Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.
When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.
The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.
We spend more per student than any of the countries we compete against yet you want to put the blame on Republicans not giving enough money to the educational system?
The income gap has only widened because some people are motivated and some aren't. Motivation to succeed is tough to muster up if you can live quite comfortably sitting on your ass and waiting for the state to recharge your EBT card.When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.
When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.
The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.
Dad likes to blame Reagan and Conservatives for the shrinking middle class when the income ceiling under which you're considered impoverished is roughly 3 times as large.
LOL, Sure Bubba, the MYTH you righties LOVE.
YOU MEAN AS THE TOP1% HAS RECEIVED 300% MORE INCOME YET CUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THAT MONEY BY 40%???
"Among the developed nations, we are the least economically and socially mobile country in the world."
— Jeb Bush on Monday, October 27th, 2014 in a fundraising letter
POLIFACT: TRUE
U.S. is the least socially and economically mobile in developed world says Jeb Bush PolitiFact Florida
Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs
Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Republicans are low-information voters, and much more likely, as seen in this very comments section, to hang on to failed policy, like trickle-down theory, and blatant racism than the average citizen. Even the so-called 'moderate Republicans' stay quiet and let the least-informed among them do all the talking, and posting.
Instead of looking for the reason for this phenomena, you look for someone to vilify. It's a lot easier that way, isn't it?
But, let's discuss it ... WHY is it more difficult for lower class persons in the US to advance than it is in European countries? I know ... you don't have an answer, you only have somebody to vilify.
The American economy is significantly more technically advanced than Europe. Because of our increased labor rates (inflated, when compared to Europe), we have to be more efficient in production than do our European counterparts. The average annual household income in the US is about $51K, but in Spain, it is $22k, Italy $24K, England, it is $26K, France $28K, and Germany $29K. Obviously, in order for us to maintain that difference, we must be more efficient.
In order to be more efficient, we must be more technically advanced. We can't do it based on common labor; we need specialized labor. Specialized labor requires education. When you look at the list of European countries, as their technical capability increases, so does their average income.
So, we know what we need - an educated, talented, and dedicated workforce - something we don't have. Only about 33% of our workforce has education above the high school diploma level, and about 11% have some increased level of formal technical training. That means, simply, over 55% of our workforce is not qualified to perform meaningful work at the increased technical level. While there are still jobs for those with high school degrees, there are fewer jobs and greater competition for those jobs. These are increasingly service industry jobs, whether it be changing tires at the Big O or handling customer complaints at the call center. The time has passed for itinerant labor. It's not a case of employers being unwilling to train the uneducated - there just simply are fewer and fewer jobs of that type available.
Our education system is not equipped to provide the technical expertise necessary to advance in our economy today. If you look closely at the numbers for income growth, you'll find a different story than is popular with Democrats and liberals. The growth of income levels in the 5 - 25% level workers is amazing. These are the software engineers who make $150K a year, or the financial specialist who makes 6 figure salaries. People who are qualified to function in our economy do quite well.
What does this mean? It means either our unqualified workers have to get up the gumption to go get trained, or the government needs to carry whole generations of non-workers. We know that the government has programs to help people increase their expertise - but, we also know that the people who need it most, aren't availing themselves of it.
We have to ask ourselves why --- when I can make $60K on welfare in Hawaii, or a nationwide average of $41K, without working, without trying to advance myself, why would I do it? This is the permanent underclass that we have created - those who are unqualified (because of our failing education system) and those who are unmotivated (because of our welfare system).
THAT is the primary reason why we have such a significant wealth disparity. Of course, it's easier to just vilify somebody else, than to actually admit it and attack the problem.
More long, bullshit from you?
Simple question Bubba
Supply side economics. DOES THE TOP 1% OR CORPS IN THE US NEED OR WILL THE EFFECTIVELY SPEND A TAX CUT? Yes or no? Record Corp profits, highest incomes. Half of ALL dividends go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US.Will they spend it in a recovery or will they park it with their money managers?
Your macro bullshit was tried in Chile and had the predictable results. Why is that?
How about HONESTY and the GOP's use of 'starve the beast' policies the past 30+ years? lol
CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST
Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
The results were exactly what liberals predicted
Chile the laboratory test
Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade and a reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. Exports of goods and services account for approximately one-third of GDP, with commodities making up some three-quarters of total exports. Copper alone provides 19% of government revenue. From 2003 through 2013, real growth averaged almost 5% per year, despite the slight contraction in 2009 that resulted from the global financial crisis. Chile deepened its longstanding commitment to trade liberalization with the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which took effect on 1 January 2004. Chile has 22 trade agreements covering 60 countries including agreements with the European Union, Mercosur, China, India, South Korea, and Mexico. Chile has joined the United States and nine other countries in negotiating the Trans-Pacific-Partnership trade agreement.
