Either the economy has recovered or it hasn't. Which is it libs?

[hazlnut]

So if you take more out of the recovery in taxes or borrow more to pay for more spending and more red tape, the poverty rate would be better??

Idiotic

No.

Brilliant.

 

[Billy000]

So if you take more out of the recovery in taxes or borrow more to pay for more spending and more red tape, the poverty rate would be better??

Idiotic

Well if you had any understanding of economics you would get it. The stimulus cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economic stimulus.

Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. It only stimululates the supply side. It does very little to generate demand. The problem with the wealthy is that studies show they hoard their money more than they do invest. The amount of money they actually do invest does very little.

Also, despite what Fox News and republicans tell you, tax cuts aren't free. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow. The Bush tax cuts greatly contributed to our national debt.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well if you had any understanding of economics you would get it. The stimulus cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economic stimulus.

 

[DiamondDave]

So if you take more out of the recovery in taxes or borrow more to pay for more spending and more red tape, the poverty rate would be better??

Idiotic

Well if you had any understanding of economics you would get it. The stimulus cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economic stimulus.

Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. It only stimululates the supply side. It does very little to generate demand. The problem with the wealthy is that studies show they hoard their money more than they do invest. The amount of money they actually do invest does very little.

Also, despite what Fox News and republicans tell you, tax cuts aren't free. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow. The Bush tax cuts greatly contributed to our national debt.

Not this freaking myth again.. that government spending stimulates after taking funding away and funneling it thru multiple layers of red tape and agencies

No.. tax cuts do not cost anything.. it is a lowering of income.. just as if you take a $10000 a year pay cut and it hurts you more to keep buying organic milk, the change in your salary did not cause a raise in cost to buy the milk

Every dollar less in taxes does NOT mean we have to borrow more, idiot... it SHOULD mean that we spend LESS.. SPENDING contributed to our increased debt... under Bush and especially under the overload spending of Obamalama

 

[Jarhead]

So if you take more out of the recovery in taxes or borrow more to pay for more spending and more red tape, the poverty rate would be better??

Idiotic

Well if you had any understanding of economics you would get it. The stimulus cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economic stimulus.

Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. It only stimululates the supply side. It does very little to generate demand. The problem with the wealthy is that studies show they hoard their money more than they do invest. The amount of money they actually do invest does very little.

Also, despite what Fox News and republicans tell you, tax cuts aren't free. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow. The Bush tax cuts greatly contributed to our national debt.

I have to laugh at the way you criticized someone for not understanding economics....and then you go ahead and state a theory as economic fact without even MENTIONING the opposing theory.

Economics is based on theory and there are two sides....two opposing theories....and both make sense or they would no longer be deemed as credible theories...yet both are.

There are many factors to take into consideration when determining which theory is applicable.....and in our complicated economy it is difficult to have all forces in place to allow either theory to prove to be the best.

But one thing we know for sure right now.....

Despite pumping billions into the economy, and cutting taxes for the middle class and increasing taxes for the upper 2%, our unemployment rate is still pathetic and we have less people employed now than we did 5 years ago....so it sure as hell aint working.

And if you say "yeah, but look at the markets! They are booming"....then I can say one thing for sure...

You are not qualified to criticize anyone's knowledge of economics.

 

[Papageorgio]

How can the economy be moving forward, when we have more people in poverty, more people unemployed, the government has stopped business expansion, the disposable income for the middle class is shrinking from just last year.

There is much support on how the stimulus money was wasted and how it to millions to generate thousands of dollars.

The only benefit we are having is stocks are moving up and that is because of the fed printing billions upon billions of dollars, which benefit the rich, not the poor or middle class.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

One more question libs....

You keep talking about economists & their opinions so...... Do those opinions or charts pay your bills? Buy your food? Supply your jobs?

Either way all the stats that matter are bad. Unemployment, welfare recipients, prices on food & fuel, obamacare is only getting the sick & elderly to sign up etc...

The only tangible rise you can point to is Wallstreet and that must really pain you since any other time they are considered the villain.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So if you take more out of the recovery in taxes or borrow more to pay for more spending and more red tape, the poverty rate would be better??

Idiotic

Well if you had any understanding of economics you would get it. The stimulus cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economic stimulus.

Tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy. It only stimululates the supply side. It does very little to generate demand. The problem with the wealthy is that studies show they hoard their money more than they do invest. The amount of money they actually do invest does very little.

Also, despite what Fox News and republicans tell you, tax cuts aren't free. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow. The Bush tax cuts greatly contributed to our national debt.

you say we need more stimulus...?

the Fed is dropping a fucking 80 billion a month......yet only bankers and the stock market reap the rewards.....the rest of the economy is flatlining...

what next......drop money from helicopters....?

nationalize the banks....?

 

[TooTall]

I never said the poverty rate improved2. What I said is that the the poverty level would be worse if the stimulus wasn't passed. Much worse. I am talking about legislation from 2009 dude. Another stimulus bill would be great.

The poverty rate is much worse than it was in 2008 and being the highest rate since 1993 says it all. BTW, wasn't 2008 when the housing bubble busted and there was NO stimulus? The poverty rate increased from 13.2% in 2008 to over 16% in 2012.

The simulus helped a lot of millionaires get a lot richer, but also put a lot of Americans
into poverty. I say another stimulus would increase the poverty level at least another 3% if history is to be the judge.

We lost millions of jobs from the 0'8 crisis. Millions in Bush's final months and millions more in Obama's first few months. The stimulus changed all that. It is the reason we are in a recovery.

