics when there's a subforum "disguised" as "Economy"?

You're really showing YOUR stuff.

 

[Article 15]

It was just a mere 2 years ago, when the country was full in economic-free-fall during Herr Bush's reign, when the facts, SOME parts of the media, liberals and others were TRYING to speak about the abysmal state of the economy.

Right-wingers and Neo-Cons didn't want to hear no part of that TRUTH.

Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bsIjGcZyI

Now all they can do is bitch, moan and whine about jobs being lost under Obama's watch and how terrible the economy is.

LOL!!!

Is that COMEDY or what?

ROTFLMAO!!!

No. I DO know it tanked just about the same time Obama was nominated.

Odd that, isn't it?

And while you are trying to sound all intellectual and stuff, why would you put a topic on the economy in politics when there's a subforum "disguised" as "Economy"?

You're really showing YOUR stuff.

It's even more odd that at the time it crashed McCain was leading in the polls and after the crash Obama's numbers soared.

How.Weird.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was just a mere 2 years ago, when the country was full in economic-free-fall during Herr Bush's reign, when the facts, SOME parts of the media, liberals and others were TRYING to speak about the abysmal state of the economy.

Right-wingers and Neo-Cons didn't want to hear no part of that TRUTH.

Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bsIjGcZyI

Now all they can do is bitch, moan and whine about jobs being lost under Obama's watch and how terrible the economy is.

LOL!!!

Is that COMEDY or what?

ROTFLMAO!!!

Going back to the OP:

That guy swore at Hannity on the air. I would have gone to commercial and kicked his Liberal Talking-points spouting ass off the show.

 

[antagon]

I have been in my own business for the last 30+ years--that's where I have been. I am a small business electrical contractor--with absolutely no work today. Why--there is no demand for our service. Americans have tucked in--they aren't spending money--they are in survival mode.

You liberals crack me up. I don't think you even know that prior to Ronald Reagan--there was one of your's that believed in trickle down economics. His name was John F. Kennedy--who also believed that by giving back Americans their own dam money--it would stimulate a stagnant economy. It worked for him too. In fact, prior to Reagan--JFK gave the largest tax cut to Americans & believe it or not businesse's too.

We have gone now from trickle down economics--to Obama's flood the basement economics. 787 BILLION dollars spent that has not created 1 single private sector job. It's such a failure--that they are now trying to claim the amount of jobs "saved"--which has never been done before in the history of the United States. It's laughable--

Your man is trying to do an FDR. In the 1930's we actually needed roads & bridges. What took thousands of men with shovels in the 1930's can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. In fact, our economy is so diverse from the 1930's that the ONLY way you stimulate the economy today--is to effect ALL sectors of the economy. The ONLY way you can do that is by giving tax cuts---while at the same time CUT the freakin spending--which this administration has not done.

The very first thing FDR did? He cut 100 million out of the federal budget. 100 million back in the 1930's was enormous. Your guy hasn't caught onto that yet--

im sorry to hear that, man, about your business. im on vacation at the moment, but in a week i'll be back in building myself. i kept poking until i found some niches that saved my 2009.

so you know, if your clients are scarce out of lack of liquidity, especially as a b2c contractor, that is a demand-side concern, not a trickle-down supply-side concern.

on the supply side, tax burden inspires more investment than tax cuts do. when tax-time comes around, your investments, especially new hires, really come in handy for their deductibility.

where sweeping tax cuts are made, private enterprise policies gravitate away from deductible investments. because supply-side econ is targetted way above the typical small business toward bigger businesses and international concerns, some of these companies reduced their deductibility stateside in lieu of chasing profits with overseas production. 'cut-taxes' policy can be tied to overseas outsourcing and deindustrialization.

i credit the nature of the clinton recovery, with its strong employment component to this phenomenon, citing the reagan recovery as its antithesis: a jobless recovery with significant increase in outsourcing and deindustrialization. the thatcher economy is an even more vivid example. while reagan's economy was unprecedented, the jobs performance was lack-luster and tax-cuts were too deep for their budgets by his second term... enter voodoo economics.

the laffer curve was right on in 82 perhaps, and again with clinton, but that you propose sweeping tax cuts and bush enacted sweeping tax cuts while on the path to war are demonstrations of ineptitude on the topic. targetted tax cuts like bush's 100k deductibility for start-ups could be fruitful.

supply-side econ chiefly targets large businesses which are publicly traded, and the institutions which trade them. i ignore the dow as an indicator. i dont think it has anything to do with privately owned mainstreet business.

supply-side econ has its merits, but both sides of the economy are important. that said, trickle-down is bullshit. wealth doesnt trickle down. it does not trickle into employment. it doesnt trickle into small biz.

You guys really can't get the idea that free enterprise works better than a managed economy that the soviet union tried. I know you got a nice working theory that tax deductions somehow spur new economic growth but they only do the things that the tax deductions want them to do witch is something created by the government. Now a person owning a business has to make decisions based on their profitability and what if the correct thing to do involves doing something that is not tax deductable? That tax deduction, which you think helps them stay in business longer, is not not doable because the correct thing to do would something that is away from that tax deduction.

So now that business owner is being penalized for doing the correct thing and that correct thing now cost more money than doing the tax deductable incorrect thing because he has to pay the tax on doing the correct thing. It would just be easier to lower the rate so that the business has the incentive to keep working witch is the real incentive for any business to begin with.

im fiercely capitalistic with my life and my enterprise. however, i dont agree that the economy and the nation would benefit from a laisez-faire model compared to the status quo.

if in running my business i offer discounts and target advertising for the services i prefer to provide, why shouldn't the government do the same for what the country needs from the economy?

merely cutting businesses loose on the population, and presuming that their policies will contribute to the rates of employment, standards of living, and per-capita product which make economies like the US thrive, betrays an ignorance of how our great economy has come about, and puts a lot of credit in the collective business community.

tax is an obligation to government. if they want businesses to hire, expand and invest, they should use the tax system to direct that and to relieve businesses from competition between tax payments and investment of the same monies. is there a benefit in hoarding profits? not to society. not particularly for businesses. that hoarding has the least shelter in modern tax systems, i think, is an ideal compromise.

there's a lot of latitude between the united states and the cccp. i advocate nothing so extreme...

unlike your typical free-market theorist, i am talking about the real deal, in the USA, right here and now, just as it is.

...im simply pointing out the merits to what is commonly derrided in the tax system and more progressive economic policy applied or proposed in the US.

there's also plenty of lattitude in investment and deductibility decisions. you can weigh these decisions with their cash value. ive done that for a decade. nobody forces your hand.

 

[mudwhistle]

Frank... Shhhhh......

Democratics are sleeping...

Liberals would happily see the vote taken away from anyone who does not agree with them.

Liberals are scum.

Why do you make statements like these?

Anger...frustration....a lack of tolerance for incompetence amongst other things.