Consumers create jobs.

[antagon]

Horrible analysis. What I see is a turnaround in unemployment late in 1993, when the OBRA was passed. That is corollary to deduction accrual among employers commensurate with the expansion of the economy. That was a strong expansion, but even though the GDP crested above the y2000 mark, the EMRATIO on the subsequent borrowing and tax-cut-driven bubble was not as adhesive to employment. As the Clinton era.

Take a step back, maybe:

 

[GreatDay]

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.
These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.
At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

 

[Rshermr]

Calling Barack Obama by the name he went by most of his life isn't using a "slang word". Is my use of Barry more "tacky, stupid, immature and lacking in integrity" than those of the Left who referred to George W. Bush derisively as "Dubya"? Quite frankly I think Barack Obama's "facade" needs to be picked on...to me he's Barry, the stoner from Hawaii that scammed his way through college and into some cushy high paying jobs without ever really DOING anything. I think that when Barack Obama is alone he's got laugh at how far he's gotten on Harvard Law School's need to elect a person of color to the position of President of the Law Review. We've got a President who's the ultimate expression of Affirmative Action's failings. Yes, he's gotten promoted...No, he doesn't have a clue how to do the job he finds himself in.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, oldstyle. By the way, oldstyle, where do you buy your tin foil hats.
In a paragraph, you have shown that there is no possibility that your statements will ever have any validity of any kind.
And you asked me why i would call you a con dogma slinger?? Any time you want to know, just re read the paragraph you just posted. .
You have just defined yourself, me poor ignorant clown. Rational discussion, or rational thought, for that point, is beyond you. You have been the perfect target for the repub dogma machine. You love hate and you love having your answers provided to you. Hate, anger, believing what you you want to believe. Stupidity, ignorance. You define the repub target. How sad for you.

This, like anything told to you, is probably completely useless. But if you have changed your name and do not want to be known by the old name, that is easy enough for most to understand. I think you even can understand that. That he is a standing pres, even you should understand. So, you knowing these things, you continue to call him by his self rejected name. Understand yet?? Of course you do. And calling Bush W is something I did not do. What the hell, oldstyle, are you now saying if someone did something stupid and classless, it is fine for me?? Or is it that since supporters routinely called him W that was ok, so it is ok for me to use whatever name I want to call the current pres? Idiot.

 

[Rshermr]

My charge remains the same, Rshermr. Are you disputing that Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation passed but couldn't convince enough of his fellow Democrats to back that legislation when he held super majorities in the House and Senate? NO, nor did I ever says he did. Idiot.Are you disputing that the passage of the legislation that Obama was seeking would have added billions to the energy costs of Americans? he fact that some people in George Herbert Walker Bush's White House thought Cap & Trade was a viable solution doesn't convince me that it actually IS a viable solution, nor does it change the fact that Obama sought passage of something that would have severely dampened the economic recovery and the only reason he didn't get what he wanted was that some of the people in his own party wer... No, idiot, that was not the point. The point was simply and easily researched, idiot. Should you want to know, idiot. And that was that Cap and Trade was a republican answer to a real problem that I am absolutely sure you do not believe is a problem. But that repubs, the military, and the rest of the rational world does believe. So now you are saying that the pres was WRONG when he went along with repubs on cap and trade, and that going along with cap and trade would have been more costly because he was a dem than it would have been when you did not disagree with cap and trade because it was a repub idea. Idiot
Your contention that Obama doesn't push to add regulations is as amusing as a married man who hits on his neighbor's wife but doesn't consider himself to be unfaithful because she turned him down. Really stupid response to a rational statement. But then,,stupid people are routinely amused by non amuseing things. More proof that you are stupid.

 

[Oldstyle]

Calling Barack Obama by the name he went by most of his life isn't using a "slang word". Is my use of Barry more "tacky, stupid, immature and lacking in integrity" than those of the Left who referred to George W. Bush derisively as "Dubya"? Quite frankly I think Barack Obama's "facade" needs to be picked on...to me he's Barry, the stoner from Hawaii that scammed his way through college and into some cushy high paying jobs without ever really DOING anything. I think that when Barack Obama is alone he's got laugh at how far he's gotten on Harvard Law School's need to elect a person of color to the position of President of the Law Review. We've got a President who's the ultimate expression of Affirmative Action's failings. Yes, he's gotten promoted...No, he doesn't have a clue how to do the job he finds himself in.

