Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

[CrusaderFrank]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

And it extended the FDR depression by 7 years and made the Obama economy the worst since FDR

Yes, it took some time and experimentation to find the right answer.
The next problem to be solved is how to stop Republicans from starting recession/depressions. I would suggest not to let a Hoover type try to solve the problems for almost four years.
I wonder how Republicans thought balancing the budget would solve the problem?

Obama racking up $14 Trillion in new debt is just more trial and error

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans create an economic mess and then criticize Democrats on how they fix the GOP caused problems while doing nothing to help fix their mess.

It seems like they want to drag down the country on purpose.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are Republicans? Really?

 

[Rshermr]

So no longer does America fight recessions/depressions with a balance-the-budget policy, but now with Keynes/FDR policy of government-spends-money.

And it extended the FDR depression by 7 years and made the Obama economy the worst since FDR FDR? Again, you are being completely dishonest, blaming the republican depression of 1929 on fdr, who only brought the ue rate down, and ended the republican mess. Really, a president not in office for 4 years NEVER gets credit for that depression, or recession, started 4 years earlier. Especially he takes the depression handed to him and eliminates it. Being so dishonest, me boy, eliminates your integrity. But then, you had no integrity. It was long gone. And as most con trolls, you lie as a normal part of your posts.

Yes, it took some time and experimentation to find the right answer.
The next problem to be solved is how to stop Republicans from starting recession/depressions. I would suggest not to let a Hoover type try to solve the problems for almost four years.
I wonder how Republicans thought balancing the budget would solve the problem?

Obama racking up $14 Trillion in new debt is just more trial and error That, me boy, is your opinion. The opinion of a con troll. Which tends to make you irrelevant. Sorry, ub you make no sense.

So, again, let me try to educate the con troll who does not take to education. This will probably not help him, because he simply prefers to believe con talking points. But, here goes:
Growth in the national debt is hard for you to understand. It comes as a result of:
1. Revenue income.
2. Expenditures.
When you have a huge Recession, like the great Republican Recession of 2008, you have great unemployment. The unemployed do not pay taxes. So Revenues decline.
You would if you actually had a rational mind have noticed that the national debt Always, Always grows fast when you have high unemployment. Because revenues decrease.
Expenditures grow during a recession. This is your spending portion. (trying to be basic, as you are stupid) because you have stimulus spending. So, there you go. But what it does not explain is why Obama;'s spending was half of that of W.

spending by president - Google Search
So, spending has slowed under Obama.


Looks like you are wrong again. Public debt has been small under Obama. the big problem was Reagan.

 

[Camp]

Did Reagan play the Marlboro man in TV commercials?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103398, member: 29707"]Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.
Wow. That was another stupid comment. Depends on how you want to define recession. The financial recession was not as affected by stimulus, the unemployment more by stimulus and less by financial measures. All three components helped. But after tarp, which got the backing of W, no republicans helped.
Relative to unemployment, stimulus was by far the most important.

Depends on how you want to define recession.

NBER defines it, not me.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

How much was spent before June? LOL!

Who cares, and why? Watch the juvenile LOL. Proves you to be, well, juvenile.

It allocated $185 billion in FY 2009, $400 billion in FY 2010and $135 billion in FY 2011.

Hmmmmm...how much of that $185 billion was spent between Jan 20th and June, when the recession ended?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

How much was spent before June? LOL!

Who cares, and why? Watch the juvenile LOL. Proves you to be, well, juvenile.

It allocated $185 billion in FY 2009, $400 billion in FY 2010and $135 billion in FY 2011.

Hmmmmm...how much of that $185 billion was spent between Jan 20th and June, when the recession ended?

The tard troll never acknowledge my post?

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103060, member: 29707"]While the "Great Recession" was scary, there's a reason it wasn't dubbed a depression: Bernanke's aggressive policy response."

Yeah, Bernanke gets the credit. Not Obama and his stimulus slush fund.
What a surprise. Another con talking point from a con troll.
Untrue as normal. The economy not made up of just financial considerations. There is the whole issue of people working, trying to care for their families. Something that cons do not care about. Here you go, me boy. Do your best to understand:
"Fiscal policy was also more aggressive. Congress eventually approved the $700 billion TARP bank bailout followed by the $831 billion stimulus package in 2009.