You have a hard time listening don't you? Yes the poverty rate is bad. Had the stimulus been bigger, the poverty rate would be better. You can blame republicans for that. You do realize we have a congress that has just as much power as Obama right? Get a clue. Putting all the blame on Obama for the poverty rate is complete non sense.

Shut up about this more poor and more rich people crap from the stimulus. You obviously have no idea what was in the stimulus and what its effect was. Admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

I know that the poverty rate had a huge INCREASE after almost a trillion dollar stimulus and a larger stimulus would not have helped. I blame Obama because it happened on his watch and the Democrats controlled both houses when the stimulus was passed. Even now, the Republicans only control 1/2 of 1/3 of the government.

And, I already listed some of what was in the stimulus package in a previous post and I didn't see anything that addressed the poverty issue. Perhaps you, all knowing one, can point that out to me.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Those are your words and you asked about the recovery.

We are in a recovery...Recovered is the past tense and no one that isnt made of straw said we are recovered

Stick your head back in the sand.

We are NOT recovering. We ARE limping along at a terrible pace. We ARE creating more recipients of assistance than we are jobs. The ONLY thing that has recovered is Wallstreet.

Oh, so you're in favor of extending unemployment benefits then. Correct?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stick your head back in the sand.

We are NOT recovering. We ARE limping along at a terrible pace. We ARE creating more recipients of assistance than we are jobs. The ONLY thing that has recovered is Wallstreet.

Oh, so you're in favor of extending unemployment benefits then. Correct?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

Sink or swim bitch. This isn't daddy daycare

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Stick your head back in the sand.

We are NOT recovering. We ARE limping along at a terrible pace. We ARE creating more recipients of assistance than we are jobs. The ONLY thing that has recovered is Wallstreet.

Oh, so you're in favor of extending unemployment benefits then. Correct?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

....and the 'delicate dance' whereby the Dems claim the economy is recovering and there are jobs to be had but we still need to shell out unemployment bennies for the 11th time....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dow: 7949 to 16480 in the last five years
UE: 7.8 to 7.0% (need a lot of improvement here, although it has fallen more than 30% from 10.2%)
GDP: -5.4 to 4.1
Deficit: 9.8 to 3.3
Consumer Confidence: 37.4 to 704

Overall, much better in five years but with plenty of room to improve. The key is jobs creation legislation by Congress.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Dow: 7949 to 16480 in the last five years
UE: 7.8 to 7.0% (need a lot of improvement here, although it has fallen more than 30% from 10.2%)
GDP: -5.4 to 4.1
Deficit: 9.8 to 3.3
Consumer Confidence: 37.4 to 704

Overall, much better in five years but with plenty of room to improve. The key is jobs creation legislation by Congress.

Congress doesn't create jobs. They can incentivize it but Reid won't let that happen.

 

[J.E.D]

You have been asserting for MONTHS that Obama saved the economy yet you're whining about unemployment benefits not being extended. Why would they need to be extended if the economy has recovered? You can't have it both ways.

By the way, if you can't find a job in a year or two my guess is it's more your fault than anything else. Why should my taxes go to you because your pride is in the way of you getting a job?

Talk to Bush. His administration put in place the UE benefits extension that extended benefits as long as the UE rate was above 6% (if I remember correctly).

But I'll take it from this thread that YOU believe the economy has recovered. President Obama appreciates your confidence in his leadership.

You don't remember correctly since the President does not have the authority to extend UE benefits. Only Congress can pass a bill to do that, and the President can sign or veto the bill.

And Bush signed it. Your point?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/21/us-bush-financial-jobs-idUSTRE4AK3UU20081121

President George W. Bush on Friday signed into law an extension of unemployment benefits, the White House said.

It gives seven more weeks of unemployment payments to workers who have exhausted their current jobless benefits. For those in states with the highest unemployment rates, an additional 20 weeks will be allowed.

 

[J.E.D]

c

Oh, so you're in favor of extending unemployment benefits then. Correct?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

Sink or swim bitch. This isn't daddy daycare

So Americans shouldn't help those in need. What a fucking scumbag. I never say this, but I hope you get a taste of your own medicine. Sink or swim, asshole.

 

[J.E.D]

Dow: 7949 to 16480 in the last five years
UE: 7.8 to 7.0% (need a lot of improvement here, although it has fallen more than 30% from 10.2%)
GDP: -5.4 to 4.1
Deficit: 9.8 to 3.3
Consumer Confidence: 37.4 to 704

Overall, much better in five years but with plenty of room to improve. The key is jobs creation legislation by Congress.

Congress doesn't create jobs. They can incentivize it but Reid won't let that happen.

If Congress doesn't create jobs then why does Boehner keep saying that Obama should focus on jobs?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

c

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

Sink or swim bitch. This isn't daddy daycare

So Americans shouldn't help those in need. What a fucking scumbag. I never say this, but I hope you get a taste of your own medicine. Sink or swim, asshole.

16 weeks is help. 99 weeks is absurd. Fuck off dick

 

[RDD_1210]

Stick your head back in the sand.

We are NOT recovering. We ARE limping along at a terrible pace. We ARE creating more recipients of assistance than we are jobs. The ONLY thing that has recovered is Wallstreet.

Oh, so you're in favor of extending unemployment benefits then. Correct?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

Of course, you'll notice he never bothered to answer.

Hypocrisy exposed.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Oh, so you're in favor of extending unemployment benefits then. Correct?

This is where the rubber meets the road. Now you will see the delicate dance where they claim there are no jobs and that if you cut unemployement benes people will get off their ass and get a job (which they say there arent any). So cut the benes and something will happen to those people. Dont have time to think about that. Cut first, fix later...maybe

Of course, you'll notice he never bothered to answer.

Hypocrisy exposed.