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, oldstyle. By the way, oldstyle, where do you buy your tin foil hats.
In a paragraph, you have shown that there is no possibility that your statements will ever have any validity of any kind.
And you asked me why i would call you a con dogma slinger?? Any time you want to know, just re read the paragraph you just posted. .
You have just defined yourself, me poor ignorant clown. Rational discussion, or rational thought, for that point, is beyond you. You have been the perfect target for the repub dogma machine. You love hate and you love having your answers provided to you. Hate, anger, believing what you you want to believe. Stupidity, ignorance. You define the repub target. How sad for you.

This, like anything told to you, is probably completely useless. But if you have changed your name and do not want to be known by the old name, that is easy enough for most to understand. I think you even can understand that. That he is a standing pres, even you should understand. So, you knowing these things, you continue to call him by his self rejected name. Understand yet?? Of course you do. And calling Bush W is something I did not do. What the hell, oldstyle, are you now saying if someone did something stupid and classless, it is fine for me?? Or is it that since supporters routinely called him W that was ok, so it is ok for me to use whatever name I want to call the current pres? Idiot.[/QUOTE]

My pointing out that Barack Obama is the poster child for Affirmative Action is "dogma"? How could he NOT be? Show me one exceptional thing that Barack Obama has done since leaving Harvard Law School. I've asked this of progressives like yourself countless times and they run from the question like it's radioactive. The truth of the matter is that Barry was a run of the mill lawyer...he was a non-descript lecturer at the college level...and he was a gawd awful legislator. So why IS such an unexceptional man sitting in the Oval Office? Rather than refute my contention however...you resort to a slew of insults and once again hide behind your "dogma" thing. There really is a reason why Barack Obama has been so ineffective at his job! He was never even remotely qualified to hold it in the first place. Being able to read from a teleprompter and read a script that someone else has written for you is no reason to elect someone to high office. If it was then we'd have game show announcers and TV anchorpersons in Washington.

As for your contention that I'm showing disrespect to a sitting President? I suppose I am. When I refer to Barack as Barry, I'm putting the needle in to all those folks that bought into his whole "persona". As I said before...Barack Obama has been polished to an extreme...his "image" presented as gospel. I've never bought into it however...to me, our President is still the stoned kid from Hawaii who scammed his way into Columbia and Harvard Law School through Affirmative Action and not through his own hard work and then rode his selection as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review all the way to the White House while doing noting of note along the way.

 

[Oldstyle]

My charge remains the same, Rshermr. Are you disputing that Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation passed but couldn't convince enough of his fellow Democrats to back that legislation when he held super majorities in the House and Senate? NO, nor did I ever says he did. Idiot.Are you disputing that the passage of the legislation that Obama was seeking would have added billions to the energy costs of Americans? he fact that some people in George Herbert Walker Bush's White House thought Cap & Trade was a viable solution doesn't convince me that it actually IS a viable solution, nor does it change the fact that Obama sought passage of something that would have severely dampened the economic recovery and the only reason he didn't get what he wanted was that some of the people in his own party wer... No, idiot, that was not the point. The point was simply and easily researched, idiot. Should you want to know, idiot. And that was that Cap and Trade was a republican answer to a real problem that I am absolutely sure you do not believe is a problem. But that repubs, the military, and the rest of the rational world does believe. So now you are saying that the pres was WRONG when he went along with repubs on cap and trade, and that going along with cap and trade would have been more costly because he was a dem than it would have been when you did not disagree with cap and trade because it was a repub idea. Idiot
Your contention that Obama doesn't push to add regulations is as amusing as a married man who hits on his neighbor's wife but doesn't consider himself to be unfaithful because she turned him down. Really stupid response to a rational statement. But then,,stupid people are routinely amused by non amuseing things. More proof that you are stupid.

The fact that some Republicans suggested that a form of Cap & Trade be adopted way back in the first Bush Administration...a suggestion that was subsequently not followed up on, hardly excuses the insanity of Barack Obama calling for it's implementation in the midst of an economic downturn that has American businesses fighting for survival and millions of Americans out of work.

Would you care to tell us what you think the result of passing Cap & Trade would have been if Barry had gotten his way? Would you care to tell us what you think the result of the EPA imposing new green house gas standards would have been if Barry hadn't backpedaled in the face of a looming election?