"I think that it is fair to say that if the Fed and Treasury had done nothing and there had been no TARP to give them new tools, we could have been looking at a disaster that surpassed 1929-33," said Shafer.
2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?

The major difference between the Wall Street crisis and the Great Depression is the way the Fed reacted.

While central bankers responded to the 1929 crash timidly and even by tightening monetary policy, Bernanke's Fed knew better.

Bernanke slashed rates lower than they've ever been in the U.S. and then pumped enough liquidity into the system to send the Fed's balance sheet swelling north of $4 trillion today, compared with less than $900 billion before the crisis.

The Fed expanded the money supply, instead of allowing it to shrink.
Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

That's why the recession ended before a major part of the "stimulus" could be spent.
Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.
Sorry you are so confused. Or should I say, having to lie like crazy to get your agenda across? The financial crisis of wall street was ended by 2009. The unemployment part of the great republican recession continued on for another 3 years or so. This is a really simple thing, me boy. I know you want to politicize it in favor of republicans, but they did absolutely nothing of import. Just filibustered bills that could have helped main street. And caused millions to be unemployed longer.

Most of the stimulus money was spent in 2009.

Parroting another out right lie? Lmao...
No lie. Lies are intentional. I was off by a year. It was mostly spent in 2010. So you can stop doing your happy dance, me boy.


God Damn you are just an ignorant propaganda machine, full of opinions that you just pull out of your ass, huh, libtroll?
And more personal attacks.


The stimulus was a ten-year package, $720 billion, or 91.5%, was budgeted for the first three fiscal years. It allocated $185 billion in FY 2009, $400 billion in FY 2010and $135 billion in FY 2011.
Yes, mostly in 2010


Obama's Stimulus, Five Years Later
Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the money on "stupid things." They ignored his advice, and so did Mr. Biden. The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the funded a study of college "hookups."
In aggregate, the spending helped drive federal outlays from less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009, where federal spending has roughly remained ever since.
The legacy is a slow-growth economy: Growth over the last 18 quarters has averaged just 2.4% -- pretty shoddy compared to better than 4% growth during the Reagan recovery in the 1980s and almost 4% in the 1990s recovery.
The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes.

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ and forbes is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.

Their was no shovel ready jobs shit for brains, all the money went to Obamas buddy's and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy.

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103398, member: 29707"]Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.
Wow. That was another stupid comment. Depends on how you want to define recession. The financial recession was not as affected by stimulus, the unemployment more by stimulus and less by financial measures. All three components helped. But after tarp, which got the backing of W, no republicans helped.
Relative to unemployment, stimulus was by far the most important.

Depends on how you want to define recession.

NBER defines it, not me.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
You really do not get it.
Many organizations define recessions. NBER is a conservative source, and tends to have a business friendly definition. They look almost entirely at gdp, though suggest they also look at other components including employment rates.
Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession. Most people see it much the same, though the actual rate varies. If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014. But in this case, it was largely thought by most that the unemployment rate was a political issue. The senate and house were not interested in bringing it down, as the senate was controlled by republicans.
In truth, most economists look at components of an economy. If they choose, or someone chooses to, define a recession starting or ending is something that indicates unemployment . In general, all economists look at the naming and timing of a recession peripherally. What ends up being last to mark a recession, and last to be tamed, is unemployment. But in this case, one party prolonged the unemployment issue way too long.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103398, member: 29707"]Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.
Wow. That was another stupid comment. Depends on how you want to define recession. The financial recession was not as affected by stimulus, the unemployment more by stimulus and less by financial measures. All three components helped. But after tarp, which got the backing of W, no republicans helped.
Relative to unemployment, stimulus was by far the most important.

Depends on how you want to define recession.

NBER defines it, not me.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
You really do not get it.
Many organizations define recessions. NBER is a conservative source, and tends to have a business friendly definition. They look almost entirely at gdp, though suggest they also look at other components including employment rates.
Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession. Most people see it much the same, though the actual rate varies. If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014. But in this case, it was largely thought by most that the unemployment rate was a political issue. The senate and house were not interested in bringing it down, as the senate was controlled by republicans.
In truth, most economists look at components of an economy. If they choose, or someone chooses to, define a recession starting or ending is something that indicates unemployment . In general, all economists look at the naming and timing of a recession peripherally. What ends up being last to mark a recession, and last to be tamed, is unemployment. But in this case, one party prolonged the unemployment issue way too long.

