The UK is proving the failure of the rights ideas

[KissMy]

Unemployment and Stimulus

Clearly, the chart shows that more government spending does not create jobs. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. More government spending is correlated with higher levels of unemployment. In 1965, federal government spending was 17.2% of GDP and the unemployment rate was 4%. By 1982, spending had increased to 23.1% of GDP and unemployment had climbed to almost 11%.

Government spending then fell from its early-1980s peak back to a new low of 18.4% of GDP in 2000, and the unemployment rate fell back to a low of 3.8% in 2000. Lately, due mostly to the profligate spending of the Bush Administration, government spending has increased to 20.7% of GDP. And guess what, the unemployment rate is up, not down. In fact, for the first time in over 25 years, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was at its peak during the last recession.

And this is a very interesting development. During the quarter-century after 1982, when government spending was shrinking as a share of GDP and tax rates were cut, the unemployment rate experienced lower peaks and lower troughs during each business cycle. This was the opposite of the 1960s and 1970s, when government was growing and tax rates were rising. Then, each peak and each trough in the unemployment rate was higher in each successive business cycle.

 

[syrenn]

Why do you want to pretend a shrinking economy is a good thing for any country?


Read the article, this is about Fixing the mess the rights failed ideas caused with more of their failed ideas.

Britan is tanking because of the rights ideas, they keep pretending their ideas are good for the economy and their ideas keep causing messes.


When will you learn to get knew ideas that work instead of ideas that keep fucking things up?

Quite the expert on the UK I see...NOT! It wasn't the right that fucked our economy! It was the last Labour government who like any left wing administration only knows one thing...SPEND SPEND SPEND! Britain faces a grim future thanks to Labour’s borrowing. Families are facing a bill of more than £2,000 just to pay the interest on Labour’s debt. Our country will have to spend more on paying off the interest on the debt than on almost anything else. More than on the police. More than on prisons. More than on schools.

Suggest you stick to topics you know something about. You clearly know fuck all about Britain.

then you regulate her topics only about her dogs.

 

[Old Rocks]

I was broadly replying to an even broader statement. In any case, I suggest you check your facts before next submitting. It isn't illegal to own a handgun in the UK. It is illegal to own a self-loading handgun that uses a self-contained cartridge. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of two pikeys at the hands of Tony Martin were hazy to say the least, although I'll concede that I supported his actions (in principle) and new evidence has now come to light that supports the claim that he opened fire under duress and in self defense.

Sorry but muzzle-loaders and flintlocks are not effective modern self-defense tools. Therefore, the effective handguns for self-defense ARE illegal.

Someone's on my property without an invitation they're likely to get shot. Regardless of what they're doing or not doing. Mr. Martin shouldn't even have been questioned. They were on his property without his consent, one got dead and the other got hurt. Too bad.

I have no idea what the current firearms law stipulates in Italy, nor do I care, to be honest.

I do. I happen to have a couple friends over there who are competition shooters and people from the States who go over there to shoot occasionally.

That said. I understand that in my reply to you in the flame zone thread in which we both locked horns last night I hurt your feelings. Please don't distract from the OP in an attempt to redress what occured yesterday.

LOL. I don't have feelings to get hurt, Swagger. That part of my brain and my heart died years ago. IF I'd even cared about your comments last night you'd already be on Ignore.

Hmmmm........ I have a pair of replica 1858 Remington .44's. They seem to fit the definition of what Swagger stated was a legal handgun for Britian. Those kind of pistols did pretty effective service during the Civil War. Not only that, if you have to fire more than a couple of shots in the vast majority of self defence situations, you have no business with a gun, in any case.

 

[Anachronism]

Ever thought how many of us want to carry arms. Twat!

Any man not willing to kill to protect himself, his family, or his possessions is no man at all in my mind. So why don't you join you chum on the Ignore List.

Hmmmm........ I have a pair of replica 1858 Remington .44's. They seem to fit the definition of what Swagger stated was a legal handgun for Britian. Those kind of pistols did pretty effective service during the Civil War. Not only that, if you have to fire more than a couple of shots in the vast majority of self defence situations, you have no business with a gun, in any case.