 

[Rshermr]

My charge remains the same, Rshermr. Are you disputing that Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation passed but couldn't convince enough of his fellow Democrats to back that legislation when he held super majorities in the House and Senate? NO, nor did I ever says he did. Idiot.Are you disputing that the passage of the legislation that Obama was seeking would have added billions to the energy costs of Americans? he fact that some people in George Herbert Walker Bush's White House thought Cap & Trade was a viable solution doesn't convince me that it actually IS a viable solution, nor does it change the fact that Obama sought passage of something that would have severely dampened the economic recovery and the only reason he didn't get what he wanted was that some of the people in his own party wer... No, idiot, that was not the point. The point was simply and easily researched, idiot. Should you want to know, idiot. And that was that Cap and Trade was a republican answer to a real problem that I am absolutely sure you do not believe is a problem. But that repubs, the military, and the rest of the rational world does believe. So now you are saying that the pres was WRONG when he went along with repubs on cap and trade, and that going along with cap and trade would have been more costly because he was a dem than it would have been when you did not disagree with cap and trade because it was a repub idea. Idiot
Your contention that Obama doesn't push to add regulations is as amusing as a married man who hits on his neighbor's wife but doesn't consider himself to be unfaithful because she turned him down. Really stupid response to a rational statement. But then,,stupid people are routinely amused by non amuseing things. More proof that you are stupid.

The fact that some Republicans suggested that a form of Cap & Trade be adopted way back in the first Bush Administration...a suggestion that was subsequently not followed up on, hardly excuses the insanity of Barack Obama calling for it's implementation in the midst of an economic downturn that has American businesses fighting for survival and millions of Americans out of work.

Would you care to tell us what you think the result of passing Cap & Trade would have been if Barry had gotten his way? Would you care to tell us what you think the result of the EPA imposing new green house gas standards would have been if Barry hadn't backpedaled in the face of a looming election?

Why, idiot. You have proven yourself an idiot. Why would I want to try to have a discussion with you. Go back to your tin hat, and live in the fox bubble.

 

[Rshermr]

Calling Barack Obama by the name he went by most of his life isn't using a "slang word". Is my use of Barry more "tacky, stupid, immature and lacking in integrity" than those of the Left who referred to George W. Bush derisively as "Dubya"? Quite frankly I think Barack Obama's "facade" needs to be picked on...to me he's Barry, the stoner from Hawaii that scammed his way through college and into some cushy high paying jobs without ever really DOING anything. I think that when Barack Obama is alone he's got laugh at how far he's gotten on Harvard Law School's need to elect a person of color to the position of President of the Law Review. We've got a President who's the ultimate expression of Affirmative Action's failings. Yes, he's gotten promoted...No, he doesn't have a clue how to do the job he finds himself in.

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, oldstyle. By the way, oldstyle, where do you buy your tin foil hats.
In a paragraph, you have shown that there is no possibility that your statements will ever have any validity of any kind.
And you asked me why i would call you a con dogma slinger?? Any time you want to know, just re read the paragraph you just posted. .
You have just defined yourself, me poor ignorant clown. Rational discussion, or rational thought, for that point, is beyond you. You have been the perfect target for the repub dogma machine. You love hate and you love having your answers provided to you. Hate, anger, believing what you you want to believe. Stupidity, ignorance. You define the repub target. How sad for you.

This, like anything told to you, is probably completely useless. But if you have changed your name and do not want to be known by the old name, that is easy enough for most to understand. I think you even can understand that. That he is a standing pres, even you should understand. So, you knowing these things, you continue to call him by his self rejected name. Understand yet?? Of course you do. And calling Bush W is something I did not do. What the hell, oldstyle, are you now saying if someone did something stupid and classless, it is fine for me?? Or is it that since supporters routinely called him W that was ok, so it is ok for me to use whatever name I want to call the current pres? Idiot.

My pointing out that Barack Obama is the poster child for Affirmative Action is "dogma"? How could he NOT be? Show me one exceptional thing that Barack Obama has done since leaving Harvard Law School. I've asked this of progressives like yourself countless times and they run from the question like it's radioactive. The truth of the matter is that Barry was a run of the mill lawyer...he was a non-descript lecturer at the college level...and he was a gawd awful legislator. So why IS such an unexceptional man sitting in the Oval Office? Rather than refute my contention however...you resort to a slew of insults and once again hide behind your "dogma" thing. There really is a reason why Barack Obama has been so ineffective at his job! He was never even remotely qualified to hold it in the first place. Being able to read from a teleprompter and read a script that someone else has written for you is no reason to elect someone to high office. If it was then we'd have game show announcers and TV anchorpersons in Washington.