Many organizations define recessions.

Name 3.

Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession.

Damn, you're stupid.

If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014.

If you use 5%, you're a moron.

 

[regent]

The greatest thing Reagan ever did was to vote for FDR.

 

[Rshermr]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.[/QUOTE]


Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103398, member: 29707"]Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.
Wow. That was another stupid comment. Depends on how you want to define recession. The financial recession was not as affected by stimulus, the unemployment more by stimulus and less by financial measures. All three components helped. But after tarp, which got the backing of W, no republicans helped.
Relative to unemployment, stimulus was by far the most important.

Depends on how you want to define recession.

NBER defines it, not me.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
You really do not get it.
Many organizations define recessions. NBER is a conservative source, and tends to have a business friendly definition. They look almost entirely at gdp, though suggest they also look at other components including employment rates.
Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession. Most people see it much the same, though the actual rate varies. If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014. But in this case, it was largely thought by most that the unemployment rate was a political issue. The senate and house were not interested in bringing it down, as the senate was controlled by republicans.
In truth, most economists look at components of an economy. If they choose, or someone chooses to, define a recession starting or ending is something that indicates unemployment . In general, all economists look at the naming and timing of a recession peripherally. What ends up being last to mark a recession, and last to be tamed, is unemployment. But in this case, one party prolonged the unemployment issue way too long.

Many organizations define recessions.

Name 3.
Every economist and group of economics define recession differently. For instance, NBER called the recession over when unemployment reached 9.5% in 2009. As a result of other factors, NBER still called the recession ended.

Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession.

Damn, you're stupid.
Says the con troll with no source to back him up.

If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014.

If you use 5%, you're a moron. If you believe the recession was over in 2009, you are the moron, me poor ignorant con troll, Millions of unemployed workers were suffering, the national debt is ballooning since fewer taxes are being paid. And you believe NBER when they say the recession ended in 2009.
I did not say I use any rate, me poor ignorant con troll. But I am sure that from an employment standpoint, the recession was far from over in 2009. In 2009, there were only three months when the ue rate was under 9%. And that was the first three months. The ue rate was between 9.4% and 10% in 2010. If you are stupid enough to believe an organization that says the recession is over with ue over 9% and rising through the next 2 years. If you think the recession was over in 2009, you disagree with abtuyout every economist in the nation. What I said earlier, me boy, is that economists do not take calling a recession of any interest. What is of interest is the condition of revenue, and of unemployment.
The problem you have is that NBER does ot worry much about employment. They do worry a lot about financial organizations and federal spending. So, what they call a recession is no more than a definition, it does not make a bit of sense. None. Employment is what matters in terms of gov revenues, and therefor the national debt. And it matters that people cut spending in the private sector. Saying a recession ended when the ue rate is rising is plain crazy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Toddsterpatriot, post: 15103398, member: 29707"]Yes. And helped save us from a depression, me boy.

Yup, without Obama's input.
TARP and the Fed fixed the recession.
Wow. That was another stupid comment. Depends on how you want to define recession. The financial recession was not as affected by stimulus, the unemployment more by stimulus and less by financial measures. All three components helped. But after tarp, which got the backing of W, no republicans helped.
Relative to unemployment, stimulus was by far the most important.

Depends on how you want to define recession.

NBER defines it, not me.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
You really do not get it.
Many organizations define recessions. NBER is a conservative source, and tends to have a business friendly definition. They look almost entirely at gdp, though suggest they also look at other components including employment rates.
Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession. Most people see it much the same, though the actual rate varies. If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014. But in this case, it was largely thought by most that the unemployment rate was a political issue. The senate and house were not interested in bringing it down, as the senate was controlled by republicans.
In truth, most economists look at components of an economy. If they choose, or someone chooses to, define a recession starting or ending is something that indicates unemployment . In general, all economists look at the naming and timing of a recession peripherally. What ends up being last to mark a recession, and last to be tamed, is unemployment. But in this case, one party prolonged the unemployment issue way too long.

Many organizations define recessions.

Name 3.
Every economist and group of economics define recession differently. For instance, NBER called the recession over when unemployment reached 9.5% in 2009. As a result of other factors, NBER still called the recession ended.

Most all organizations conclude that an unemployment rate over 5% for two quarters indicates a recession.

Damn, you're stupid.
Says the con troll with no source to back him up.

