Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Avatar4321]

you do realize there is a difference between paying someone more for merit and skill they've shown and earned and artificially jacking up prices based on the whim of government right? With one the value of the labor is taken into account.

What I realize is that NOW you want to qualify what you said. Interesting.

Some people get a raise not based on their productivity. But on their longevity.

But come on. Lets say you have 50 high skilled employees and they all want 1 dollar on the hour raise. And you have 10 employees at MW who want a dollar on the hour increase.

Go ahead and explain why the MW workers are gonna cause all that mayhem in the marketplace but not the highly paid workers.

As to your fantasy that you will buy less gas when the price goes back up. That was bullshit and you know it. People will buy the amount of gas they need to get where they need to go. Just like you would. Even if prices go back up. They don't have much choice now do they?

I'm sorry if pointing out the difference between artificial inflation of labor costs and increasing costs for value upset you. You seemed a bit confused at what are common sense principles. If costs go up and you have a budget you must find a ways to cut costs or find less expensive alternatives. The only other option is to find a way to increase your budget which is sometimes possible. But not always.

as for highly skilled workers finding alternative work that's only an option if the market isn't over saturated with that skill.

the fact that there are so many complex issues occurring to different people and companies demonstrates precisely why having a politician pass a one size fits all rule is going to do nothing but cause problems for people

 

[Avatar4321]

You quote extremist left wing biased hate sites and you accuse ME of being emotional? You libs REALLY hate losing an argument.

The fact that you have any trust for Fox News makes your mentality that of a child.

You aren't qualified to comment on facts or mentality. You keep losing arguments.

Lol um which arguments?

which one haven't you lost?

lol certainly not any you were apart of.

funny. I've been part of this one from the beginning and you aren't even close to winning it

 

[Avatar4321]

Just listen to fox news praise military & police all day long every day. They want more more & more spending on military, police & border patrol. This is to protect oligarchy who rob our wealth.

Have you ever actually WATCHED FoxNews?
Get a life. Get your head out of your ass.

This sums up Fox News accurately

Fox News a business first propaganda machine second a news source...last US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

cause clearly defending another thread addresses anything he said.

is this some more of your superior arguing skills?

I will never get over how many progressives think they are intelligent and say such stupid stuff

 

[Listening]

The fact that you have any trust for Fox News makes your mentality that of a child.

You aren't qualified to comment on facts or mentality. You keep losing arguments.

Lol um which arguments?

which one haven't you lost?

lol certainly not any you were apart of.

funny. I've been part of this one from the beginning and you aren't even close to winning it

Billy hasn't won anything but the contest for board moron.

 

[Billy000]

I'm smarter than most of you...

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm smarter than most of you...

how do you figure? Did your mom say you were?

and you very may well have the capacity to be extremely intelligent. But your application needs alot of work.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

 

[Billy000]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending. Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

 

[Billy000]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

 

[Listening]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Then that has to give pause to the question of how someone who is so smart can be such a dumbass.

 

[Listening]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

 

[Billy000]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

 

[Listening]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending. Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

Yeah,

Recall those bailouts. We heard the same bullshit.

All the banks did was take that money and sit on it to improve their balance sheets.

This just gets boring.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

When you subsidize unemployment, you promote UN-EMPLOYMENT... reducing DEMAND for EMPLOYMENT, robbing from the RECOVERY, the incentive TO RECOVER.

When you CUT liabilities associated to economic GAINS you promote ECONOMIC GAIN. When you reduce liabilities associated with the acquisition of REVENUE... you promote the acquisition of REVENUE.

Anything getting through here?

11 million new jobs? ROFLMNAO!

So what? How many people came into the labor force? 11 Million? Who were these people? Were the Citizens coming of age to enter the work force? Or were the people who entered the US Illegally, who are likely to have no allegiance to the United States, no allegiance to the Principles that sustain the United States... and no intentions to assimilate into the US Culture... who send the bulk of the monies earned in the US to individuals who do not LIVE IN THE US?

Tell me oh great and wise Keynesian... what US Economic value is served, where US production is immediately exported FROM the US?

 

[Billy000]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

When you subsidize unemployment, you promote UN-EMPLOYMENT... reducing DEMAND for EMPLOYMENT, robbing from the RECOVERY, the incentive TO RECOVER.

