3 stupid myths republicans believe

[deltex1]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

As a member of the lower class, please give us examples of how your productivity increased over the years...like you went from push mower to self propelled? And did you build the new mower?

 

[Oldstyle]

Cries the imbecile who couldn't determine if a misery index of 8 indicates a better economy than a misery index of 5.



This demonstrates how little you know about the economy. Don't worry, that's typical for retarded rightwingnuts.

If I compared an unemployment rate of 4% to one of 8%, the former indicates a better economy. If I compared an inflation rate of 2% with one of 10%, the former indicates a better economy.

But when comparing two examples of the misery index, you were incapable of showing which of the two indicated a better economy.

Do you need more evidence you're an idiot?

I didn't answer your idiotic question because I was so flabbergasted that you could make the claim that the two things that make up the Misery Index are economic indicators yet the Misery Index is not. Kindly explain how THAT is possible!!!

You`re a funny idiot, I'll grant you that. You claim that I`m wrong but then rather than demonstate I'm wrong by answering a question I claim can't be answered, you prove me right by not answering it. You actually thought you could bluff your way out of the corner you boxed yourself into with your nonsensical feigned flabbergast.

And here's why you couldn't answer it....

Which of the following 2 misery indexes indicates the better economy, a) 8; or b) 5? There is no answer because either of them can, it depends on the underlying indicators...

The answer could be (b) if it's comprised of an unemployment rate of 3% with 2% inflation; compared to (a) 8% unemployment rate with 0% inflation.

Or the answer could be a) if it's comprised of an unemployment rate of 5% with 3% inflation and (b) is 8% unemployment with 3% deflation.

You don't know which indicates a better economy because the misery index doesn't indicate which is. And the reason it doesn't is because deflation , which can be worse than inflation, LOWERS the misery index.

Here's a real life example.... in April, 1997, the economy was doing very well with 5.1% unemployment and 2.3% infation. Comparatively speaking, in July, 2009, the economy sucked with 9.5% unemployment and 2.1% deflation. The former producing a misery index of 7.4 with the latter also producing a misery index of 7.4. According to your moronic claim, the misery index "indicates" the economy in July, 2009 was as good as the economy was in April, 1997.

But thanks, you proved to be a very useful tool for me in demonstrating yet again just how ******* retarded rightwingnuts are.

The Misery Index was never intended to give an accurate picture of the health of an economy...it was intended to gauge how people were feeling about a particular economy. When I asked you to define "better", I was asking that because you can have a job less recovery that will improve the economy but not put people back to work. One of the criticisms of the Misery Index is that it equally weights two economic indicators when in fact people are generally happier when there is a lower unemployment number and a higher rate of inflation than they are the other way around.

And you've still failed to explain how the two things that make up the Misery Index are economic indicators...yet the Misery Index is not.

 

[Faun]

You honestly think that 6.7 unemployment figure is a true depiction of the current job situation, with those who have run out of unemployment and are unable to find work? I mean you have heard of U-6, haven't you? How about the misery index? Just how delusional do you have to be to think the economy is actually improving for that 6.7 figure to be accurate?

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

When faced with the tools of how an individual makes an more educated assessment of how the economy is more accurately doing, you still choose to make a feeble attempt to actually try and DEFEND the lower 6.7 unemployment figure? You would have appeared more "knowledgable" on the subject if you were actually capable of at least defending your answer, instead of wasting a post with nothing but empty rhetoric. Simply calling someone retarded may help stroke your ego, but I doubt many here are really that impressed with your response.

Holyfuckingshit!

Again, I said nothing about the 6.7% UR except to point out that I said nothing about it. And I'm not simply calling others retarded, but I'm demonstrating why. The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. To get to an unemployment rate of 37.2%, you have to include housewives, people who retire, people who don't have to work, students who don't work. That's completely idiotic, which is why nobody except complete ******* imbeciles are saying the unemployment rate is 37.2%. According to you, the unemployment rate when Reagan left office in 1989, was over 33%.

 

[Oldstyle]

It would be akin to saying A is white and B is white...but when you add A and B together...they are black.

