Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

As for personal attacks? That's all you've done SINCE you got caught telling your lie. Again, oldstyle, untrue. Unless, of course, you count what I had to say to you for calling me a liar. For that you are a shit, oldstyle. You totally lack class. As for others following this thread, I am absolutely sure that they wish you would get back to the subject. But then, of course, they are by now beginning to understand that you are simply incapable of economic argument. Another of your lies, oldstyle, is that you took a couple economics classes and paid attention. Hell, oldstyle, apparently you know absolutely nothing about economics, as you are incapable of posting to this rather simple subject. So you apparently did not pay attention, eh oldstyle. But then, since we are discussing each others opinions, I think you win the clear plastic navel award, for keeping your head up your ass for so long.

Again, an accusation made without a single example given. What economic argument have I made in this string or in any other that proves that I know nothing about economics?

And again with base insults. The reason you stoop to calling me a "shit" is that you have no answer to getting yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself into with this claim of that you taught economics in college as an undergraduate. Just so you know...each time I see you post that kind of juvenile drivel I know that you're desperately trying to save face. Take note that I don't have to resort to that...but then again...I'm not the one who got caught red handed lying.

Ah, oldstyle. Again you claim that i lied. As i have said, i did not. But you, being a small minded person believe you can push the accusation. Stupid idea, oldstyle. So, where is the great economic point that you believe you won over me? you tried to say that Reagans tax reduction made things better in a bad economy for the unemployed. you really augered in on that one. or that kennedy had a major tax decrease in 64, during a bad economy. But then, again you flamed out when i proved to you that the economy was not bad, but good. Where is it, oldstyle. Which right wing talking point that you call economic discussion (it is not, oldstyle, just proves your ignorance) is it that you believe made your point? loved the one where your only answer to why Reagan raised taxes 11 times was that he loved war. Good try, my ignorant of economics boy. or how you avoided why, after the great tax decrease of reagan led to the highest unemployment rate since the great depression, Reagam borrowed and spent like a drunken sailor. Wow, oldstyle, and to look at all of that copy and paste effort, you would think you must have some winning point in there. Where is it, oldstyle??

 

[Rshermr]

Why, oldstyle. Just shows you making accusations and statements without any proof at all. Just as I said. And, oldstyle, we can see what you and others said without your having you pick out the points you want people to see. Why you would want them to, I do not know. Do you have a point here. What I said is that you are incapable of backing up what you say, rather you simply make accusations. And you do not seem to know when you loose a point. Just ignorance, me boy. Stupidity, you see. But go on as long as you like. You are about to the point where you left the whole issue of economics behind. Funny thing is you seem to have left out the responses, oldstyle. Hate to show yourself getting crushed?. But that is old news, is it not. So, what is new, oldstyle. Just more editing the past to try to change it?? No integrity, oldstyle. No game.

You just accused me of not posting about economic issues, you blow hard. So I provided ample proof that in fact I had posted about economic issues REPEATEDLY. No game? I've kicked your butt throughout this string and will continue to do so. And another lie. i did not say you had not posted economic topics, but that A. you had not done so for a long time on this thread, and B. that your posts were without any proof. So, another lie. i simply am not surprised in any way when you do so. This is simply one more example.

Now would you like to try and back up your OTHER contention...that I lie? jesus, oldstyle, takes too much time as you lie often. See above for another example. on another post today, i showed you several places where you lied. But you are correct, i did not provide a single example but rather several. I asked you to provide a single example of a lie that I've told and as usual you've backed your assertion with nothing.

i did show you where you lied. . See above post. But i do not care much about your lies. i simply accept them as part of your act. So, where is it that you kicked my economic but, oldstyle? See? Another lie on your part.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for personal attacks? That's all you've done SINCE you got caught telling your lie. Again, oldstyle, untrue. Unless, of course, you count what I had to say to you for calling me a liar. For that you are a shit, oldstyle. You totally lack class. As for others following this thread, I am absolutely sure that they wish you would get back to the subject. But then, of course, they are by now beginning to understand that you are simply incapable of economic argument. Another of your lies, oldstyle, is that you took a couple economics classes and paid attention. Hell, oldstyle, apparently you know absolutely nothing about economics, as you are incapable of posting to this rather simple subject. So you apparently did not pay attention, eh oldstyle. But then, since we are discussing each others opinions, I think you win the clear plastic navel award, for keeping your head up your ass for so long.