The Chilean Government has generally followed a countercyclical fiscal policy, accumulating surpluses in sovereign wealth funds during periods of high copper prices and economic growth, and generally allowing deficit spending only during periods of low copper prices and growth. As of 31 December 2012, those sovereign wealth funds - kept mostly outside the country and separate from Central Bank reserves - amounted to more than $20.9 billion. Chile used these funds to finance fiscal stimulus packages during the 2009 economic downturn. In May 2010 Chile signed the OECD Convention, becoming the first South American country to join the OECD.
Public debt:
13.9% of GDP (2013 est.)
Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol
A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:
CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST
Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.
The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test
Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol
Chaveznomics.
Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.
Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune
lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..
Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?
PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?
Their economics were to give oil money to Chavez cronies.
It worked out much better than the Chicago school.
Especially the shortages of toilet paper.
It's amazing to me that any progressive would even have the stones to come on here to argue the results of their control of the economy. Under Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the United States suffered through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. The only thing that's making our economy boom NOW is the cheap price of oil and gas...something that Barry didn't want and did everything he could to keep from happening! You could literally write a dozen economic textbooks on how NOT to grow jobs and an economy based on the Obama Administration's policies! They've been THAT bad.
Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol
A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:
CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST
Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.
The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
Chile the laboratory test
Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol
Chaveznomics.
Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.
Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune
lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..
Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?
PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?
Wow, you don't have a clue! Did you sleep through the whole Chavez thing in Venezuela?
What I'm "concerned" about is a tax system where a large percentage of the people have no "skin in the game", Dad! Why am I concerned? It's simple...if someone doesn't pay Federal income taxes then why would they care about how much money the Federal government spends or what the tax rates are for those who do pay Federal income taxes? If you don't pay Federal income taxes you're going to vote for whoever promises you the most "free stuff" (all paid for by those who do!).
Once we reach that tipping point it will be a quick journey to the slag heap of history for the US. If you had the first clue about economics you'd see that.
ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.
The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation
In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic
MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!
This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.
The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.
He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!
More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.
What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?
People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!
When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.
When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.
The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.
When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold.
Considering we spend more per student than any other nation, our students must be very prepared.
Dragon lady please elaborate more because I don't understand
When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.
When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.
The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.
Let me get this straight, Dragonlady...over the past 30 years the American education system has been taken over by progressives...yet you want to blame the lack of "skills" on Republicans? We spend more per student than any of the countries we compete against yet you want to put the blame on Republicans not giving enough money to the educational system?
Is that REALLY what you want to go with?
We spend more per student than any of the countries we compete against yet you want to put the blame on Republicans not giving enough money to the educational system?
People want to blame the teachers and their unions for poor student performance. Some claim we are not spending enough money on students and that's why they perform poorly.
The fact is, until the students putting their asses in a chair, come to school ready, willing and able to learn, there is no solution to our education problem.
But rather than politicians telling parents that they are sending an inferior product (poorly prepared students) to the school system, we will throw money at it and blame the teachers and whoever else can be blamed.
But we won't be fixing the problem any time soon You better hope YOUR kids and grand-kids are in the prepared and willing to learn group. No education or skills in this world today and you are screwed. But there is really no one who should be blamed but the kids parents.
What's the biggest difference between a super successful school system and a poor performing one? The importance given kids about being educated and the preparation and willingness of the kid to be educated.
Quality education starts at home.
Which 'left wing' schools of economics do they use? PLEASE be specific? lol
Chaveznomics.
Not everyone in Venezuela is shouting in the streets about crime, inflation and the country's continuing slide toward authoritarian rule. In working-class neighborhoods, the crowds are standing in line at the state-owned grocery store, clutching their new electronic identification cards.
The cards aren't like the plastic tags familiar to Americans, who use them to claim discounts or earn points toward a future bonus. Venezuela's fingerprint ID system monitors purchases and alerts the government when a shopper tries to buy too many of the same item.
Venezuela Much crime not enough toilet paper - Chicago Tribune
lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..
Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?
PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?
Wow, you don't have a clue! Did you sleep through the whole Chavez thing in Venezuela?
No, so YOU can't provide the 'left wing' economic playbook Chavez used either? Instead you'll go to the low info crap? lol
The income gap has only widened because some people are motivated and some aren't. Motivation to succeed is tough to muster up if you can live quite comfortably sitting on your ass and waiting for the state to recharge your EBT card.When government spends money on infrastructure, that's an investment to improve conditions for both the people and for business.