If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014.

If you use 5%, you're a moron. If you believe the recession was over in 2009, you are the moron, me poor ignorant con troll, Millions of unemployed workers were suffering, the national debt is ballooning since fewer taxes are being paid. And you believe NBER when they say the recession ended in 2009.
I did not say I use any rate, me poor ignorant con troll. But I am sure that from an employment standpoint, the recession was far from over in 2009. In 2009, there were only three months when the ue rate was under 9%. And that was the first three months. The ue rate was between 9.4% and 10% in 2010. If you are stupid enough to believe an organization that says the recession is over with ue over 9% and rising through the next 2 years. If you think the recession was over in 2009, you disagree with abtuyout every economist in the nation. What I said earlier, me boy, is that economists do not take calling a recession of any interest. What is of interest is the condition of revenue, and of unemployment.
The problem you have is that NBER does ot worry much about employment. They do worry a lot about financial organizations and federal spending. So, what they call a recession is no more than a definition, it does not make a bit of sense. None. Employment is what matters in terms of gov revenues, and therefor the national debt. And it matters that people cut spending in the private sector. Saying a recession ended when the ue rate is rising is plain crazy.

If we use 5% the recession lasted to 2014.

If we use 5%, we were in a recession from 1974 to 1997, moron.

If you are stupid enough to believe an organization that says the recession is over with ue over 9% and rising through the next 2 years.

Employment lags.....always.
Look at all the previous recessions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs.

Wow, that would be some bullshit math.
And the CBO never said 9.3 million.

So, my money is on the cbo,

Great. Provide a CBO link.

 

[Rshermr]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs.

Wow, that would be some bullshit math.
And the CBO never said 9.3 million.
Yes, they did. But that has ben revised. The new number is 10,122,000 jobs.
Apparently you have not been following Fact Check's numbers on Obama.
Obama’s Numbers July 2016 Update
So, my money is on the cbo,

Great. Provide a CBO link.
Did. Previously. Couple weeks ago. Sorry you did not notice.
Perhaps you need to follow the progress of the administration
Always attacking it, 24/7/365 makes you look like a con troll, me boy.
Here are more numbers from the same source, same link.

• The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high.
• The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
• The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs.

Wow, that would be some bullshit math.
And the CBO never said 9.3 million.
Yes, they did. But that has ben revised. The new number is 10,122,000 jobs.
Apparently you have not been following Fact Check's numbers on Obama.
Obama’s Numbers July 2016 Update
So, my money is on the cbo,

Great. Provide a CBO link.
Did. Previously. Couple weeks ago. Sorry you did not notice.
Perhaps you need to follow the progress of the administration
Always attacking it, 24/7/365 makes you look like a con troll, me boy.
Here are more numbers from the same source, same link.

• The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high.
• The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
• The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent.

So you admit bush Jr tax cuts that obama made permanent worked

Check

I knew you would figure it out troll.

 

[Rshermr]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs.

Wow, that would be some bullshit math.
And the CBO never said 9.3 million.
Yes, they did. But that has ben revised. The new number is 10,122,000 jobs.
Apparently you have not been following Fact Check's numbers on Obama.
Obama’s Numbers July 2016 Update
So, my money is on the cbo,

Great. Provide a CBO link.
Did. Previously. Couple weeks ago. Sorry you did not notice.
Perhaps you need to follow the progress of the administration
Always attacking it, 24/7/365 makes you look like a con troll, me boy.
Here are more numbers from the same source, same link.

• The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high.
• The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
• The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent.\

So, when does a recession end based on unemployment? There IS NO SET NUMBER. Which is why you have noted economists saying that the current recession ended much later than the date it was called by other sources. The '01 recession ended at under 6%, but the rate when the NBER called the 08 recession "ended" was over 9%. So, from a jobs perspective, the recession was still going on. In millions of households throughout the US, the recession lasted longer, but financial institutions felt it was ended as GNP was growing. NBER calls recession dates like a referee. Depends on what your position is in the world as to when you would say it started and ended. But saying it is over with a ue rate over 9 makes a mockery of the term "recession"..









5

 

[Rshermr]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs.