As for your contention that I'm showing disrespect to a sitting President? I suppose I am. When I refer to Barack as Barry, I'm putting the needle in to all those folks that bought into his whole "persona". As I said before...Barack Obama has been polished to an extreme...his "image" presented as gospel. I've never bought into it however...to me, our President is still the stoned kid from Hawaii who scammed his way into Columbia and Harvard Law School through Affirmative Action and not through his own hard work and then rode his selection as the first black President of the Harvard Law Review all the way to the White House while doing noting of note along the way.[/QUOTE]
Right, oldstyle. As I said, you have proven that you love the tin hat, and living in the fox bubble. Nothing new, is there, oldstyle. You make no new points, use no links to independent proof, and in general are a complete idiot. So after this one:
Calling Barack Obama by the name he went by most of his life isn't using a "slang word". Is my use of Barry more "tacky, stupid, immature and lacking in integrity" than those of the Left who referred to George W. Bush derisively as "Dubya"? Quite frankly I think Barack Obama's "facade" needs to be picked on...to me he's Barry, the stoner from Hawaii that scammed his way through college and into some cushy high paying jobs without ever really DOING anything. I think that when Barack Obama is alone he's got laugh at how far he's gotten on Harvard Law School's need to elect a person of color to the position of President of the Law Review. We've got a President who's the ultimate expression of Affirmative Action's failings. Yes, he's gotten promoted...No, he doesn't have a clue how to do the job he finds himself in.

You as what you just put in this post. Just further post, oldstyle. You can not have a discussion with someone with a closed mind. And yours is shut like a safe. Idiot.

 

[expat_panama]

...we check the employment/pop ratio before and after the FY94 budget--

and what we got is that

... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...

is flat out wrong.

Horrible analysis. What I see is a turnaround in unemployment late in 1993, when the OBRA was passed....

Of course you can see more economic growth after the fy 94 taxes than before. There are people who see America better off since Pelosi took over the House and Obama came to Washington --and they even get paid well telling others what they can see. Our difference is not over what we can see, but rather why we're looking at this. If our goal is increasing our government payouts, then we see justification for tax-hikes. If our goal is understanding current economic activity so we can feed our families, then we have to be very careful that what we're seeing is actually there.

 

[Oldstyle]

My charge remains the same, Rshermr. Are you disputing that Obama wanted Cap & Trade legislation passed but couldn't convince enough of his fellow Democrats to back that legislation when he held super majorities in the House and Senate? NO, nor did I ever says he did. Idiot.Are you disputing that the passage of the legislation that Obama was seeking would have added billions to the energy costs of Americans? he fact that some people in George Herbert Walker Bush's White House thought Cap & Trade was a viable solution doesn't convince me that it actually IS a viable solution, nor does it change the fact that Obama sought passage of something that would have severely dampened the economic recovery and the only reason he didn't get what he wanted was that some of the people in his own party wer... No, idiot, that was not the point. The point was simply and easily researched, idiot. Should you want to know, idiot. And that was that Cap and Trade was a republican answer to a real problem that I am absolutely sure you do not believe is a problem. But that repubs, the military, and the rest of the rational world does believe. So now you are saying that the pres was WRONG when he went along with repubs on cap and trade, and that going along with cap and trade would have been more costly because he was a dem than it would have been when you did not disagree with cap and trade because it was a repub idea. Idiot
Your contention that Obama doesn't push to add regulations is as amusing as a married man who hits on his neighbor's wife but doesn't consider himself to be unfaithful because she turned him down. Really stupid response to a rational statement. But then,,stupid people are routinely amused by non amuseing things. More proof that you are stupid.

The fact that some Republicans suggested that a form of Cap & Trade be adopted way back in the first Bush Administration...a suggestion that was subsequently not followed up on, hardly excuses the insanity of Barack Obama calling for it's implementation in the midst of an economic downturn that has American businesses fighting for survival and millions of Americans out of work.

Would you care to tell us what you think the result of passing Cap & Trade would have been if Barry had gotten his way? Would you care to tell us what you think the result of the EPA imposing new green house gas standards would have been if Barry hadn't backpedaled in the face of a looming election?

Why, idiot. You have proven yourself an idiot. Why would I want to try to have a discussion with you. Go back to your tin hat, and live in the fox bubble.