When government invests one education, that helps prepare the next generation for the jobs they will hold. If the current generation doesn't have the skills needed the that's a direct result of 30 years of cost cutting by Republican administrations both at the federal and state level. Cuts to public education are shortsighted at best, and a total abdication of a basic government responsibility.
The income gap has widened under Obama because the overhaul of the tax system begun under Reagan had never been reversed, and since Congress has been controlled by Republicans since 2 years into Obama's administration, there was no opportunity to do it. The party of "No" wouldn't hear of a tax restructuring which would result in reversing the transfer of wealth to their richest constituents.
lol, At least you have humor, if NOT a 'left wing' economic plan they followed..
Venezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?
PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?
Wow, you don't have a clue! Did you sleep through the whole Chavez thing in Venezuela?
No, so YOU can't provide the 'left wing' economic playbook Chavez used either? Instead you'll go to the low info crap? lol
Do you NOT know that Chavez was an extreme left wing politician? Obviously you know as much about South American political history as you do about economics.
ONCE MORE IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
From David Graham, here is the graph of the 47% -- a.k.a. "non-payers" -- by state. The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.
The 47 Who They Are Where They Live How They Vote and Why They Matter - The Atlantic
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation
In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic
MORONIC RIGHT WINGERS!
This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.
The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.
He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!
More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.
What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?
People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!
Yes, oh low info one, we ALL know the economy turns on a dime, and the consequences felt 2009-2011 were blamed on Obama *shaking head*
'Progressives' controlled the Congress? Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (only BJ Bill was better) is a progressive? lol
BTW, Dems had a super majority 24 days TOTAL in 2009, AS the GOP put defeating Obama as their #1 priority.
How Hugo Chavez s Policies Affected Ordinary Venezuelans NPRVenezuela and Argentina didn't follow left wing economics? Seriously?
PLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?
Wow, you don't have a clue! Did you sleep through the whole Chavez thing in Venezuela?
No, so YOU can't provide the 'left wing' economic playbook Chavez used either? Instead you'll go to the low info crap? lol
Do you NOT know that Chavez was an extreme left wing politician? Obviously you know as much about South American political history as you do about economics.
So, AGAIN, No you can't point to a 'left wing' ECONOMIC plan Chavez used. Thanks for showing you are stupid AND ignorant you are...
This is the type of half-assed information, passed off as gospel, that inhibits serious discussion of the issues. No matter what color it is, or how big it is, it's still half-truths, propaganda, and just plain lies.
The "stupid" in Dad is rather profound. He's steeped in progressive theology and no amount of pointing out what nonsense he's spouting is going to change his view.
He's one of the morons who thinks wealth is a finite thing and if one person has it...it means someone else doesn't!
More ad homs from the low informed. Shocking
In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.
In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!
Too bad conservatives get their economic education from Rush and Fox who parrot Heritage Foundation talking points.
What's amusing about your rants, Dad...is how they ignore the fact that income disparity has been worse under Barack Obama than it ever was under Bush or Reagan. If the problem is conservatives then why didn't your Progressives make things better when you controlled the Oval Office, the Senate and the House?
People like Barack Obama and Peter Gruber laugh at people like you because you actually BUY the line of bullshit that they put out. When Gruber talks about Americans not being smart enough to understand economics he's talking about YOU!
Yes, oh low info one, we ALL know the economy turns on a dime, and the consequences felt 2009-2011 were blamed on Obama *shaking head*
'Progressives' controlled the Congress? Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (only BJ Bill was better) is a progressive? lol
BTW, Dems had a super majority 24 days TOTAL in 2009, AS the GOP put defeating Obama as their #1 priority.
It's simply an economic FACT...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. Historically the economy rebounds rather dramatically from recessions...however this time due to the agenda pushed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi there hasn't been a rebound. As a matter of fact if you factored out the growth in the economy due to the low price of oil and gas (something Obama did his best to prevent) and the creation of jobs in States governed by Republican Governors promoting a pro-jobs agenda...the numbers for this Administration on both the economy and on job creation would go from poor to absolutely pathetic.
How Hugo Chavez s Policies Affected Ordinary Venezuelans NPRPLEASE list what economic book they followed. Pretty please? And TRY to be honest. Understand the difference between economics and politics, but if you can't be honest, explain HOW it failed?
Wow, you don't have a clue! Did you sleep through the whole Chavez thing in Venezuela?
No, so YOU can't provide the 'left wing' economic playbook Chavez used either? Instead you'll go to the low info crap? lol
Do you NOT know that Chavez was an extreme left wing politician? Obviously you know as much about South American political history as you do about economics.
So, AGAIN, No you can't point to a 'left wing' ECONOMIC plan Chavez used. Thanks for showing you are stupid AND ignorant you are...
