It's a miracle the economy has grown for 71 straight months.

[oldernwiser]

. I ask you specific questions about your argument, and you respond by calling me an idiot liberal.

show the specific question I didn't answer or admit to being a liar.

Ed, I've already done your fact checking for you. It's time for you to put on your big boy pants and do a little scrolling on your own.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I ask you specific questions about your argument, and you respond by calling me an idiot liberal.

show the specific question I didn't answer or admit to being a liar.

Ed, I've already done your fact checking for you. It's time for you to put on your big boy pants and do a little scrolling on your own.

idiot, our subject was not facts but whether I had answered your question???
show the specific question I didn't answer or admit to being a liar.

 

[oldernwiser]

No matter how hard you try my love, the $8T number was derived anally. Let's just admit to that and we can move on.

dear, do you notice that you want to talk about the accuracy of the number and a not defend your idiotic point that govt spending creates real jobs and that we have unemployment because govt doesn't spend enough?

Feel stupid and liberal yet?? Ask yourself, do I want to be a liberal all my life? You should meet your maker clean!!

We can't discuss ANYTHING if you're going to commit to dishonesty. I've made my points here - you may scroll back, re-read them, and respond in an intelligent manner or not. About the only thing that I've gotten from you here is that Ed thinks that spending on the economy is commie libturd stupidity - but I knew that going in. What I don't know is WHY Ed thinks that improving the economy is commie libtard stupidity. (Did you use "libtard"? I don't remember.) And - Ed refuses to have this discussion, which I think means that Ed has no real idea how the economy really works other than spending of any kind is commie libturd stupidity, and that somehow borrowing is even worse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. What I don't know is WHY Ed thinks that improving the economy is commie libtard stupidity.

dear I told you 5 times that tax and spend does not improve the economy because taxing results in less spending. A liberal is stupid so can be tricked into feeling that when the govt spends it is magically stimulative and when the people who earned the money spend it is not.

Simple enough for even a liberal to understand???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

- Ed refuses to have this discussion, .

scummy liberal liar!! If you have evidence for this I will pay $10,000. Bet?? or run away again with your iberal tail between your legs.

 

[oldernwiser]

- Ed refuses to have this discussion, .

scummy liberal liar!! If you have evidence for this I will pay $10,000. Bet?? or run away again with your iberal tail between your legs.

Dear Ed, I won't take money you don't have. But you've had ample space to present your side and have thus far failed to do so - other than the childish name calling that I've come to expect from you. You refuse to answer questions or engage in any kind of meaningful dialog - and I believe that it's not because you won't but because you can't without showing that the depth of your argument is about an eighth of an inch.

You have made your opinion known. You just fail to discuss any specifics of that opinion and then try to pass off anally derived figures that are easily verified. Sorry sweetheart, that doesn't fly. You were wrong, you knew you were wrong, and you can't find any way to defend your being wrong other than to call me a "scummy liberal liar" which was also wrong. (I'm truly hurt by that, BTW - I've been nothing but nice to you.)

 

[TC_Triple3]

Besides in a delusion, where did you see wads of cash handed out? And to whom?

Apparently you're reading something that isn't there. The original post was about the difference between hypothetically printing money and handing it out versus long term spending on infrastructure projects. In both cases jobs would be created by the additional consumer spending, though the effects of those two choices would vary considerably.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You refuse to answer questions

Name one that I have refused to answer and I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away once again with your liberal tail between your legs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In both cases jobs would be created.

if govt taxes to spend govt spending goes up by X and private spending goes down by X so no new jobs are created.

Do you understand??

 

[Hedgology]

Why is it a miracle that the economy grew? That's what market-oriented economies do. They grow. Considering this growth a product of a miracle is just about as nonsensical as saying that it's a miracle a child grows.

What is more important than growth is the overall rate of growth, which is very very slow...

 

[TC_Triple3]

In both cases jobs would be created.

if govt taxes to spend govt spending goes up by X and private spending goes down by X so no new jobs are created.

Do you understand??

Nice leap dipshit.

At no point was raising taxes part of my discussion with the other poster. The point was printing money and handing it out (not raising taxes and handing out the tax increase to the populace) versus a long term infrastructure project (deficit spending) in creating jobs.

Jobs would be created either way with the increase in the volume of money. Are either of these good policy? NO! One is absurd and the other is very Keynesian.

Guess what? I don't care if you understand! You're a FOOL!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jobs would be created either way with the increase in the volume of money.

1) if so we would never have to worry about a shortage of jobs
2) printing $1 million for each person would not result in one new job. Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why is it a miracle that the economy grew? That's what market-oriented economies do. They grow. Considering this growth a product of a miracle is just about as nonsensical as saying that it's a miracle a child grows.

What is more important than growth is the overall rate of growth, which is very very slow...

yes, slow because of liberal interference with the free market-right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. (I'm truly hurt by that, BTW - I've been nothing but nice to you.)

dear, you 've been nothing but a liberal danger to the world!!

 

[prison/con.net]

every last bit of that stuff should disappear, along with 90% of govt, and miliatary, all foreign aid, price supports for farmers. If you can't hack it, then you should just get on out of the way of those who can, instead of burdening them.

 

[Dot Com]

ISM Manufacturing Remains Steady Hiring Slows

Economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in April for the 28th consecutive month, and the overall economy grew for the 71st consecutive month, say the nation’s supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM Report On Business.

--------------------------------------

I think it's a miracle. No matter how hard they've tried, Republicans haven't been able to derail all of the improvement. Sure, they've slowed it down, but they haven't been able to stop it completely.