Again, an accusation made without a single example given. What economic argument have I made in this string or in any other that proves that I know nothing about economics?

And again with base insults. The reason you stoop to calling me a "shit" is that you have no answer to getting yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself into with this claim of that you taught economics in college as an undergraduate. Just so you know...each time I see you post that kind of juvenile drivel I know that you're desperately trying to save face. Take note that I don't have to resort to that...but then again...I'm not the one who got caught red handed lying.

Ah, oldstyle. Again you claim that i lied. As i have said, i did not. But you, being a small minded person believe you can push the accusation. Stupid idea, oldstyle. So, where is the great economic point that you believe you won over me? you tried to say that Reagans tax reduction made things better in a bad economy for the unemployed. you really augered in on that one. or that kennedy had a major tax decrease in 64, during a bad economy. But then, again you flamed out when i proved to you that the economy was not bad, but good. Where is it, oldstyle. Which right wing talking point that you call economic discussion (it is not, oldstyle, just proves your ignorance) is it that you believe made your point? loved the one where your only answer to why Reagan raised taxes 11 times was that he loved war. Good try, my ignorant of economics boy. or how you avoided why, after the great tax decrease of reagan led to the highest unemployment rate since the great depression, Reagam borrowed and spent like a drunken sailor. Wow, oldstyle, and to look at all of that copy and paste effort, you would think you must have some winning point in there. Where is it, oldstyle??

If the economy was so good then why did Kennedy describe it as being so bad during his first State of the Union speech? I gave you a direct quote to prove my point...but you chose to pretend I didn't....one more example of why you're full of shit when you say I never prove my contentions.

I also explained to you that the reason unemployment went up over 10% during Reagan's first term was that he inherited stagflation from Jimmy Carter and his first order of business was to rein in high inflation rates by tightening up the interest rates...something you would only be too aware of if you really were an economics major.

I've destroyed your silly arguments all along and each and every time you've responded with childish insults. Whenever you don't have a response you fall back on referring to whatever you can't dispute as "con dogma" and unworthy of a response. Who do you think you're fooling with that stupid routine?

You see, unlike yourself...I respond with examples and proof when challenged. What do you do? You resort to name calling and evading whatever question is asked. I'm STILL waiting for you to give me an example of where I lied. How come you can't? Because you know that I haven't but decided the best way to respond when you got caught red handed lying yourself was to accuse the person who caught you in the lie, of being a liar? I'm still waiting for you to show me a single example of where I've erred in my presentation of economics or economic history. How come you can't do that either?

What DO you provide? A lot of "me boys"...like being CUTE is going to rescue you from being labeled a fraud and a liar.

 

[Rshermr]

If the economy was so good then why did Kennedy describe it as being so bad during his first State of the Union speech? I gave you a direct quote to prove my point...but you chose to pretend I didn't....one more example of why you're full of shit when you say I never prove my contentions. Well, yes, someone is full of shit. Actually, someone is lying. And it is YOU, me boy. My question to which you were responding was "when has the economy been helped during bad unemployment times by a tax decrease?" The economy was somewhat bad, based on an unemployment rate of 6.6% when the speech was given. But it was good, at 4.9% when the tax decrease occurred in 1964. So, no, you do not get credit for what was said in a speech. Especially when it was said almost 4 years before the tax decrease you were using as an example, and which happened during good unemployment rate times.

