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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure.

No... "Emergency" was the rationalization used to implement the measures which amount to debilitating subsidies.

They reduce DEMAND for JOBS. Thus the reason for sustained high unemployment... accompanied with record low labor-participation.

Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession.

That was no recession scamp. That was a catastrophic failure of socialist policy which resulted in the crippling of the financial markets. That was an absolute certainty... the moment that sound lending principle was supplanted with that twisted notion of fairness, and the accountability of 'losses' was transferred to the Federal Government, the crash was inevitable. There was literally no way that it was NOT going to happen. The same is true for the looming explosion of hyper-inflation and the total destruction of the US Dollar as a result of the Federal reserve printing trillions of dollars, sustaining the equity and debt markets, artificially tabling interest rates. The rates must go up and when they begin to do so, they will shift slowly then explode, beyond the means of the market to sustain... and what you saw in 2008 will look like an economic boom.

Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else.

Of course, that is what is reasonably expected when a culture rejects sound actuarial lending principle for perverse notions of 'fairness', which in practice discouraged fairness, thus creating the imbalance that crippled the system which was formerly sustained by the principles that the Relativists rejected.

That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed...

Nonsense... those people had been hysterically over-employed. And when the market could no longer sustain those jobs, those jobs did indeed vanish.

But that is nothing new... nor is it fatal. It's what contractors all over the world go through every time a big project is completed and another big job does not replace it. What do ya do? Pray someone sends you a check or go find another job?


Guess what happens to those who sit around praying for someone to send them a check? They lose their edge and fade into bankruptcy. No one bails them out. Happens every single day, has forever and will continue forever.

Buy subsidizing those people, they robbed the market of their skills... their knowledge, their means to produce. And guess that that does? It reduced production. Now all that has to have happened to prove my point is that US Production had to be stagnate for an extended period. I'd say that 6 years of economic stagnation proves the thesis. But hey... in fairness, there's no other way it can work. So... it's not magic... it's just 54 years of watching it happen. Eventually, ya figure it out.

There's nothing complex about any of this. The world operates on fundamental principles. There are those who embrace them consistently and as a consequence profit consistently and there's those who do not... and consequently do not.

 

[Billy000]

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure.

No... "Emergency" was the rationalization used to implement the measures which amount to debilitating subsidies.

They reduce DEMAND for JOBS. Thus the reason for sustained high unemployment... accompanied with record low labor-participation.

Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession.

That was no recession scamp. That was a catastrophic failure of socialist policy which resulted in the crippling of the financial markets.

Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else.

Of course, that is what is reasonably expected when a culture rejects sound actuarial lending principle for perverse notions of 'fairness', which in practice discouraged fairness, thus creating the imbalance that crippled the system which was formerly sustained by the principles that the Relativists rejected.

That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed...

Nonsense... those people had been hysterically over-employed. And when the market could no longer sustain those jobs, those jobs did indeed vanish.

But that is nothing new... nor is it fatal. It's what contractors all over the world go through every time a big project is completed and another big job does not replace it. What do ya do? Pray someone sends you a check or go find another job?


Guess what happens to those who sit around praying for someone to send them a check? They lose their edge and fade into bankruptcy. No one bails them out. Happens every single day, has forever and will continue forever.

Buy subsidizing those people, they robbed the market of their skills... their knowledge, their means to produce. And guess that that does? It reduced production. Now all that has to have happened to prove my point is that US Production had to be stagnate for an extended period. I'd say that 6 years of economic stagnation proves the thesis. But hey... in fairness, there's no other way it can work. So... it's not magic... it's just 54 years of watching it happen. Eventually, ya figure it out.

There's nothing complex about any of this. The world operates on fundamental principles. There are those who embrace them consistently and as a consequence profit consistently and there's those who do not... and consequently do not.

Lol dude everything you say is such fluff. I'm sure you like me to believe you're making some grounded point about the economy but you are all over the place. You're just spouting non sense. You realize that right? You are all fluff and no substance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure.