Thank you President Obama sir despite the obstructionist GObP Congress

. We're actually saying that borrowing against the future in order to improve our current economic levels could in fact balance out with increased collections later so that no new taxes would even be necessary. Surely they taught you that in Econ 101? You DID take Econ 101, didn't you sweetie?
.

100% perfect and typical idiot liberal doofus. We've already borrowed $20 trillion against the future and have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and yet the liberal wants to try even more borrowing.

It is really too stupid for words, i.e., its 100% liberal.

Bust Tax cuts - three trillions plus
Iraq war - three trillion plus
Tens of thousands maimed in Iraq - unknown number of trillions more
Medicare Part D (drugs for votes) - another trillion
Millions of jobs moved to China from 2001 to 2008 - trillions in lost revenue
Over 40,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008 - trillions in lost revenue.

And somehow, it's 100% liberal? Really? Oh, because they didn't stop it. Then why did the GOP use reconciliation three times when Republicans held all three branches of government? After all, they had liberal help, right?

Republicans think you can pay off debt without working. How ******* stupid. No, really. How ******* stupid.

^ that

 

[Old Rocks]

It's "grown" because it was so deeply in the shitter and because the Fed has greased the skids with a preposterous amount of cash.

Bush was oblivious, simplistic and naive in his approach to regulation and the economy.

The Obama administration has made its negative opinion of American business clear, and as a result growth has not been what it should have been, not even close, as American businesses hold on to cash to protect themselves.

This is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

.

History will see Obama as a great president. The idea that Obama has a negative view of business is laughable considering how business has prospered under his administration. This is a view that Republicans have tried to foster but flies in the face of data and reality. How they get people to believe such stupid nonsense make it look like the people are stupid.

I know you have to spin for your "side".

Business "has prospered" because it is hoarding cash and not spending as it normally would.

But I suspect Rachel hasn't covered that.

.

The larger businesses have never done better and they're setting up a system of monopolies. How can we have competition and business growth with this?

Two different subjects. The larger corporations are hoarding cash because they're in a defensive posture. And they're not hiring as quickly as they would, doing more with less and increasing profits that way. That translates to their balance sheets and that translates to higher stock valuations.

Regarding monopolies, that's just a matter of better regulation. The worst examples are the big banks, which are not only still "too big to fail", but even bigger than before. Re-instituting Glass Steagall (or something like it) would put an end to that pretty quickly.

.

OK, agree totally on Glass-Steagall. Who is the impediment to doing that?

 

[Mac1958]

It's "grown" because it was so deeply in the shitter and because the Fed has greased the skids with a preposterous amount of cash.

Bush was oblivious, simplistic and naive in his approach to regulation and the economy.

The Obama administration has made its negative opinion of American business clear, and as a result growth has not been what it should have been, not even close, as American businesses hold on to cash to protect themselves.

This is what two lousy presidencies in a row looks like.

.

History will see Obama as a great president. The idea that Obama has a negative view of business is laughable considering how business has prospered under his administration. This is a view that Republicans have tried to foster but flies in the face of data and reality. How they get people to believe such stupid nonsense make it look like the people are stupid.

I know you have to spin for your "side".

Business "has prospered" because it is hoarding cash and not spending as it normally would.

But I suspect Rachel hasn't covered that.

.

The larger businesses have never done better and they're setting up a system of monopolies. How can we have competition and business growth with this?

Two different subjects. The larger corporations are hoarding cash because they're in a defensive posture. And they're not hiring as quickly as they would, doing more with less and increasing profits that way. That translates to their balance sheets and that translates to higher stock valuations.

Regarding monopolies, that's just a matter of better regulation. The worst examples are the big banks, which are not only still "too big to fail", but even bigger than before. Re-instituting Glass Steagall (or something like it) would put an end to that pretty quickly.

.

OK, agree totally on Glass-Steagall. Who is the impediment to doing that?

Check out the campaign donor lists for the politicians of both parties. See how many banks are on there. Check out the amount of money spent by which lobbying groups on both parties.

I'm in the business, and I freely (and angrily) admit it.

The fact that the big banks are allowed to get even bigger, even MORE "too big to fail", is just another symptom of a political system being destroyed by money.

The only two national-level politicians who have the guts to scream about this are Warren and Sanders.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

History will see Obama as a great president. The idea that Obama has a negative view of business is laughable considering how business has prospered under his administration. This is a view that Republicans have tried to foster but flies in the face of data and reality. How they get people to believe such stupid nonsense make it look like the people are stupid.

I know you have to spin for your "side".

Business "has prospered" because it is hoarding cash and not spending as it normally would.

But I suspect Rachel hasn't covered that.

.

The larger businesses have never done better and they're setting up a system of monopolies. How can we have competition and business growth with this?

Two different subjects. The larger corporations are hoarding cash because they're in a defensive posture. And they're not hiring as quickly as they would, doing more with less and increasing profits that way. That translates to their balance sheets and that translates to higher stock valuations.

Regarding monopolies, that's just a matter of better regulation. The worst examples are the big banks, which are not only still "too big to fail", but even bigger than before. Re-instituting Glass Steagall (or something like it) would put an end to that pretty quickly.

.

OK, agree totally on Glass-Steagall. Who is the impediment to doing that?

Check out the campaign donor lists for the politicians of both parties. See how many banks are on there. Check out the amount of money spent by which lobbying groups on both parties.

I'm in the business, and I freely (and angrily) admit it.

The fact that the big banks are allowed to get even bigger, even MORE "too big to fail", is just another symptom of a political system being destroyed by money.

The only two national-level politicians who have the guts to scream about this are Warren and Sanders.
.

Lets no forget that there is a capitalist solution. People are free not to do business with the big banks.