The rights historically failed ideas proven failure

[Conservative]

You are denying facts again.

You have no idea what you are talking about becuae you refuse to accept cold hard facts

allow my Syrenn...

 

[Truthmatters]

I see no questions but merely stupid insults

Care to quote my insults?

"that would require actually understanding what was studied. Unfortunately, you do not."


post 87

 

[Immanuel]

Finance & Development, September 2011 - Painful Medicine

my solution is to do what has been historically proven to work.

I wonder if you realize that we have not done any fiscal consolidation over the last three years. Therefore, your assumption that this is the problem with our current economy is preposterous.

There has been no spending cuts for decades. There have been no tax increases for a long time and yet under Obama's watch unemployment has skyrocketed and incomes are collapsing, yet you want to continue with his policies because you think they have been "historically proven to work"?

Did you by chance read this paragraph?:

Using this better measure, the evidence from the past is clear: fiscal consolidations typically have the short-run effect of reducing incomes and raising unemployment. A fiscal consolidation of 1 percent of GDP reduces inflation-adjusted incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises the unemployment rate by almost 0.5 percentage point (see Chart 2) within two years, with some recovery thereafter. Spending by households and firms also declines, with little evidence of a hand*over from public to private sector demand.

Do you realize that we would be a hell of a lot better off if unemployment had only gained a .5 percentage point and income had only been reduced by about .6 percent than we are right now? And that is only for the short term (two years) we're going on four years now under Obama and things are getting worse not better.

Screw your bullshit. We would have been a hell of a lot better off being austere than we are now. Two years would have been a lot better than the four we are working on now and the promised eight we have to look forward to.

Immie

You are denying facts again.

You have no idea what you are talking about becuae you refuse to accept cold hard facts

What facts... maybe someday you would like to actually provide one fact. The next fact you post will be the first one you have ever posted.

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

You are denying facts again.

You have no idea what you are talking about becuae you refuse to accept cold hard facts

allow my Syrenn...

So you are now ready to supply some facts to this thread?

 

[Conservative]

Point out the times in history when tax cuts, coupled with austerity and deregulation created the effects the right claims we they will produce?


I have NEVER seen anyone produce such evidence as you claim.

You falsely claimed 173 instances of Republican austerity measures in the study.

The study says differently.

You deny what the study says.

You negate your own source.

Proving once again, what a complete and utter imbecile you are.

 

[Conservative]

You are denying facts again.

You have no idea what you are talking about becuae you refuse to accept cold hard facts

allow my Syrenn...

So you are now ready to supply some facts to this thread?

You falsely claimed 173 instances of Republican austerity measures in the study.

The study says differently.

You deny what the study says.

You negate your own source.

Proving once again, what a complete and utter imbecile you are.

 

[Conservative]

You falsely claimed 173 instances of Republican austerity measures in the study.

The study says differently.

You deny what the study says.

You negate your own source.

Proving once again, what a complete and utter imbecile you are.

 

[Truthmatters]

I wonder if you realize that we have not done any fiscal consolidation over the last three years. Therefore, your assumption that this is the problem with our current economy is preposterous.

There has been no spending cuts for decades. There have been no tax increases for a long time and yet under Obama's watch unemployment has skyrocketed and incomes are collapsing, yet you want to continue with his policies because you think they have been "historically proven to work"?

Did you by chance read this paragraph?:



Do you realize that we would be a hell of a lot better off if unemployment had only gained a .5 percentage point and income had only been reduced by about .6 percent than we are right now? And that is only for the short term (two years) we're going on four years now under Obama and things are getting worse not better.

Screw your bullshit. We would have been a hell of a lot better off being austere than we are now. Two years would have been a lot better than the four we are working on now and the promised eight we have to look forward to.

Immie

You are denying facts again.

You have no idea what you are talking about becuae you refuse to accept cold hard facts

What facts... maybe someday you would like to actually provide one fact. The next fact you post will be the first one you have ever posted.

Immie

Liar

 

[Truthmatters]

IMF: Austerity boosts unemployment, lowers paychecks - The Washington Post


These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.


In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

These are facts

 

[Conservative]

These are facts

so are these...


You falsely claimed 173 instances of Republican austerity measures in the study.

The study says differently.

You deny what the study says.

You negate your own source.

Proving once again, what a complete and utter imbecile you are.

 

[Conservative]

Liar

You falsely claimed 173 instances of Republican austerity measures in the study.

The study says differently.

You deny what the study says.

You negate your own source.

Proving once again, what a complete and utter imbecile you are.

Also making YOU a liar.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go get the quote where I said what you claimed

 

[OODA_Loop]

Put me down for: fuck the IMF.

 

[Immanuel]

You are denying facts again.

You have no idea what you are talking about becuae you refuse to accept cold hard facts

What facts... maybe someday you would like to actually provide one fact. The next fact you post will be the first one you have ever posted.

Immie

Liar

You are dismissed.

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

IMF: Austerity boosts unemployment, lowers paychecks - The Washington Post


These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.


In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

That is a quote from the article

 

[Conservative]

Go get the quote where I said what you claimed

Here

your source said 173 instances, and listed a number of different countries.

YOU, on the other hand, are claiming that all 173 instances are in the US, and are Republican. I know you're a little slow, but do you see the difference between what your source says, and what you are claiming?

Again, please list all 173, US and Republican instances.

No that is not what I said.

I said your ideas have been proven to have failed by history its self.

Then I gave you cold hard proof that austerity does not work.

Really?

I said...

Please be specific. Show us which of the 173 WORLD-WIDE instances being discussed apply to the United States, and specifically to Republicans.

you said...

They all apply to the US and the US is one of the countries listed.

last time I checked, the words 'ALL APPLY' in that sentence meant you were talking about ALL 173 instances.

So, essentially, you're still full of FAIL, dick-stain.

Time to run away like you usually do and start yet another thread on the same subject, hoping you don't get your ass kicked in that one like you did here.

 

[Truthmatters]

the results apllying to the US is not saying they were all in the US you fool

 

[manu1959]

IMF: Austerity boosts unemployment, lowers paychecks - The Washington Post


These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.


In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

These are facts

Because such plans have been quite common, history offers a good guide. Over the past 30 years, there have been 173 episodes during which 17 advanced economies undertook budgetary measures aimed at fiscal consolidation. (The countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States.) The average size of fiscal consolidation was about 1 percent of GDP a year.

Finance & Development, September 2011 - Painful Medicine

republicans huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

The whole ideas of doing a muti country study was so all those countrys could learn from the study.

Austerity doesnt work in nay democracy does it?

 

[Conservative]

the results apllying to the US is not saying they were all in the US you fool

your source said 173 instances, and listed a number of different countries.

YOU, on the other hand, are claiming that all 173 instances are in the US, and are Republican. I know you're a little slow, but do you see the difference between what your source says, and what you are claiming?

Again, please list all 173, US and Republican instances.

No that is not what I said.

I said your ideas have been proven to have failed by history its self.

Then I gave you cold hard proof that austerity does not work.

Really?

I said...

Please be specific. Show us which of the 173 WORLD-WIDE instances being discussed apply to the United States, and specifically to Republicans.

you said...

They all apply to the US and the US is one of the countries listed.

last time I checked, the words 'ALL APPLY' in that sentence meant you were talking about ALL 173 instances.

So, essentially, you're still full of FAIL, dick-stain.

Time to run away like you usually do and start yet another thread on the same subject, hoping you don't get your ass kicked in that one like you did here.

why do you ignore the preponderance of evidence of your own lies and stupidity?