No... "Emergency" was the rationalization used to implement the measures which amount to debilitating subsidies.

They reduce DEMAND for JOBS. Thus the reason for sustained high unemployment... accompanied with record low labor-participation.

Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession.

That was no recession scamp. That was a catastrophic failure of socialist policy which resulted in the crippling of the financial markets.

Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else.

Of course, that is what is reasonably expected when a culture rejects sound actuarial lending principle for perverse notions of 'fairness', which in practice discouraged fairness, thus creating the imbalance that crippled the system which was formerly sustained by the principles that the Relativists rejected.

That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed...

Nonsense... those people had been hysterically over-employed. And when the market could no longer sustain those jobs, those jobs did indeed vanish.

But that is nothing new... nor is it fatal. It's what contractors all over the world go through every time a big project is completed and another big job does not replace it. What do ya do? Pray someone sends you a check or go find another job?


Guess what happens to those who sit around praying for someone to send them a check? They lose their edge and fade into bankruptcy. No one bails them out. Happens every single day, has forever and will continue forever.

Buy subsidizing those people, they robbed the market of their skills... their knowledge, their means to produce. And guess that that does? It reduced production. Now all that has to have happened to prove my point is that US Production had to be stagnate for an extended period. I'd say that 6 years of economic stagnation proves the thesis. But hey... in fairness, there's no other way it can work. So... it's not magic... it's just 54 years of watching it happen. Eventually, ya figure it out.

There's nothing complex about any of this. The world operates on fundamental principles. There are those who embrace them consistently and as a consequence profit consistently and there's those who do not... and consequently do not.

Lol dude everything you say is such fluff. ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Billy000]

Extending uemployment benefits is an emergency measure.

No... "Emergency" was the rationalization used to implement the measures which amount to debilitating subsidies.

They reduce DEMAND for JOBS. Thus the reason for sustained high unemployment... accompanied with record low labor-participation.

Here is what you cons are too dense to understand. The economy lost 8 million jobs in that recession.

That was no recession scamp. That was a catastrophic failure of socialist policy which resulted in the crippling of the financial markets.

Those jobs were GONE. They didn't go to anyone else.

Of course, that is what is reasonably expected when a culture rejects sound actuarial lending principle for perverse notions of 'fairness', which in practice discouraged fairness, thus creating the imbalance that crippled the system which was formerly sustained by the principles that the Relativists rejected.

That means most of those people were hopelessly unemployed...

Nonsense... those people had been hysterically over-employed. And when the market could no longer sustain those jobs, those jobs did indeed vanish.

But that is nothing new... nor is it fatal. It's what contractors all over the world go through every time a big project is completed and another big job does not replace it. What do ya do? Pray someone sends you a check or go find another job?


Guess what happens to those who sit around praying for someone to send them a check? They lose their edge and fade into bankruptcy. No one bails them out. Happens every single day, has forever and will continue forever.

Buy subsidizing those people, they robbed the market of their skills... their knowledge, their means to produce. And guess that that does? It reduced production. Now all that has to have happened to prove my point is that US Production had to be stagnate for an extended period. I'd say that 6 years of economic stagnation proves the thesis. But hey... in fairness, there's no other way it can work. So... it's not magic... it's just 54 years of watching it happen. Eventually, ya figure it out.

There's nothing complex about any of this. The world operates on fundamental principles. There are those who embrace them consistently and as a consequence profit consistently and there's those who do not... and consequently do not.

Lol dude everything you say is such fluff. ...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Lol what kind of response are you expecting? Here are the facts okay?

1) Obama's stimulus created 3 million jobs. A total of 11 million jobs have been created since he took office.
2) the investment class is doing better now more than ever
3) the participation rate has been decline since before he took office. Where was your outrage for it during Bush?

This idea that you are pedaling that the nation is crumbling is typical rightwing, Fox News fear propaganda bullshit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Lol what kind of response are you expecting? Here are the fa...