But you don't seem to grasp the absurdity of what you're saying...it's an amazing display of ignorance...

No, it would not be akin to that since neither a nor b in your analogy can lessen the sum total of white in that example. As opposed to the misery index where one of the two components can be negative, causing an artificial improvement on the sum total.

Why would it be an "artificial improvement"? If one of the two economic indicators that make up the Misery Index happens to be negative it might allow the Misery Index number to remain constant even if the economic picture has changed rather dramatically. To say that number is "artificial" however is incorrect.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, look at the leftwing love fest in atta boys for this article....

propaganda at it's finest, but it's against Republicans so expected

 

[namvet]

 

[Stephanie]

thankfully only a few die hard cult members are still swallowing that

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

When faced with the tools of how an individual makes an more educated assessment of how the economy is more accurately doing, you still choose to make a feeble attempt to actually try and DEFEND the lower 6.7 unemployment figure? You would have appeared more "knowledgable" on the subject if you were actually capable of at least defending your answer, instead of wasting a post with nothing but empty rhetoric. Simply calling someone retarded may help stroke your ego, but I doubt many here are really that impressed with your response.

Holyfuckingshit!

Again, I said nothing about the 6.7% UR except to point out that I said nothing about it. And I'm not simply calling others retarded, but I'm demonstrating why. The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. To get to an unemployment rate of 37.2%, you have to include housewives, people who retire, people who don't have to work, students who don't work. That's completely idiotic, which is why nobody except complete ******* imbeciles are saying the unemployment rate is 37.2%. According to you, the unemployment rate when Reagan left office in 1989, was over 33%.

"I said nothing about the 6.7% UR except to point out I said nothing about it?" You really open yourself up for ridicule when you begin a discussion with a reply like that, especially when you insist on calling the right wing retarded in your posts. Simply developing a well thought out response would have proven to be more effective in your case.

Now with respect to the U-6 rate that I had previously mentioned, it's an indicator that keeps track of discourage workers and full time workers who have settled upon part-time work in order to obtain an income. To be more specific, discouraged workers represents those individuals who have a desire to work but indicated they were unsuccessful after looking for the past 12 months. You don't think that's an important piece of information to know? You can't look at just one piece of the puzzle, like a simple unemployment rate, and expect to get a complete picture of how devastating or improved the economy truly is.

The misery index is another piece of information that determines how families are impacted, by taking into account how the toll of inflation effects purchasing basic necessities while still looking for employment. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure liberals hold on to the belief that allowing consumers the means to spend more, is how they believe they can best create a booming economy (the trickle up theory). How are you to have an accurate gage on that kind of progress, if you only choose to fixate yourself with the unemployment rate? Sometimes I wonder if liberals really know what's going on with this economy, or if they just can't see past the reported unemployment rate with the amount of jobs that were created last month? Incidentally, how do you make the determination that those additional jobs are not simply filled by the same individuals who have found themselves laid off AGAIN just 3 or 6 months prior? It would seem that you are unwilling to educate yourself into looking at the entire picture, but would much rather settle on whatever indicator allows your liberal President to appear competent and more successful.

 

[Votto]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

.

Why then did Obama and company choose to extend the Bush tax cuts? Are you saying that our President Penaut is an idiot?

 

[racewright]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

.

Why then did Obama and company choose to extend the Bush tax cuts? Are you saying that our President Penaut is an idiot?

To justify wrong doing because the other guy Did it is still wrong doing--that's all you hear from the flaming libs well bush did it first so its OK for Obama to do the same thing.

Tax cuts or not like I have said before what ever this present group does is OK with the cool aid group.
Just remember he is to represent the 60 million that did not vote for him as well as the 65 million that did, so every time he tells the News that the republicans suck he is offending 60 million people. He may be a Black guy but is not street wise.
This will not sit well with the future of the democrats.

 

[Billy000]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

.

Why then did Obama and company choose to extend the Bush tax cuts? Are you saying that our President Penaut is an idiot?