I also explained to you that the reason unemployment went up over 10% during Reagan's first term was that he inherited stagflation from Jimmy Carter and his first order of business was to rein in high inflation rates by tightening up the interest rates...something you would only be too aware of if you really were an economics major. Apparently something that you have read on a right wing web sight. Should you care to educate yourself by reading a little about the economics of that time, you would find a far different picture than the one you have tried to paint. JK Galbraith was Kennedys economic advisor, and policies were much more about social programs to help those in need. But, really, you mention the tightening of the interest rate, which means the FED raising rates to slow down inflation. Which happened, but started during the Carter admin. When Reagan was sworn in the rate was 19.08%, and decreased to 9.2% by the time unemployment reached 10.8%. Based on your statement, the unemployment rate should have been well over 10% at the end of the Carter admin, but it was at 7.5% and falling. More importantly, since tax decreases were the answer to all of our economic ills, including unemployment, based on reagans statements, why did Reagan raise taxes 11 times. Why did he borrow more than all the presidents before him combined? Why did he use stimulus spending to get us out of the unemployment mess we were in, instead of simply using the policy of supply side economics and dropping tax rates?
http://www.harpfinancial.com/InterestRateHistory/FederalFundsRate3.htm (Another of those links to unbiased info that you should get used to, old boy. People with integrity use such tools to support their statements, those without integrity do not bother.)
http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php (Another, oldstyle. See how it works yet?)

I've destroyed your silly arguments all along You are delusional, me boyand each and every time you've responded with childish insults. Whenever you don't have a response you fall back on referring to whatever you can't dispute as "con dogma" and unworthy of a response. Who do you think you're fooling with that stupid routine?

You see, unlike yourself...I respond with examples and proof when challengedSee above. What do you do? You resort to name calling and evading whatever question is asked. I'm STILL waiting for you to give me an example of where I lied. How come you can't? Because you know that I haven't but decided the best way to respond when you got caught red handed lying yourself was to accuse the person who caught you in the lie, of being a liar? of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie. I'm still waiting for you to show me a single example of where I've erred in my presentation of economics or economic history. How come you can't do that either?Many times I have shown you, but you do not notice.

What DO you provide? A lot of "me boys"...like being CUTE is going to rescue you from being labeled a fraud and a liar. You do so deflate me, me boy. I do so respect your opinion.\\

So, let me explain where the con dogma comes from. I have been watching you cons for years. You can be identified first when I see you calling a sitting president, always a dem for you cons, by a pet name. Barry for obama, in your case. From there it is simple to watch you answer with the con talking points, available to you all on fox, and on a hundred web sites run by well off tools of the conservative movement. Dems do nothing right, cons do nothing wrong. And a list of about 25 things that I know how you will respond, based on what you are told to believe, before you say a word.. You will never get unbiased info. Too much trouble. And it does not usually agree with what you want to believe.

 

[Oldstyle]

"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?

This is very simple...

You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.

So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.

Balls in your court, Sparky...

 

[Rshermr]

"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?

This is very simple...

You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.

So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.

Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not proveable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premice, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about. But it served a purpose. It showed me that you learn more teaching a class than attending one.

 

[whitehall]

Consumers create demand for products and services. (Rich?) entrepreneurs risk capital and comply with hundreds of government regulations and invest in ventures to supply the goods and services. Government jobs do not grow the economy. They only move confiscated money around.

 

[expat_panama]

...consider and present your alternative.

So, what you are saying is that you prefer...

Look, I'm not the one prefering, you are. That's why I asked what you wanted to replace what we have.

...I am all for antitrust legislation. And a regulated capitalistic economy.

The food, energy, and healthcare markets that we have now are already subject to regulations that include antitrust controls. The fact that you're not saying anything more than you think things are 'bad' now and you want them to be 'good' leads me to believe you have no alternative.

 

[Rshermr]

Consumers create demand for products and services. (Rich?) entrepreneurs risk capital and comply with hundreds of government regulations and invest in ventures to supply the goods and services. Government jobs do not grow the economy. They only move confiscated money around.

So, you as an entrepreneur would not accept money from gov jobs. good for you. Bus is down for you, inventory is getting too high, but you do not take that gov money. and the subcontractors who are paid by gov money. You do not take their money either. Just keep on eeking along, trying to get through the bad times. that gov money is no help to you. But if you could just get a reg dropped, you would hire someone even though no one is buying. Just add it to inventory.
Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

 

[Rshermr]

...consider and present your alternative.