Yes they did pretty effective work, and honestly I hadn't thought of that style of firearm, though I'm not sure what their status would be under English law. Still not what I would have any interest in carrying on the street. Too large to be a reasonably concealable handgun with most of the things I wear.

I would suggest that in general an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so I don't scoff at carrying 35 rounds of 9mm +P with me on occasion when I go out. Though most of the time I'm carrying a S&W J-Frame with one additional speed-loader.

 

[code1211]

Why do you want to pretend a shrinking economy is a good thing for any country?


Read the article, this is about Fixing the mess the rights failed ideas caused with more of their failed ideas.

Britan is tanking because of the rights ideas, they keep pretending their ideas are good for the economy and their ideas keep causing messes.

When will you learn to get knew ideas that work instead of ideas that keep fucking things up?

Did the people and the government of Britain change to this new direction because the Liberal Policies of the last 40 years had worked so well?

That would seem to be really stupid. Whenever one of those British folks talks they always sound so smart. Makes you wonder...

 

[code1211]

The have a 50 percent income tax on the wealthy. That means they will be fine right?

At our economic, educational and what most people consider our Hey Day the welathy had a 90 % tax rate.

They were still wealthy and had way more than most Americans and we had a society the world aspired to.


Maybe you should stop fighting for wealthy people and think about other Americans too?

The top bracket was 90%, but the effective rate was far lower due to all of the deductions and credits. Credit card and auto loan interst was deductable, as an example.

Tax shelters were so prevelent that the kennedy's were almost tax free during that period.

When Reagan simplified that tax code and lowered rates, he also stopped all of those silly deductions, like credit card and auto loan interest.

Since that simplification, the complications in the form of new regualtions and deductions and credits have been added at a rate of more than one every day since the mid 80's. It's time to wipe the slate clean again.

 

[code1211]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/b...pound15.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2


In 1937 the right gained ground and were able to force FDR to cut the budget Before the depression was over and it proved such a failure the economy began to lose ground. By 1938 everyone agreed to go back to stimulus plan.

The economy never gained any ground in the first place. The government was the one falsely propping it up with government spending. The fact that the economy began to decline once the federal government pulled back on spending is proof that it had never recovered. If it had, the economy would have continued to improve, or at least remained constant because the private sector would have been hiring and putting people back to work. That didn't happen because there was no recovery, thus proving the New Deal was a failure.

The whole idea of stimulus is to prop up the economy so that it doesnt slide into an intractable mess.

The right during the time insisted that the economy would do just fine on its own and that they needed to trim spending to stablize the economy.


IT DIDNT WORK!

Now that same thing is happening in Briton.


Your ideas are failures.

Get some new ideas that may work and STOP expecting people to buy this dead dog anymore.

That is probably perfectly sensible to a Liberal. It's hard for me to tell.

The word "stimulus" means to stimulate. It does not mean "to preserve". We'll never know for sure whether or not the New Deal preserved the Depression or not, but we do know for sure that it did not correct it.

We also know that the Big 0 used that failure as a model for his Failed Stimulus.

Let's see... What is that definition of insanity again?

 

[code1211]

Why do you want to pretend a shrinking economy is a good thing for any country?


Read the article, this is about Fixing the mess the rights failed ideas caused with more of their failed ideas.

Britan is tanking because of the rights ideas, they keep pretending their ideas are good for the economy and their ideas keep causing messes.


When will you learn to get knew ideas that work instead of ideas that keep fucking things up?

No one in Europe is rightwing. Those that claim to be right are just less left then those that claim to be leftwng.

As for stimulus it is a proven fact that FDR PROLONGED the Depression. WW2 pulled us out not anything FDR did.

Apart from your own chest beating, do you have any evidence that can substantiate those ridiculous claims?

We'll never know if FDR's policies prolonged the Depression, but we do know that FDR's policies did not correct the Depression.

We're getting pretty sure about the policies of the Big 0, too.