Those fiscally responsible Democrats...

[Joe Steel]

Utter nonsense.

Taxes don't kill jobs. Taxes fund spending and spending is what we need to end the Conservative Recession.

Put down the bong comrade. Higher taxes destroy jobs. It is a fact. Jimmy Carter believed the raising taxes was good and we were rewarded with 21% interest rates and high unemployment. Then Reagan cut taxes that helped to create 21 million new jobs and ushered in 20 years of prosperity. Not to mention increased revenue massively.

Utter nonsense. To the extent Reagan created prosperity and increased revenue, it was because he borrowed a lot of money and spent it. All that spending was a good way to boose economic activity (aka Keynesianism) and that resulted in higher tax revenue.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Utter nonsense.

Taxes don't kill jobs. Taxes fund spending and spending is what we need to end the Conservative Recession.

Put down the bong comrade. Higher taxes destroy jobs. It is a fact. Jimmy Carter believed the raising taxes was good and we were rewarded with 21% interest rates and high unemployment. Then Reagan cut taxes that helped to create 21 million new jobs and ushered in 20 years of prosperity. Not to mention increased revenue massively.

Utter nonsense. To the extent Reagan created prosperity and increased revenue, it was because he borrowed a lot of money and spent it. All that spending was a good way to boose economic activity (aka Keynesianism) and that resulted in higher tax revenue.

I begged you to stop embarrassing yourself but you wouldn't listen.

Why was Reagan such a successful "Borrower and spender" yet FDR was such an epic failure?

 

[Truthmatters]

It's not quite that simple and I don't have time to give you an economics lesson right now, though I doubt you'd learn anything from it anyway.

In fact, it is that simple.

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.

I have almost completed my MBA. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.

Dude if you truely think spending will harm a recession you have to be able to do more than say " I took classes so there".

IN fact when you have a recession what is happening?

People stoped for one reason or another buying things.

The recession does not look at the money and say " oh know that money comes from the gov so It wont effect me".

Its an infusion of cash into the market which is having a derth of cash.

This in fact worked in the GD and saved people (REAL HUMAN BEINGS) from starving.

Whatever you WANT to believe has no effect on what is the truth.

The truth is cash infusions from ANYWHERE help move us to a recovery from a recession.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In fact, it is that simple.

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.

I have almost completed my MBA. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.

Dude if you truely think spending will harm a recession you have to be able to do more than say " I took classes so there".

IN fact when you have a recession what is happening?

People stoped for one reason or another buying things.

The recession does not look at the money and say " oh know that money comes from the gov so It wont effect me".

Its an infusion of cash into the market which is having a derth of cash.

This in fact worked in the GD and saved people (REAL HUMAN BEINGS) from starving.

Whatever you WANT to believe has no effect on what is the truth.

The truth is cash infusions from ANYWHERE help move us to a recovery from a recession.

Wrong!

If spending for spending's sake actually worked they would not have been a Great Depression and Obama would not have a real 17% unemployment

You people are so foolishly inconsistent you claim only Reagan's deficits had any real positive economic impact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stop googling, you won't find it

 

[The Rabbi]

In fact, it is that simple.

Spending is the only way out.

Let that be the first lesson of your reeducation.

You are possibly the biggest ignoramus in economics on this board.

Not while you're around.

Gov't can only spend money one place by taking it from another place. Gov't spending has never worked to end recession. This time will be no different.

You're wrong.

First look-up marginal propensity to consume.

Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity

Secondly, research the Great Depression and WWII. Most economics agree the Great Derpession was only beaten when government began spending for WWII.

You are ill informed at best, a buffoon at worst. Moving money from the more productive to the less productive results in less production.
The Depression was lifted as a result of virtual zero unemployment as the military took a big chunk of labor. Add to that orders for goods from overseas.
All this happened despite 9 years of gov't spending by Roosevelt, not because of it.

 

[Truthmatters]

I have almost completed my MBA. I assure you I know what I'm talking about. There are several factors that go into what create and end various economic cycles.

Dude if you truely think spending will harm a recession you have to be able to do more than say " I took classes so there".

IN fact when you have a recession what is happening?

People stoped for one reason or another buying things.

The recession does not look at the money and say " oh know that money comes from the gov so It wont effect me".

Its an infusion of cash into the market which is having a derth of cash.

This in fact worked in the GD and saved people (REAL HUMAN BEINGS) from starving.

Whatever you WANT to believe has no effect on what is the truth.

The truth is cash infusions from ANYWHERE help move us to a recovery from a recession.

Wrong!

If spending for spending's sake actually worked they would not have been a Great Depression and Obama would not have a real 17% unemployment

You people are so foolishly inconsistent you claim only Reagan's deficits had any real positive economic impact.

So tell us then all wise one what ends a recession?

this should be pretty funny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dude if you truely think spending will harm a recession you have to be able to do more than say " I took classes so there".

IN fact when you have a recession what is happening?

People stoped for one reason or another buying things.

The recession does not look at the money and say " oh know that money comes from the gov so It wont effect me".

Its an infusion of cash into the market which is having a derth of cash.