You're right he did and he shouldn't have. Bonehead move. It is the other reason our debt is what it is.

See unlike you I can make concessions about my politics.

 

[Oldstyle]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

.

Why then did Obama and company choose to extend the Bush tax cuts? Are you saying that our President Penaut is an idiot?

You're right he did and he shouldn't have. Bonehead move. It is the other reason our debt is what it is.

See unlike you I can make concessions about my politics.

Like he really had a choice, Billy? If Obama hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts (after campaigning about how terrible they were) his already awful economy would have gone into a nose dive. Our debt continues to grow because Barry continues to spend money at the rate Bush was back in 2008 trying to stave off an economic collapse...only now the recession has been gone for over four years.

 

[chikenwing]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

Good grief!!

 

[Billy000]

Why then did Obama and company choose to extend the Bush tax cuts? Are you saying that our President Penaut is an idiot?

You're right he did and he shouldn't have. Bonehead move. It is the other reason our debt is what it is.

See unlike you I can make concessions about my politics.

Like he really had a choice, Billy? If Obama hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts (after campaigning about how terrible they were) his already awful economy would have gone into a nose dive. Our debt continues to grow because Barry continues to spend money at the rate Bush was back in 2008 trying to stave off an economic collapse...only now the recession has been gone for over four years.

No, Bush's tax cuts only created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That is pathetic growth. 2.5x more private jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

 

[chikenwing]

You're right he did and he shouldn't have. Bonehead move. It is the other reason our debt is what it is.

See unlike you I can make concessions about my politics.

Like he really had a choice, Billy? If Obama hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts (after campaigning about how terrible they were) his already awful economy would have gone into a nose dive. Our debt continues to grow because Barry continues to spend money at the rate Bush was back in 2008 trying to stave off an economic collapse...only now the recession has been gone for over four years.

No, Bush's tax cuts only created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That is pathetic growth. 2.5x more private jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

Which tax bracket received the largest % cut and how much was it?

 

[chikenwing]

You're right he did and he shouldn't have. Bonehead move. It is the other reason our debt is what it is.

See unlike you I can make concessions about my politics.

Like he really had a choice, Billy? If Obama hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts (after campaigning about how terrible they were) his already awful economy would have gone into a nose dive. Our debt continues to grow because Barry continues to spend money at the rate Bush was back in 2008 trying to stave off an economic collapse...only now the recession has been gone for over four years.

No, Bush's tax cuts only created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That is pathetic growth. 2.5x more private jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

New old math or just wrong math?

 

[Faun]

When faced with the tools of how an individual makes an more educated assessment of how the economy is more accurately doing, you still choose to make a feeble attempt to actually try and DEFEND the lower 6.7 unemployment figure? You would have appeared more "knowledgable" on the subject if you were actually capable of at least defending your answer, instead of wasting a post with nothing but empty rhetoric. Simply calling someone retarded may help stroke your ego, but I doubt many here are really that impressed with your response.

Holyfuckingshit!

Again, I said nothing about the 6.7% UR except to point out that I said nothing about it. And I'm not simply calling others retarded, but I'm demonstrating why. The unemployment rate measures how many people who want to work are unemployed. To get to an unemployment rate of 37.2%, you have to include housewives, people who retire, people who don't have to work, students who don't work. That's completely idiotic, which is why nobody except complete ******* imbeciles are saying the unemployment rate is 37.2%. According to you, the unemployment rate when Reagan left office in 1989, was over 33%.

"I said nothing about the 6.7% UR except to point out I said nothing about it?" You really open yourself up for ridicule when you begin a discussion with a reply like that, especially when you insist on calling the right wing retarded in your posts. Simply developing a well thought out response would have proven to be more effective in your case.

Now with respect to the U-6 rate that I had previously mentioned, it's an indicator that keeps track of discourage workers and full time workers who have settled upon part-time work in order to obtain an income. To be more specific, discouraged workers represents those individuals who have a desire to work but indicated they were unsuccessful after looking for the past 12 months. You don't think that's an important piece of information to know? You can't look at just one piece of the puzzle, like a simple unemployment rate, and expect to get a complete picture of how devastating or improved the economy truly is.