For those of you that don't speak "progressive"...let me translate.

"You have proven yourself an idiot."...means that Rshermr can't refute what I've said and therefore has decided the best he can hope for to save face is to go on attack mode. Someone with any substance at all would actually SHOW why what I said makes me an idiot...lightweights like this poster resort to name calling and excuses why they don't respond with something credible.

"Why would I want to try and have a discussion with you."...means that Rshermr has no comeback to my request for something exceptional that Barry has done since getting out of Harvard Law School...and that he REALLY doesn't want to explain what would have happened to our already fragile economy if Obama had gone ahead with Cap & Trade and the new EPA regulations on green house gasses. It's the usual response that I get from progressives when I ask about either topic.

The repeated insults? Par for the course when progressives are challenged to defend their positions and can't do so. You might as well stick a fork in Rshermr...he's announced to the world that he's unable to support his position.

 

[GreatDay]

...we check the employment/pop ratio before and after the FY94 budget--

and what we got is that

... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...

is flat out wrong.

Horrible analysis. What I see is a turnaround in unemployment late in 1993, when the OBRA was passed....

Of course you can see more economic growth after the fy 94 taxes than before. There are people who see America better off since Pelosi took over the House and Obama came to Washington --and they even get paid well telling others what they can see. Our difference is not over what we can see, but rather why we're looking at this. If our goal is increasing our government payouts, then we see justification for tax-hikes. If our goal is understanding current economic activity so we can feed our families, then we have to be very careful that what we're seeing is actually there.

Look at that upper left, if only this went back more:

U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact that some Republicans suggested that a form of Cap & Trade be adopted way back in the first Bush Administration...a suggestion that was subsequently not followed up on, hardly excuses the insanity of Barack Obama

Also, we need to consider that if Republicans adopted some from of cap and trade it would be to address the global warming problem, but if Barry adopted some form of cap and trade it would be to further socialize the economy and secondarily to address the global warming problem.

For Republicans it might be better to cope with global warming than cope with a socialized economy grinding us toward liberal poverty.

 

[expat_panama]

Look at that upper left, if only this went back more:U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

That site's always a lot of fun but it's a bit heavier on the hype than fact.

The US NATIONAL DEBT has $5,702,879,423,534, but the US treasury's site says it's $11,176,851,754,468.88. Another issue is they got private debt increasing. It's not. You and I may have elected spendthrifts to run the Federal Gov't, but in our private lives most of us have been paying off debts for years. Here's a graph of how it's been going:

 

[antagon]

...we check the employment/pop ratio before and after the FY94 budget--

and what we got is that

... Clinton's tax raises... ...The economy got better AFTER the tax increases, not before it...

is flat out wrong.

Horrible analysis. What I see is a turnaround in unemployment late in 1993, when the OBRA was passed....

Of course you can see more economic growth after the fy 94 taxes than before. There are people who see America better off since Pelosi took over the House and Obama came to Washington --and they even get paid well telling others what they can see. Our difference is not over what we can see, but rather why we're looking at this. If our goal is increasing our government payouts, then we see justification for tax-hikes. If our goal is understanding current economic activity so we can feed our families, then we have to be very careful that what we're seeing is actually there.

I'm not confused about why folks would look at tax policy when trying to relate to employment. There's a whole field of study, 'macroeconomics', aimed at that sort of analysis.

It's obvious from the very charts which you've provided that tax higher tax rates can be a part of enhancing private sector hiring activity during an expansion. If your goal is to hope the tax rate is going to do something for your family, you can look into how businesses actually respond to liability, and realize that hiring is one of their classic shelters. Then you'd know why the charts show the baffling effect they do. You'd know more about macroeconomics.

 

[Rshermr]

The fact that some Republicans suggested that a form of Cap & Trade be adopted way back in the first Bush Administration...a suggestion that was subsequently not followed up on, hardly excuses the insanity of Barack Obama calling for it's implementation in the midst of an economic downturn that has American businesses fighting for survival and millions of Americans out of work.

Would you care to tell us what you think the result of passing Cap & Trade would have been if Barry had gotten his way? Would you care to tell us what you think the result of the EPA imposing new green house gas standards would have been if Barry hadn't backpedaled in the face of a looming election?

Why, idiot. You have proven yourself an idiot. Why would I want to try to have a discussion with you. Go back to your tin hat, and live in the fox bubble.

For those of you that don't speak "progressive"...let me translate.