When you CUT liabilities associated to economic GAINS you promote ECONOMIC GAIN. When you reduce liabilities associated with the acquisition of REVENUE... you promote the acquisition of REVENUE.

Anything getting through here?

11 million new jobs? ROFLMNAO!

So what? How many people came into the labor force? 11 Million? Who were these people? Were the Citizens coming of age to enter the work force? Or were the people who entered the US Illegally, who are likely to have no allegiance to the United States, no allegiance to the Principles that sustain the United States... and no intentions to assimilate into the US Culture... who send the bulk of the monies earned in the US to individuals who do not LIVE IN THE US?

Tell me oh great and wise Keynesian... what US Economic value is served, where US production is immediately exported FROM the US?

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure. Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession. Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else. That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed for a long time until more jobs were created. Oh and unemployment benefts are 60% of the wage you made from the job you lost. There is little incentive to remain on those benefits.

lol how much of this exportation is even going on?

 

[Listening]

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

That would imply there are to many people in the workforce.

 

[reason10]

I'm smarter than most of you...

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending. Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

WRONG.
Supply side has worked EVERY time it has been tried. The greatest American economies have been during the Reagan years and the Bush 43 years.

 

[reason10]

Yet you post nonstop idiocy.

So let me ask, how would you sum your 'feelings', with regard to the point you're trying to make here?

I ask, because you seem to be claiming that adherents to the natural order of economics are idiots... and those who reject the principles in nature which govern mathematics, cause and effect, and other fundamental axioms in nature... are brilliant.

Which, as noted above, would be indicative of idiocy.

... just trying to clear this up.

Supply side economics has proven to be a failure during periods low consumer spending.

Do you have any sense of how foolish that is? The very nature of economics is that such ebbs and flows. You're claiming that half of that cycle is illegitimate and needs 'correcting'.

Even when consumer spending is at a decent level, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to boost demand. If needed, supply will increase as it naturally would.

LOL! What is the purpose for artificial demand? To increase artificial supply? Do you not possess the means to understand that by artificially increasing supply, you axiomatically reduce the value of that supply? And what of the inevitable reductions in demand which must come as a result of artificially high supply? What happens when the value of the artificial supply levels tank... and the means to reproduce those supplies is likewise tanked, by the insufficient margins between the cost to produce such and the newly established artificially adjusted values?

You're screwing with forces that you have no means to even understand, let alone 'control'.

Had the US NOT subsidized the losses that the Left caused by replacing sound principle with perverted notions of 'fairness'; had we simply allowed those who had succumbed to the coercion of the Left, to make poor choices, and left those businesses to suffer the consequences of their decisions, the US would have recovered and returned a wiser, more competent financial market and done so within the typical cyclical recovery period of 22-28 months.

Instead, you idiots have managed to set up more economic time-bombs, causing the recovery to be postponed... the pain of which has been stored, thus the potential for greater damage increased exponentially. The US Economy, HAS NOT 'recovered'... and it will NOT do so until the policies which CAUSED the failure are stripped from the system, the process which provides for the means to rebuild and for the CONFIDENCE of the consumer, which is ESSENTIAL TO THAT DEMAND you keep harping about.

As I said: You're an idiot. But if it helps, you're not alone. Many infamous people of great temporal wealth are equally as stupid. They're just not as equally foolish... .

Lol what? As long as you are using real money in real business transactions by consumers to businesses, the boost is very much real. You boost demand by cutting taxes for the middle class and giving unemployment benefits to people who really need them.

And yes this does result in a loss of revenue but so do tax cuts for the wealthy. However you are generating growth through consumer spending.

Lol the recovery has gone quite well. Close to 11 million private jobs created since Obama came to office. We are averaging 200,000 new jobs per month. Why isn't that good enough?

Oh and the investment class is doing better now more than ever? Hmmmm

How is it that you clowns can scream about all this success and yet the 1% are getting all the goodies.

Which is it ?

The problem are wages that are too low.

That's no one's fault but the worker. If he/she/it agrees to work for low wages, how is that MY problem or the problem of the employer?

 

[Ernie S.]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

Talk about poor understanding of economics...
You sir have a tenuous grasp on reality.