Wow, that would be some bullshit math.
And the CBO never said 9.3 million.
Yes, they did. But that has ben revised. The new number is 10,122,000 jobs.
Apparently you have not been following Fact Check's numbers on Obama.
Obama’s Numbers July 2016 Update
So, my money is on the cbo,

Great. Provide a CBO link.
Did. Previously. Couple weeks ago. Sorry you did not notice.
Perhaps you need to follow the progress of the administration
Always attacking it, 24/7/365 makes you look like a con troll, me boy.
Here are more numbers from the same source, same link.

• The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high.
• The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
• The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent.

So you admit bush Jr tax cuts that obama made permanent worked No,not based on all reports from reasoning sources.

Check Check, you are a con troll. Got it.

I knew you would figure it out troll.

"The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized."
Business Insider
Business insider says NO.

The Bush Tax-Cut Failure
By BRUCE BARTLETT MAY 21, 2013 12:01 AM
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/the-bush-tax-cut-failure/
Bruce Bartlet in the NY Times says no.

What impact did the Bush tax cuts have on economic growth?
"The evidence is not favorable. For example, according to this Census report (see table A1), median household income in 2007, adjusted for inflation, was lower than it was in 2000. And as the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, based upon data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment growth was particularly weak, "with employment and wage and salary growth ... lower than in any previous post-World War II expansion."
Did the Bush Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth?
CBS news says no.

You say the cuts worked. The above three sources, and almost all economists, say they did not. My money is on the experts. So there you go, me con troll. I figured this one out years ago. Maybe you can now. Or, you could just fade back to the bat shit crazy sources you normally use, and believe what you want to. Truth need not matter to cons.

The bush tax cuts were a complete effort at making supply side economics, complete with trickle down economics, work. It failed. And added more proof to that already accumulated, that supply side economics is a joke, except to the rich. Who love it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, as a con troll, you copied and pasted a part of an opinion piece from a bat shit crazy conservative source. Which proves absolutely nothing. Because bat shit crazy con sources lie so often and spin things so heavily that no one takes them seriously. Except con trolls, like you. And you are irrelevant. As you continue to prove.
Your quote, above, was simple to find. A simple google search turned up the piece 7 times on the first page of the search. I did not bother to look beyond. All bat shit crazy con sources.
So, me con troll, you should never use an agenda driven and partial site. Shows a complete lack of integrity. But without question, shows you to be dishonest. Quotes were not even used, me boy. Tacky.

Yea we know you think WSJ Yep, i would not use a source that partial. I always do. But I do not have a problem if that is the best you can do. The real problem is that you quoted a opinion piece from an absolutely nut case writer. Far, far right. and forbes Yes, forbes is a bit right wing, but the problem really is that from Forbes you get opinion pieces from less than impartial sources, generally on bot sides. Can not trust them. is ultra right wing and the only news you link is opinions out of your ass.
I am a bit concerned about your interest in my ass. It is fine with me if you are Gay, but I am not. I always use impartial sources, though to con trolls like yourself anything to the left of Fox is partial. So, sorry you do not understand impartial sources and the need for them. You just proved yourself a simpleton con troll. Back to the talking points for you.
Their was no shovel ready jfobs, shit for brains, That is untrue. There were not as many as economists wanted, but there were shovel ready jobs. all the money went to Obamas buddy's None did. and didn't do a Damn thing to stimulate the economy. So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs. They have a large team of economists. They have a large team of researchers. And they are a very well respected and impartial source. You have NO economists, you have no researchers, and you are just a trivial con troll with obvious agendas. So, my money is on the cbo, dipshit.

So, the cbo says stimulus crated 9.3 Million jobs.

Wow, that would be some bullshit math.
And the CBO never said 9.3 million.
Yes, they did. But that has ben revised. The new number is 10,122,000 jobs.
Apparently you have not been following Fact Check's numbers on Obama.
Obama’s Numbers July 2016 Update
So, my money is on the cbo,

Great. Provide a CBO link.
Did. Previously. Couple weeks ago. Sorry you did not notice.
Perhaps you need to follow the progress of the administration
Always attacking it, 24/7/365 makes you look like a con troll, me boy.
Here are more numbers from the same source, same link.

• The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high.
• The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
• The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent.

And the CBO never said 9.3 million.

Yes, they did. But that has ben revised. The new number is 10,122,000 jobs.

The economy has added more than 10 million jobs

Hey, moron, the economy added the jobs, not the Obama "stimulus" slush fund LOL!
You're so stupid.