This in fact worked in the GD and saved people (REAL HUMAN BEINGS) from starving.

Whatever you WANT to believe has no effect on what is the truth.

The truth is cash infusions from ANYWHERE help move us to a recovery from a recession.

Wrong!

If spending for spending's sake actually worked they would not have been a Great Depression and Obama would not have a real 17% unemployment

You people are so foolishly inconsistent you claim only Reagan's deficits had any real positive economic impact.

So tell us then all wise one what ends a recession?

this should be pretty funny.

This recession will end when Obama loses control of Congress in November, he has paralyzed the Capital Markets and a lot of it is intentional

 

[Truthmatters]

wow just wow.

The markets will revcover when people start spending again.

The people wont start spending again until they have money to spend.

The people wont have money to spend until they can make more money or they trust things are getting better.

Things cant get better until there is more money being spent.

Does it not work if the money comes from a certain place?

No , money is money.

 

[The Rabbi]

wow just wow.

The markets will revcover when people start spending again.

The people wont start spending again until they have money to spend.

The people wont have money to spend until they can make more money or they trust things are getting better.

Things cant get better until there is more money being spent.

Does it not work if the money comes from a certain place?

No , money is money.

Wow, just wow.
The most ignorant analysis I have seen of an economic problem. You are truly at sea. I really feel sorry for you.
It is no wonder you voted for Obama.

 

[Truthmatters]

All insults and no substance, why am I not surprized

 

[Charles Stucker]

The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,

Which part of that "debt" was caused by Democrat congresses?
How much was part of ongoing expenses from programs originated by Democrats?
The answer is "Most"

"When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity.

Another complete LIE
Al Gore destroyed the economy between the election and Bush's 2001 inauguration with his selfish attempts to undermine the constitution and force his way into the white house.
The Peace to which you refer was a nebulous thing at best because the 9/11 plot was a direct RESULT of Clinton's mismanaged foreign policy, and Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.

 

[jigusjaan]

right

The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $11,431,553,145,784.50 which means that in a total of 20 years,

Which part of that "debt" was caused by Democrat congresses?
How much was part of ongoing expenses from programs originated by Democrats?
The answer is "Most"

"When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity.

Another complete LIE
Al Gore destroyed the economy between the election and Bush's 2001 inauguration with his selfish attempts to undermine the constitution and force his way into the white house.
The Peace to which you refer was a nebulous thing at best because the 9/11 plot was a direct RESULT of Clinton's mismanaged foreign policy, and Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.

Wrong. The Clinton administration as well as his own tried to warn him. He was briefed on the threat AQ was to the US. Nothing was done to prevent the attack. Yes, they were masterminded during the Clinton administration, but to claim Bush was blindsided is dishonest.

-TSO

 

[CrusaderFrank]

wow just wow.

The markets will revcover when people start spending again.

The people wont start spending again until they have money to spend.

The people wont have money to spend until they can make more money or they trust things are getting better.

Things cant get better until there is more money being spent.

Does it not work if the money comes from a certain place?

No , money is money.

I'm only going to explain this once so you might want to print it out.

The Capital Markets HATE Libruls and avoid them like the plague.

The Capital Markets have been reeling since the Marxists took control of US Congress in 06 and the Obama Presidency and his anti-capitalist policies have turned the USA radioactive.

The vast majorities of business large or small will not commit capital in a country where: taxes will rise, major industries have been nationalized and instead of taking pains to reduce the cost of doing business, the government does all it can to stifle investment.

And you wonder why the economy continues to struggle despite the fact that Obama is spending like a crackhead the whole time.

Things will improve once it becomes obvious that Dems will lose Congress

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity.

So now you're talking about wealth redistribution, not simply government spending.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Clinton insured Bush would be blindsided by a group which had been planning and training for the attack during Clinton's reign.

Wrong. The Clinton administration as well as his own tried to warn him. He was briefed on the threat AQ was to the US. Nothing was done to prevent the attack. Yes, they were masterminded during the Clinton administration, but to claim Bush was blindsided is dishonest.

-TSO

Horse shit.
Clinton did everything in his power to insure that Bush would not be ready for an attack. Clinton could have told Gore to man up and conceded the day after the election, but did not. Clinton and Gore were delighted with the crash of the economy as Bush was set to take power - they expected him to be a one term president because of their destruction of the market.
Why should George W Bush believe a lying conniving swine like Bill Clinton, the man who got into office with the line "it's the economy stupid" when he is told "Ignore the economy I just destroyed, get Bin Laden."
Typical Democratic double dealing.
And 9/11 was the result.

 

[Joe Steel]

Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity.

So now you're talking about wealth redistribution, not simply government spending.

Most taxes are wealth redistribution to some extent.

So?

 

[The Rabbi]

Moving money from the more-affluent to the less-affluent increases economic activity.

So now you're talking about wealth redistribution, not simply government spending.

Most taxes are wealth redistribution to some extent.

So?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Lady Thatcher.

 

[Joe Steel]

So now you're talking about wealth redistribution, not simply government spending.

Most taxes are wealth redistribution to some extent.

So?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Lady Thatcher.

Why would I care what Thatcher said?