You've already conceded to the standing points. I've no concern for your rationalizations designed to escape the points from which you have already yielded.

Socialism created the mess, socialism sustains the mess and the mess will continue to worsen, until either socialism dries up and no longer bears influence on the market or the system will collapse.

There's no third alternative... there's no easier way. It is what it is scamp and what it is, is a colossal cluster fuck created by idiots, serving their own interests, too foolish to even know what those interests actually are.

Simple stuff.

 

[Billy000]

Lol what kind of response are you expecting? Here are the fa...

You've already conceded to the standing points. I've no concern for your rationalizations designed to escape the points from which you have already yielded.

Socialism created the mess, socialism sustains the mess and the mess will continue to worsen, until either socialism dries up and no longer bears influence on the market or the system will collapse.

There's no third alternative... there's no easier way. It is what it is scamp and what it is, is a colossal cluster fuck created by idiots, serving their own interests, too foolish to even know what those interests actually are.

Simple stuff.

Let me guess. Liberals caused the Great Recession?

 

[reason10]

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.

I know more than you do. I know the truth. YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

 

[Ernie S.]

What caused the 2008 recession has been debated ad nauseum here. The single greatest cause of the melt down was Liberals forcing lenders to write mortgages for people that had no chance of paying them.
Barney Frank said, “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

 

[zeke]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

 

[zeke]

What caused the 2008 recession has been debated ad nauseum here. The single greatest cause of the melt down was Liberals forcing lenders to write mortgages for people that had no chance of paying them

Like you said, people here have shown stupid people like you over and over what happened in the housing collapse. And you are so stupid you still get it wrong. Again and again and again ad nauseum.

Can't you read anything but right wing bullshit?

 

[The Rabbi]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What caused the 2008 recession has been debated ad nauseum here. The single greatest cause of the melt down was Liberals forcing lenders to write mortgages for people that had no chance of paying them

Like you said, people here have shown stupid people like you over and over what happened in the housing collapse. And you are so stupid you still get it wrong. Again and again and again ad nauseum.

Can't you read anything but right wing bullshit?

There are none so blind as those who will not see... and it's as simple, as that.

 

[The Rabbi]

What caused the 2008 recession has been debated ad nauseum here. The single greatest cause of the melt down was Liberals forcing lenders to write mortgages for people that had no chance of paying them

Like you said, people here have shown stupid people like you over and over what happened in the housing collapse. And you are so stupid you still get it wrong. Again and again and again ad nauseum.

Can't you read anything but right wing bullshit?

There are none so blind as those who will not see... and it's as simple, as that.

In Zeke's case it's blind drunkeness. I guess thats some kind of excuse.

 

[Dragonlady]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

These analysis do nothing to account for th additional factors that go into a presidency. Carter left Reagan a bigger mess than Obama inherited and yet he turned it around. Obama has run this country into the ground.

Reagan turned it around by going on a debt fuelled spending spree. He cut taxes rates drastically, and completely re-ordered how the tax rates and how the government is funded. He encouraged the use of public and private debt.

Reagan dramatically increased defence spending, wasted billions on the development of the Star Wars missile defence system. The boom for defence contractors fuelled private sector hiring, as did the lavish spending by the middle class.

But the wealth didn't "trickle down". The poverty rate increased dramatically. The number of people on food stamps doubled. And the stock market crashed during Reagan's second term. Unemployment increased.

Even Ronnie could see his economic policies weren't working and he raised taxes in his second term - not to the levels before his cuts, but enough that it was the largest tax increase ever.

To combat high unemployment, Reagan hired 1 million new government workers.

In short, in his second term, Reagan repudiated every major economic action of his first term. Bush wasn't smart enough to do the same.

Everyone remembers Reagan's tax cuts and saving the mess left by the Carter administration, but nobody remembers his economic actions in the second term.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

These analysis do nothing to account for th additional factors that go into a presidency. Carter left Reagan a bigger mess than Obama inherited and yet he turned it around. Obama has run this country into the ground.