The misery index is another piece of information that determines how families are impacted, by taking into account how the toll of inflation effects purchasing basic necessities while still looking for employment. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure liberals hold on to the belief that allowing consumers the means to spend more, is how they believe they can best create a booming economy (the trickle up theory). How are you to have an accurate gage on that kind of progress, if you only choose to fixate yourself with the unemployment rate? Sometimes I wonder if liberals really know what's going on with this economy, or if they just can't see past the reported unemployment rate with the amount of jobs that were created last month? Incidentally, how do you make the determination that those additional jobs are not simply filled by the same individuals who have found themselves laid off AGAIN just 3 or 6 months prior? It would seem that you are unwilling to educate yourself into looking at the entire picture, but would much rather settle on whatever indicator allows your liberal President to appear competent and more successful.

Who knows why you're trying so hard to divert from the spouted idiocy which I took exception to, but allow me to once again reign you in...

Some rightie moron made the insane claim that the unemployment rate is really 37.2%. Not 6.7% ... not 13.1% ... 32.7%. That is what I'm talking about. I would appreciate it if you could focus long enough to remain on that discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Meister]

You're right he did and he shouldn't have. Bonehead move. It is the other reason our debt is what it is.

See unlike you I can make concessions about my politics.

Like he really had a choice, Billy? If Obama hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts (after campaigning about how terrible they were) his already awful economy would have gone into a nose dive. Our debt continues to grow because Barry continues to spend money at the rate Bush was back in 2008 trying to stave off an economic collapse...only now the recession has been gone for over four years.

No, Bush's tax cuts only created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut. That is pathetic growth. 2.5x more private jobs have been created in Obama's 5 years than in Bush's 8.

You have been shown over and over in thread after thread how your premise has been shot down, billie. It didn't fly in any of those other threads and it isn't flying now. You willfully ignore the obvious facts between the two. I can only assume that you can't take the facts because it blows your apples to oranges yarn all to hell.
You are a goofball, son......but, your USMB's goofball, so carry on and when I see your stupid posts again, I'll just call you out again.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the TRUTH about unemployment !!

In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.

Marotta, who recently advised those worried about an imploding economy to get a gun, said that the government isn't being honest in how it calculates those out of the workforce or inflation, the two numbers used to get the Misery Index figure.

Be prepared: Wall Street adviser recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse | WashingtonExaminer.com

A top financial advisor, worried that Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal and spiraling national debt is increasing the chances for a fiscal and social disaster, is recommending that Americans prepare a “bug-out bag” that includes food, a gun and ammo to help them stay alive.

David John Marotta, a Wall Street expert and financial advisor and Forbes contributor, said in a note to investors, “Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list. There are some terrible people in this world. And you are safer when your trusted neighbors have firearms.”

any logical, reasonable, honest questions from you libertards ??

Sure ... 37.2% unemployment ... exactly how retarded are you rightwingnuts?

HA!...You don't get to say "retarded" and run off.
If you dispute it, bring your own stats to the table.
BTW, I am skeptical of the number as well.
Your turn.

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOL...what every businessperson "knows" is that you can't continually spend more than you take in and stay in business for very long. That's a lesson that people in government haven't quite grasped yet because THEY get to run deficits and simply print money to pay their debts.

And why you think liberals excel at foreign policy is a mystery to me, little buddy...God knows that Barack Obama doesn't have a clue what he's doing on that subject. "Leading from behind?" Seriously?

Republicans didn't just destabilize the economy, they destabilized the ENTIRE Middle East.

Just one question, Deanie...is the Middle East more stable or less stable after five years of Obama foreign policy? Anyone looking at what's going on there NOW is going to be hard pressed to point to Obama foreign policy successes and is going to have an even harder time telling you what the Obama Middle East policy is going forward. Why? Because this Administration really doesn't HAVE a Middle East policy! After five years they don't know what to do!

I don't bother to respond to deano except with a snicker of disdain.
The guy just spews sewage.