Democrats on this board are clearly trying to hide from reality

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No discussions of what's costing them elections. Just silly diversionary topics about how horrible republicans are. Topics that WON'T get them elected in 2012. In fact I think its this very stubbornness and narrow minded hatred that's costing them seats.
They just can't pull their heads out of the sand.

How does arguing about rich and poor or god and science get our economy on track? Only a healthy environment is going to foster our economy to grow and thus create jobs. This is the issue of 2012 not how many tv's the poor own.

Let's advance the subjects to the point that real ideas can be discussed and not just try to get off the best insults in the threads.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Mums the word

 

[Truthmatters]

These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ers-paychecks/2011/09/12/gIQAl5ebPK_blog.html

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

You already started a thread about this... and we ignored that as well.

Carry on.

 

[Truthmatters]

These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

You already started a thread about this... and we ignored that as well.

Carry on.

Thank you for admitting you are the ones who ignore reality

 

[The Infidel]

These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

You already started a thread about this... and we ignored that as well.

Carry on.

Too many big words for TM.... looks like a cut & paste to me


Lets watch her try and defend it now...

 

[The Infidel]

Thank you for admitting you are the ones who ignore reality

Excellent point.... you won me over!

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think that those trying to hide from reality are limited to the Democrat side.

I love everyone here. But let's be honest. Most of the people here aren't here because they love the truth. They are here because they want to win an argument and feel better for themselves. The Pride is thick enough to cut with a butter knife. And I hate to say it but I fear I've given into that pride too often. Heck, once is too often.

We need to fundamentally change our lives. All of us. There isn't a man or woman here who doesn't have something to work on.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

You already started a thread about this... and we ignored that as well.

Carry on.

Thank you for admitting you are the ones who ignore reality

Honey, you wouldn't know reality if it landed on you and crapped on your head.

 

[Avatar4321]

These past few years, the Republican line on job creation has been simple: Cut government spending, tame the deficit, and unemployment will fall. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but soon. “To put it simply,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R- Va.) said last spring, “less government spending means more private-sector jobs.” But that’s not exactly a rigorous study. So here’s a rigorous study.

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

More specifically, an austerity program that curbs the deficit by 1 percent of GDP reduces real incomes by about 0.6 percent and raises unemployment by almost 0.5 percentage points. What’s more, the IMF notes, the losses are twice as big when the central bank can’t cut rates (a good description of the present.) Typically, income and employment don’t fully recover even five years after the austerity program is put in place.

You already started a thread about this... and we ignored that as well.

Carry on.

Thank you for admitting you are the ones who ignore reality

TM, you should know by now that no one who ignores what you say is ignoring reality.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You already started a thread about this... and we ignored that as well.

Carry on.

Thank you for admitting you are the ones who ignore reality

TM, you should know by now that no one who ignores what you say is ignoring reality.

Doh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

So you deny this study exisists?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't think that those trying to hide from reality are limited to the Democrat side.

I love everyone here. But let's be honest. Most of the people here aren't here because they love the truth. They are here because they want to win an argument and feel better for themselves. The Pride is thick enough to cut with a butter knife. And I hate to say it but I fear I've given into that pride too often. Heck, once is too often.

We need to fundamentally change our lives. All of us. There isn't a man or woman here who doesn't have something to work on.

Speak for yourself.

I'm perfect, and I'll be the first to admit it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So you deny this study exisists?

No, but I deny the word exisists. Good God.. please download Spellcheck.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't deny the existence of Das Kapital... it's still utter bullshit.

 

[Sallow]

No discussions of what's costing them elections. Just silly diversionary topics about how horrible republicans are. Topics that WON'T get them elected in 2012. In fact I think its this very stubbornness and narrow minded hatred that's costing them seats.
They just can't pull their heads out of the sand.

How does arguing about rich and poor or god and science get our economy on track? Only a healthy environment is going to foster our economy to grow and thus create jobs. This is the issue of 2012 not how many tv's the poor own.

Let's advance the subjects to the point that real ideas can be discussed and not just try to get off the best insults in the threads.

I talk about it all the time.

It's pretty simple.

Democrats are much to conciliatory to Republicans. They look weak. It should be a one shot deal. One shot at compromise then forget it.

Bush was a master of that. And like him or hate him..it made him look very strong.

 

[Avatar4321]

No discussions of what's costing them elections. Just silly diversionary topics about how horrible republicans are. Topics that WON'T get them elected in 2012. In fact I think its this very stubbornness and narrow minded hatred that's costing them seats.
They just can't pull their heads out of the sand.

How does arguing about rich and poor or god and science get our economy on track? Only a healthy environment is going to foster our economy to grow and thus create jobs. This is the issue of 2012 not how many tv's the poor own.

Let's advance the subjects to the point that real ideas can be discussed and not just try to get off the best insults in the threads.

I talk about it all the time.

It's pretty simple.

Democrats are much to conciliatory to Republicans. They look weak. It should be a one shot deal. One shot at compromise then forget it.

Bush was a master of that. And like him or hate him..it made him look very strong.

Democrats concilatory... Yeah. Nice one.

 

[rdean]

No discussions of what's costing them elections. Just silly diversionary topics about how horrible republicans are. Topics that WON'T get them elected in 2012. In fact I think its this very stubbornness and narrow minded hatred that's costing them seats.
They just can't pull their heads out of the sand.

How does arguing about rich and poor or god and science get our economy on track? Only a healthy environment is going to foster our economy to grow and thus create jobs. This is the issue of 2012 not how many tv's the poor own.

Let's advance the subjects to the point that real ideas can be discussed and not just try to get off the best insults in the threads.

Because all Republicans know science is bad.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Liberal Jesus = Pseudo-science perpetuated for political motive

 

[Sallow]

No discussions of what's costing them elections. Just silly diversionary topics about how horrible republicans are. Topics that WON'T get them elected in 2012. In fact I think its this very stubbornness and narrow minded hatred that's costing them seats.
They just can't pull their heads out of the sand.

How does arguing about rich and poor or god and science get our economy on track? Only a healthy environment is going to foster our economy to grow and thus create jobs. This is the issue of 2012 not how many tv's the poor own.

Let's advance the subjects to the point that real ideas can be discussed and not just try to get off the best insults in the threads.

I talk about it all the time.

It's pretty simple.

Democrats are much to conciliatory to Republicans. They look weak. It should be a one shot deal. One shot at compromise then forget it.

Bush was a master of that. And like him or hate him..it made him look very strong.

Democrats concilatory... Yeah. Nice one.

Yes..way to much.