So, what you are saying is that you prefer...

Look, I'm not the one prefering, you are. That's why I asked what you wanted to replace what we have.

...I am all for antitrust legislation. And a regulated capitalistic economy.

The food, energy, and healthcare markets that we have now are already subject to regulations that include antitrust controls. The fact that you're not saying anything more than you think things are 'bad' now and you want them to be 'good' leads me to believe you have no alternative.

Depends on the industry. If you look at health industry issues, look at the countries that do it better and for less than we do. World health org does studies on this info all the time. Food?? Break up the large food companies. Get back to a more capitalistic market. Energy. Break them up. New book out on Exxon. Take a look, then ask the question. Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2113546,00.html
If you believe antitrust legislation working in this country, perhaps you can enlighten me. What company has been subject to antitrust legislation in the past 15 years???

 

[Oldstyle]

"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?

This is very simple...

You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.

So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.

Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not proveable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premice, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about. But it served a purpose. It showed me that you learn more teaching a class than attending one.

You weren't a TA...but you taught the class? Or now you've changed that to "part of the class"? So Professor Lillard gave tuition relief to an undergraduate student for teaching part of her class but you weren't a TA? How exactly did that work? She just called up the Bursar's office and told them to cut your tuition?

 

[Rshermr]

"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?

This is very simple...

You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.

So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.

Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not proveable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premice, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about. But it served a purpose. It showed me that you learn more teaching a class than attending one.

You weren't a TA...but you taught the class? Or now you've changed that to "part of the class"? So Professor Lillard gave tuition relief to an undergraduate student for teaching part of her class but you weren't a TA? How exactly did that work? She just called up the Bursar's office and told them to cut your tuition?

Clair was definitely not a she. Clair did not like teaching the class, found it boring. so, sure, part of the class 4 days per week, and a number of other jogs. I said I taught an economics class. Sorry if you do not think 4 days a week with around 30 students does not meet your definition. But then, I really do not care. You want to end this or do you just want to continue the questionst .

What do you care how I got paid, me boy?? Not of any concern to you, now, is it. That was Clair's business at the time, and that was 45 years ago. So, do you keep your word and bug off, or do you just keep keeping on as I suspect. So far, your continuing questions show you to not be a person of your word. Big surprise.

 

[whitehall]

Consumers create demand for products and services. (Rich?) entrepreneurs risk capital and comply with hundreds of government regulations and invest in ventures to supply the goods and services. Government jobs do not grow the economy. They only move confiscated money around.

So, you as an entrepreneur would not accept money from gov jobs. good for you. Bus is down for you, inventory is getting too high, but you do not take that gov money. and the subcontractors who are paid by gov money. You do not take their money either. Just keep on eeking along, trying to get through the bad times. that gov money is no help to you. But if you could just get a reg dropped, you would hire someone even though no one is buying. Just add it to inventory.
Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

I'd take all the money the government would be willing to give me in a heartbeat but it doesn't alter the fact that government money is confiscated from other citizens or printed from worthless paper. If there was a demand for a product you can bet your ass-ets that the private sector would hire more people to keep up with the demand. Consumers do not grow the economy, the "rich" smart, tough entrepreneurs build or expand the factories and comply with often confusing government regulations and taxes and meet payrolls grow the economy.

 

[Rshermr]

Consumers create demand for products and services. (Rich?) entrepreneurs risk capital and comply with hundreds of government regulations and invest in ventures to supply the goods and services. Government jobs do not grow the economy. They only move confiscated money around.

So, you as an entrepreneur would not accept money from gov jobs. good for you. Bus is down for you, inventory is getting too high, but you do not take that gov money. and the subcontractors who are paid by gov money. You do not take their money either. Just keep on eeking along, trying to get through the bad times. that gov money is no help to you. But if you could just get a reg dropped, you would hire someone even though no one is buying. Just add it to inventory.
Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

I'd take all the money the government would be willing to give me in a heartbeat but it doesn't alter the fact that government money is confiscated from other citizens or printed from worthless paper. If there was a demand for a product you can bet your ass-ets that the private sector would hire more people to keep up with the demand. Consumers do not grow the economy, the "rich" smart, tough entrepreneurs build or expand the factories and comply with often confusing government regulations and taxes and meet payrolls grow the economy.

I see. So there is a depression, the consumers are not buying enough stuff. So, you would take the money from the gov contractors and the gov employees and you and others would buy stuff. And then you and others would buy more. Etc. Sounds like gov demand creation just worked!!! But without demand creation, the depression just keeps on keeping on. Of course, you could lay off gov employees, lower taxes, and that would do what - oh yeah, the laid off gov workers would not buy, you would sell less, you would then lay off, you and your laid off employees would buy less. So, maybe you could get gov to lay off more workers, pay less taxes, and the beat goes on....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

Whitehall is correct!!

RSHERMER is too stupid but perfectly liberal!! One government job means one less real private sector job!!

I real job is sustainable and grows the economy because free people create it with real world decisions while a soviet job is an unsustainable guess by a libturd bureaucrat. Now even you can see why the USSR failed.

 

[expat_panama]

...present your alternative...

...health industry issues, look at the countries that do it better and for less than we do. World health org does studies...

That's reasonable, and I thank you for sharing.

Of course while lot's of people love the WHO, when they themselves need care they usually turn right around and buy American. That is if they're actually free to choose and not forced at gunpoint to subject themselves to primitive and backward procedures. FWIW, this source says "60K to 85K people come to the US every year for medical treatment". Add to that medical break thoughs. The US may have a twentieth of the worlds population, but it develops half of all the worlds new medicines.

...Food?? Break up the large food companies... ...Energy. Break them up...

It's true that many want direct state control of food and energy company sizes, but at the same time most free people buying food and energy for themselves with their own money and make their choices without regard of the sizes of the producers. What we got here is an ideology calling for closing off people's choices at gunpoint.

...If you believe antitrust legislation working in this country, perhaps you can enlighten me...

Look, I'm not the one believing anything here, you are. I'm not sure how to explain the fact that before we change things we want to make sure we're working with a change for the better. If you want maybe I can repeat my question marks????????? Humm; personally I think periods are better...

...What company has been subject to antitrust legislation in the past 15 years...

Not sure why you're asking me, here's the list from the USDOJ: Antitrust Division : Home Page

U.S. and New York v. Verizon, et al.

U.S. v. SGI and GEC

U.S. v. Apple, et al.

U.S. v. Crowley Liner Services, Inc.

U.S. v. TRW Deutschland Holding GMBH

U.S. v. UTC and Goodrich

Recent Testimony

"Oversight of the Impact on Competition of Exclusion Orders to Enforce Standards-Essential Patents"

July 11, 2012
Recent Press Releases

Justice Department Requires Changes to Verizon-Cable Company Transactions to Protect Consumers, Allows Procompetitive Spectrum Acquisitions to Go Forward

August 16, 2012

Resolution Preserves Broadband and Video Services Competition Between Verizon and the Cable Companies and Frees Spectrum to Benefit Consumers

Northern California Real Estate Investor Agrees to Plead Guilty to Bid Rigging at Public Foreclosure Auctions

August 15, 2012

Investigation Has Yielded 25 Plea Agreements to Date

Florida-Based Crowley Liner Services Inc. Pleads Guilty to Price Fixing on Freight Services Between U.S. and Puerto Rico

August 1, 2012

Company Sentenced to Pay $17 Million Criminal Fine

Two Former Hospital Employees Plead Guilty to Participating in Kickback Scheme at New York City Hospital

July 31, 2012

German Subsidiary of TRW Automotive Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price Fixing on Automobile Parts Installed in U.S. Cars

July 30, 2012

Company Agrees to Pay $5.1 Million Criminal Fine
Microsoft Case Filings

Joint Status Report on Microsoft’s Compliance with the Final Judgments

April 22, 2011​

Looking at that list, the important question is whether there is anything there that's made any improvement in our personal purchasing choices. Personally, I haven't gotten anything out of all that fuss. Sounds like you haven't either if you weren't even aware of it. Judging by your and my benefit, we'd have to consider all those efforts a complete waste of time and say we want less, not more.

 

[Rshermr]

Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

Whitehall is correct!!

RSHERMER is too stupid but perfectly liberal!! One government job means one less real private sector job!!

I real job is sustainable and grows the economy because free people create it with real world decisions while a soviet job is an unsustainable guess by a libturd bureaucrat. Now even you can see why the USSR failed.

Ed, still waiting. I have asked you over 15 times, and you can not answer. When has tax decreases ever helped our economy in a bad unemployment time. You keep saying it does, but you have no proof. And again, I am sure you will not try to answer. So, ed, if you are saying again that gov jobs as in stimulus jobs do not happen, or do not create long term jobs, then you disagree totally with the cbo. And, if it is you or the cbo that are my choices, you loose, ed. Because you are a simple con as always pushing con dogma. Easy to disprove, ed. Because you have no basis for your statements, just dogma.

 

[antagon]

This is a classic debate, but the answer is not likely either or supply or demand side, it is probably combining respects of the two. Supply and demand are in a complementary relationship, rather than oppositional.

 

[antagon]

Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

Whitehall is correct!!

RSHERMER is too stupid but perfectly liberal!! One government job means one less real private sector job!!

I real job is sustainable and grows the economy because free people create it with real world decisions while a soviet job is an unsustainable guess by a libturd bureaucrat. Now even you can see why the USSR failed.

Ed, still waiting. I have asked you over 15 times, and you can not answer. When has tax decreases ever helped our economy in a bad unemployment time. You keep saying it does, but you have no proof. And again, I am sure you will not try to answer. So, ed, if you are saying again that gov jobs as in stimulus jobs do not happen, or do not create long term jobs, then you disagree totally with the cbo. And, if it is you or the cbo that are my choices, you loose, ed. Because you are a simple con as always pushing con dogma. Easy to disprove, ed. Because you have no basis for your statements, just dogma.

A good example is the passage of some Clinton-era tax hikes and the subsequent recovery of the labor market.

It is a stretch to claim that this was a single cause result. Hardly anything is. In the US, however, tax liability increases drive certain types of investment among which are new hires.

 

[whitehall]

So, you as an entrepreneur would not accept money from gov jobs. good for you. Bus is down for you, inventory is getting too high, but you do not take that gov money. and the subcontractors who are paid by gov money. You do not take their money either. Just keep on eeking along, trying to get through the bad times. that gov money is no help to you. But if you could just get a reg dropped, you would hire someone even though no one is buying. Just add it to inventory.
Feeling stupid, Whitehall??

I'd take all the money the government would be willing to give me in a heartbeat but it doesn't alter the fact that government money is confiscated from other citizens or printed from worthless paper. If there was a demand for a product you can bet your ass-ets that the private sector would hire more people to keep up with the demand. Consumers do not grow the economy, the "rich" smart, tough entrepreneurs build or expand the factories and comply with often confusing government regulations and taxes and meet payrolls grow the economy.

I see. So there is a depression, the consumers are not buying enough stuff. So, you would take the money from the gov contractors and the gov employees and you and others would buy stuff. And then you and others would buy more. Etc. Sounds like gov demand creation just worked!!! But without demand creation, the depression just keeps on keeping on. Of course, you could lay off gov employees, lower taxes, and that would do what - oh yeah, the laid off gov workers would not buy, you would sell less, you would then lay off, you and your laid off employees would buy less. So, maybe you could get gov to lay off more workers, pay less taxes, and the beat goes on....

The depression scenario is yours. I'm saying that confiscated taxpayer money does not grow the economy. Few people would dispute the fact that successful private sector entrepreneurs are smarter than the drones in congress who like the president probably never met a payroll or even made a living that wasn't furnished by taxpayers. It's trendy for hyprocite neo-socialists to hate corporations and banks but Fannie Mae is an example of how government would regulate the private sector and it ain't pretty.