Reagan turned it around by going on a debt fuelled spending spree. He cut taxes rates drastically, and completely re-ordered how the tax rates and how the government is funded. He encouraged the use of public and private debt.

Reagan dramatically increased defence spending, wasted billions on the development of the Star Wars missile defence system. The boom for defence contractors fuelled private sector hiring, as did the lavish spending by the middle class.

But the wealth didn't "trickle down". The poverty rate increased dramatically. The number of people on food stamps doubled. And the stock market crashed during Reagan's second term. Unemployment increased.

Even Ronnie could see his economic policies weren't working and he raised taxes in his second term - not to the levels before his cuts, but enough that it was the largest tax increase ever.

To combat high unemployment, Reagan hired 1 million new government workers.

In short, in his second term, Reagan repudiated every major economic action of his first term. Bush wasn't smart enough to do the same.

Everyone remembers Reagan's tax cuts and saving the mess left by the Carter administration, but nobody remembers his economic actions in the second term.

That's like the complete opposite of what happened.
If debt fueling an economy made it work Obama's economy would be in the stratosphere, as he's piled on more debt than any other president.
As for your contention of soaring unemployment under Reagan, I guess the BLS just didnt get that memo. Her'es the actual graph:

 

[2aguy]

See, we on the right do misunderstand economics....if we would simply submit to the leftist belief that all money, resources....and human beings....belong to the state...and a select few leftists to run that state......we would be on the right track.......

 

[Billy000]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

 

[The Rabbi]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

 

[Billy000]

I know more than you do.

You forgot to go; nah nah nah nah boo boo.

I know the truth.

LMAO The truth about WHAT?

YOUR way has produced the worse economies in history.

Really? That Clinton economy sure sucked eh? And EVEN Obama could have had a better economy IF he could have created government jobs like Ronnie Reagan created government jobs.

And don't come back and say Reagan didn't oversee an explosion in government spending. Cause I thought you said you know what the "truth" is.

Clinton left us with a recession, that you guys blamed Bush for.

Why do you even bother? You spew such non sense. Clinton is responsible for the recession of Bush's early presidency yet dems are to blame for the crash of 2008.

You are disengenous filth.

I tell the truth. Bush inherited a recession. Obama inherited a recovery. The deficit is higher now than when the recession started. Dem policies have produced poverty. GOP policies have produced prosperity. The facts are undeniable.

You are actually that much of a moron to think Obama inherited a recovery? My god even you can't be that dumb. You actually believe that? My god. May the Creator have mercy on your pitiful soul.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg

These analysis do nothing to account for th additional factors that go into a presidency. Carter left Reagan a bigger mess than Obama inherited and yet he turned it around. Obama has run this country into the ground.

Reagan turned it around by going on a debt fuelled spending spree. He cut taxes rates drastically, and completely re-ordered how the tax rates and how the government is funded. He encouraged the use of public and private debt.

Reagan dramatically increased defence spending, wasted billions on the development of the Star Wars missile defence system. The boom for defence contractors fuelled private sector hiring, as did the lavish spending by the middle class.

But the wealth didn't "trickle down". The poverty rate increased dramatically. The number of people on food stamps doubled. And the stock market crashed during Reagan's second term. Unemployment increased.

Even Ronnie could see his economic policies weren't working and he raised taxes in his second term - not to the levels before his cuts, but enough that it was the largest tax increase ever.

To combat high unemployment, Reagan hired 1 million new government workers.

In short, in his second term, Reagan repudiated every major economic action of his first term. Bush wasn't smart enough to do the same.

Everyone remembers Reagan's tax cuts and saving the mess left by the Carter administration, but nobody remembers his economic actions in the second term.

Reagan turned it around by going on a debt fuelled spending spree.

Obama's debt fueled spending spree is much larger, and his economy is much weaker.

But the wealth didn't "trickle down". The poverty rate increased dramatically. The number of people on food stamps doubled.

Yeah, but enough about Obama's failures.