"You have proven yourself an idiot."...means that Rshermr can't refute what I've said and therefore has decided the best he can hope for to save face is to go on attack mode. Someone with any substance at all would actually SHOW why what I said makes me an idiot...lightweights like this poster resort to name calling and excuses why they don't respond with something credible. That is how you would like to see it. I simply see .no reason to speak to someone who posts dogma, totally without impartial reference to anything to support that dogma. You see, it is not up to the person who makes the accusation to prove anything. It is up to the person making the charge. Without that proof, all you have is... why, it is dogma. At best, opinion. But in your case dogma. So, where is your proof? Same place as always. You have none. You want someone to disprove your accusation that you made without proof. Like you are some sort of expert on the subject. Not only are you an idiot, but a dilusional idiot.

"Why would I want to try and have a discussion with you."...means that Rshermr has no comeback to my request for sotiomething exceptional that Barry has done since getting out of Harvard Law School...and that he REALLY doesn't want to explain what would have happened to our already fragile economy if Obama had gone ahead with Cap & Trade and the new EPA regulations on green house gasses. Who knows, idiot. It did not happen. I am sure that you, being the expert that you are, has that answer. But then, you think that anything that this admin has or would do is wrong. The point is clear. You want to argue about what could have happened if obama had done what the repubs wanted to do, but changed their minds when he agreed. But, of course, you do not take to the evidence that what I said was true. You want to believe it was just a few in the Bush 2 admin, but will not look at who actually came up with cap and trade. Still trying to say it was obama's idea. Idiot. It's the usual response that I get from progressives when I ask about either topic.
The repeated insults? Par for the course when progressives are challenged to defend their positions and can't do so. You might as well stick a fork in Rshermr...he's announced to the world that he's unable to support his position. Wrong again, me poor ignorant boy. You think of yourself as much smarter than you are. There is no fear of you, just disgust and pity. Again, go look at your quote about a sitting president. You are not worth talking to. Like talking to a wall. And then, there is this whole thing of changing topics. What do your questions have to do with the topic of this thread. Or do you even care. And, IF you think you know the answer, where is the evidence, the proof, like you have been asked a thousand times before. My guess is easy. Like usual, you do not have any. So, in essence, my insults come from looking at the crap you say. It comes from your total lack of evidence. It comes from you changing subjects as soon as you can not prove me wrong. And, me boy, you have never come close to proving me wrong. Try as you may with your con dogma. It is still just dogma, with no proof behind it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

higher tax rates can be a part of enhancing private sector hiring

how is this possible when higher taxes mean the private sector has less money with which to hire ???????????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong, idiot.

a liberal will have the low IQ and lack character to find pure or unsupported name calling, meaningful!!

 

[Rshermr]

higher tax rates can be a part of enhancing private sector hiring

how is this possible when higher taxes mean the private sector has less money with which to hire ???????????????????????

For lots of reasons, ed me boy. I know you will not believe this, but Reagan did.
So try to follow this. Corporations and large companies are either not hiring much, or they are hiring over seas. As a a result, increasing taxes has very, very little effect on hiring. Just as it did for Reagan.
But, gov gets money. Deficits decrease proportionally. Then, the gov does stimulus projects. Hires contractors to fix roads, fix dams, etc, etc.
So, employment went up, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!! Just as it did for Reagan.
Then these employees of contractors spend money in the general economy. Demand goes up.(I know, ed, you have a very hard time understanding this concept. But it was just the same as in the Reagan admin.) Since demand is increasing, the companies who made the stuff the contractors workers bought have to hire to keep up with demand. Just as in the Reagan admin. So, increasing taxes decreased unemployment, just as it did for Reagan.
All of which you will never admit, because you are a conservative tool.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Corporations

please stop acting as if the Reagan administration was a repeatable scientific experiment with one variable. Do you know how stupid that is????? Do you even know what science is??

contractors spend money[tax dollars] .

how is this a stimulus rather than a depression inducing bubble????????????????????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[Rshermr]

Corporations

please stop acting as if the Reagan administration was a repeatable scientific experiment with one variable. Do you know how stupid that is????? Do you even know what science is??

contractors spend money[tax dollars] .

how is this a stimulus rather than a depression inducing bubble????????????????????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

Why ed. I am impressed. I did not think you could even spell science.
Of course it was a simple example, ed. I was talking to YOU.

Here. Study this. It is a scientific study, and itwill explain your malfunction:

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian