Nobel Prize Winning Conservative Economist Believes Obama Possesses Time Machine

[Quantum Windbag]

Those pesky facts. Darn.

You want a pesky fact?

The only people trying to link Obama to something that happened before he was president are the idiots who are arguing that a Nobel Prize winner believes in time travel.

Thank you for identifying yourself for everyone.

The bolded is what Becker does in his post.

No he doesn't.

He is talking about the recovery, and why it has been slower than previous recoveries. Unless you can show him blaming the recession itself on Obama, you are full of shit.

 

[Polk]

You want a pesky fact?

The only people trying to link Obama to something that happened before he was president are the idiots who are arguing that a Nobel Prize winner believes in time travel.

Thank you for identifying yourself for everyone.

The bolded is what Becker does in his post.

No he doesn't.

He is talking about the recovery, and why it has been slower than previous recoveries. Unless you can show him blaming the recession itself on Obama, you are full of shit.

He clearly states that the recovery is weak because of a lack of business investment. That claim is demonstrably false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The bolded is what Becker does in his post.

No he doesn't.

He is talking about the recovery, and why it has been slower than previous recoveries. Unless you can show him blaming the recession itself on Obama, you are full of shit.

He clearly states that the recovery is weak because of a lack of business investment. That claim is demonstrably false.

It is?

Obama says businesses must hire, invest to grow economy

Maybe you should tell Obama that he has his facts worng.

 

[Polk]

No he doesn't.

He is talking about the recovery, and why it has been slower than previous recoveries. Unless you can show him blaming the recession itself on Obama, you are full of shit.

He clearly states that the recovery is weak because of a lack of business investment. That claim is demonstrably false.

It is?

Obama says businesses must hire, invest to grow economy

Maybe you should tell Obama that he has his facts worng.

Yes, it is, and you are wildly misinterpreting the President's comments (but what else is new).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He clearly states that the recovery is weak because of a lack of business investment. That claim is demonstrably false.

It is?

Obama says businesses must hire, invest to grow economy

Maybe you should tell Obama that he has his facts worng.

Yes, it is, and you are wildly misinterpreting the President's comments (but what else is new).

It is a valid an interpretation as yours of a Nobel Prize winning economist. In fact, it is probably more valid, because Obama and I are equally ignorant about economics, but your knowledge of economics when compared to a man that actually won the most prestigious prize in science because of his work is like a 1st grade student lecturing Albert Einstein about relativity.

But don't let that stop you from showing how stupid and willfully ignorant you are.

 

[FA_Q2]

9% unemployment isn't inevitable. It's caused by weak demand, a problem that you and Becker's preferred policy prescriptions would make worse. Business investment has not "sucked" during the Obama administration. In fact, business investment is higher that should be expected considering the unemployment rate. Looking at the investment/unemployment relationship between 1988 and 2008, business investment should be around 8% of GDP. It's actually between 9.5 and 10%.

We;ve had over a trillion dollars of "stimulus" and still have weak demand. In teh Depression FDR tried the same thing with the same results.
Nine percent unemployment is caused by lack of investment by business, not demand. Teh argument "it could be worse" is a loser. Please keep using it.

FDR had wonderful results. Unemployment declined and output skyrocketed. The only problem was listening to the conservatives of his day and pulling back on spending in 1936. I would like to hear your explanation for what ended the depression.

The unemployment rate at this point is purely a demand issue.

Did we forget about the WAR that sucked HUGE portions of able bodied people out of the workforce leaving those positions open for massive populations of unemployed to suddenly become employed?

 

[The Rabbi]

We;ve had over a trillion dollars of "stimulus" and still have weak demand. In teh Depression FDR tried the same thing with the same results.
Nine percent unemployment is caused by lack of investment by business, not demand. Teh argument "it could be worse" is a loser. Please keep using it.

FDR had wonderful results. Unemployment declined and output skyrocketed. The only problem was listening to the conservatives of his day and pulling back on spending in 1936. I would like to hear your explanation for what ended the depression.

The unemployment rate at this point is purely a demand issue.

Did we forget about the WAR that sucked HUGE portions of able bodied people out of the workforce leaving those positions open for massive populations of unemployed to suddenly become employed?

UE went from 23% to a low of just under 15% over 9 years. IN 1929 it had been 3%. So percentagewise I guess it looks good, if you consider 15% unemployment a great number.
Output skyrocketed with demand from Europe as WW2 broke out. I would say 9 years of high unemployment and bad policies is nothing to brag about.

 

[MaggieMae]

Gary Becker, right-wing economist and winner of the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, makes his case for Barack Obama's time travel powers.



Now, I'm sure you're asking, why would this require the President to have a time machine? Because the fall in business investment started in 2007, two years before Obama took office, and bottomed out in early 2009.

Obama does have a time machine-- Obama tried to build a bridge back to the 1930's--FDR era.

It appears that our Harvard graduate--community organizer--most intellectual President EVER didn't know that:

What took thousands of men with shovels to complete---now can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What didn't require much engineering and design in the 1930's now require years of engineering and design before the 1st shovel goes in the ground.

Last week Obama stating--UH--Those "shovel ready projects--weren't as shovel ready as we thought they were."

View attachment 13777

Close the thread!

Obama is duplicating the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: prosperous people do not accept Socialism

They don't? How are government subsidies not "socialism" for corporations (the prosperous)?

Tax Justice Network: Bob McIntyre's $365 billion testimony to U.S. Senate Budget Committee

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by America’s largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent — barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
He makes three key arguments about these subsidies.

First, they are expensive. He draws out Treasury data to provide an (incomplete) list of tax subsidies for corporations, business owners and business investors comes with an estimated annual cost of a staggering $365 billion in 2011. That is, a billion dollars of subsidies per day - and this is most likely an underestimate.
...
There's more dynamite, too, on the subject of Mcintyre's third argument: that these corporate subsidies are fundamentally unfair. Mcintyre's CTJ is working on a large new study:

"our preliminary results so far suggest that corporate tax subsidies are now larger than corporate taxes paid."

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama does have a time machine-- Obama tried to build a bridge back to the 1930's--FDR era.

It appears that our Harvard graduate--community organizer--most intellectual President EVER didn't know that:

What took thousands of men with shovels to complete---now can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What didn't require much engineering and design in the 1930's now require years of engineering and design before the 1st shovel goes in the ground.

Last week Obama stating--UH--Those "shovel ready projects--weren't as shovel ready as we thought they were."

View attachment 13777

Close the thread!

Obama is duplicating the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: prosperous people do not accept Socialism

They don't? How are government subsidies not "socialism" for corporations (the prosperous)?

Tax Justice Network: Bob McIntyre's $365 billion testimony to U.S. Senate Budget Committee

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by America’s largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent — barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
He makes three key arguments about these subsidies.

First, they are expensive. He draws out Treasury data to provide an (incomplete) list of tax subsidies for corporations, business owners and business investors comes with an estimated annual cost of a staggering $365 billion in 2011. That is, a billion dollars of subsidies per day - and this is most likely an underestimate.
...
There's more dynamite, too, on the subject of Mcintyre's third argument: that these corporate subsidies are fundamentally unfair. Mcintyre's CTJ is working on a large new study:

"our preliminary results so far suggest that corporate tax subsidies are now larger than corporate taxes paid."

Could you identify specifically "corporate tax subsidies"?
Typically when leftists use that mantra, they either have no idea what they're talking about, or using standard features in the tax code, like depreciating equipment, to make their point.

 

[Polk]

It is?

Obama says businesses must hire, invest to grow economy

Maybe you should tell Obama that he has his facts worng.

Yes, it is, and you are wildly misinterpreting the President's comments (but what else is new).

It is a valid an interpretation as yours of a Nobel Prize winning economist. In fact, it is probably more valid, because Obama and I are equally ignorant about economics, but your knowledge of economics when compared to a man that actually won the most prestigious prize in science because of his work is like a 1st grade student lecturing Albert Einstein about relativity.

But don't let that stop you from showing how stupid and willfully ignorant you are.

So please, explain how Obama spooked businesses into slashing investment two years before he was elected.

 

[Polk]

FDR had wonderful results. Unemployment declined and output skyrocketed. The only problem was listening to the conservatives of his day and pulling back on spending in 1936. I would like to hear your explanation for what ended the depression.

The unemployment rate at this point is purely a demand issue.

Did we forget about the WAR that sucked HUGE portions of able bodied people out of the workforce leaving those positions open for massive populations of unemployed to suddenly become employed?

UE went from 23% to a low of just under 15% over 9 years. IN 1929 it had been 3%. So percentagewise I guess it looks good, if you consider 15% unemployment a great number.
Output skyrocketed with demand from Europe as WW2 broke out. I would say 9 years of high unemployment and bad policies is nothing to brag about.

Output skyrocketed from 1932 to 1936. What world war was the United States fighting in that time span?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, it is, and you are wildly misinterpreting the President's comments (but what else is new).

It is a valid an interpretation as yours of a Nobel Prize winning economist. In fact, it is probably more valid, because Obama and I are equally ignorant about economics, but your knowledge of economics when compared to a man that actually won the most prestigious prize in science because of his work is like a 1st grade student lecturing Albert Einstein about relativity.

But don't let that stop you from showing how stupid and willfully ignorant you are.

So please, explain how Obama spooked businesses into slashing investment two years before he was elected.

Why should I? You are the only person saying he did that. You are the one that throws fallacies around every time you get backed into a corner, throw another one up and sulk away pretending to yourself that you have won the debate.

 

[uscitizen]

Gary Becker, right-wing economist and winner of the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, makes his case for Barack Obama's time travel powers.

In addition to repeated attacks on American business, especially banks (some of the attacks on banks were well deserved), Congress passed an expensive stimulus package that did not stimulate much. The health care bill Congress passed seems likely to increase the cost to small and large businesses of providing health insurance for employees. Congressional leaders proposed high taxes on carbon emissions, large increases in taxes on higher income individuals, corporate profits, and capital gains as part of vocal attacks on “billionaires”. Many in Congress wanted to cap, or at least control, compensation of executives. Proposals were advanced to make anti-trust laws less pro-consumer, and more protective of competitors from aggressive and innovative companies. Congress passed and the president signed a financial reform bill that is a complicated and a politically driven mixture of sensible reforms, and senseless changes that have little to do with stabilizing the financial architecture, or correcting what was defective in prior regulations.

It is no surprise that this rhetoric and the proposed and actual policies discouraged business investment and slowed down the recovery.

The Slow Economic Recovery-Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog

Now, I'm sure you're asking, why would this require the President to have a time machine? Because the fall in business investment started in 2007, two years before Obama took office, and bottomed out in early 2009.

I swear on my littermates lives that I did not provide anyone on this primitive palnet with a time travel device.

Darned Galacticops will be banging on my door anyway....

 

[MaggieMae]

Close the thread!

Obama is duplicating the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: prosperous people do not accept Socialism

They don't? How are government subsidies not "socialism" for corporations (the prosperous)?

Tax Justice Network: Bob McIntyre's $365 billion testimony to U.S. Senate Budget Committee

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by America’s largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent — barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
He makes three key arguments about these subsidies.

First, they are expensive. He draws out Treasury data to provide an (incomplete) list of tax subsidies for corporations, business owners and business investors comes with an estimated annual cost of a staggering $365 billion in 2011. That is, a billion dollars of subsidies per day - and this is most likely an underestimate.
...
There's more dynamite, too, on the subject of Mcintyre's third argument: that these corporate subsidies are fundamentally unfair. Mcintyre's CTJ is working on a large new study:

"our preliminary results so far suggest that corporate tax subsidies are now larger than corporate taxes paid."

Could you identify specifically "corporate tax subsidies"?
Typically when leftists use that mantra, they either have no idea what they're talking about, or using standard features in the tax code, like depreciating equipment, to make their point.

The text in the link is quite long. Read it, for more detail.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Go with the Nobel Prize Winning Conservative Economist. He received it back when it mattered. The Nobel Prize has lost a lot of credibility over the years. I mean come on,Gore & Obama receiving Peace Prizes? Not sure too many take the Nobel Prizes very seriously anymore. But i would still go with this guy. He received the Prize when you could still take it a bit seriously.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did we forget about the WAR that sucked HUGE portions of able bodied people out of the workforce leaving those positions open for massive populations of unemployed to suddenly become employed?

UE went from 23% to a low of just under 15% over 9 years. IN 1929 it had been 3%. So percentagewise I guess it looks good, if you consider 15% unemployment a great number.
Output skyrocketed with demand from Europe as WW2 broke out. I would say 9 years of high unemployment and bad policies is nothing to brag about.

Output skyrocketed from 1932 to 1936. What world war was the United States fighting in that time span?

Nobody said the US was fighting a war at that time. That's you.
Of course starting from near-zero it isnt hard for output to "soar."
Perhaps this had a big effect:
Spanish Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FA_Q2]

Did we forget about the WAR that sucked HUGE portions of able bodied people out of the workforce leaving those positions open for massive populations of unemployed to suddenly become employed?

UE went from 23% to a low of just under 15% over 9 years. IN 1929 it had been 3%. So percentagewise I guess it looks good, if you consider 15% unemployment a great number.
Output skyrocketed with demand from Europe as WW2 broke out. I would say 9 years of high unemployment and bad policies is nothing to brag about.

Output skyrocketed from 1932 to 1936. What world war was the United States fighting in that time span?

The original point you asked was about recovering from the great depression. I can assure you that OUTPUT is not what got us out of the depression.

 

[FA_Q2]

Obama does have a time machine-- Obama tried to build a bridge back to the 1930's--FDR era.

It appears that our Harvard graduate--community organizer--most intellectual President EVER didn't know that:

What took thousands of men with shovels to complete---now can be done with a couple of heavy equipment operators. What didn't require much engineering and design in the 1930's now require years of engineering and design before the 1st shovel goes in the ground.

Last week Obama stating--UH--Those "shovel ready projects--weren't as shovel ready as we thought they were."

View attachment 13777

Close the thread!

Obama is duplicating the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: prosperous people do not accept Socialism

They don't? How are government subsidies not "socialism" for corporations (the prosperous)?

Tax Justice Network: Bob McIntyre's $365 billion testimony to U.S. Senate Budget Committee

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by America’s largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent — barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
He makes three key arguments about these subsidies.

First, they are expensive. He draws out Treasury data to provide an (incomplete) list of tax subsidies for corporations, business owners and business investors comes with an estimated annual cost of a staggering $365 billion in 2011. That is, a billion dollars of subsidies per day - and this is most likely an underestimate.
...
There's more dynamite, too, on the subject of Mcintyre's third argument: that these corporate subsidies are fundamentally unfair. Mcintyre's CTJ is working on a large new study:

"our preliminary results so far suggest that corporate tax subsidies are now larger than corporate taxes paid."

It is a form of socialism. Of course you would not find anyone here defending any cooperate subsidies but you don’t care about consistency. YOU are the one that supports such ideas. Conservatives here would like to see an end to those subsidies as well as an end to a TON of other things. It is the libs that simply want to move those subsidies to other forms of giveaways. I am tired of the liberals here leaving that claim like it is a common held belief by the conservatives here to give big business subsidies. If you believe that is the case, please provide some links to posts that back that claim up.

 

[Google]

Gary Becker, right-wing economist and winner of the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, makes his case for Barack Obama's time travel powers.

In addition to repeated attacks on American business, especially banks (some of the attacks on banks were well deserved), Congress passed an expensive stimulus package that did not stimulate much. The health care bill Congress passed seems likely to increase the cost to small and large businesses of providing health insurance for employees. Congressional leaders proposed high taxes on carbon emissions, large increases in taxes on higher income individuals, corporate profits, and capital gains as part of vocal attacks on “billionaires”. Many in Congress wanted to cap, or at least control, compensation of executives. Proposals were advanced to make anti-trust laws less pro-consumer, and more protective of competitors from aggressive and innovative companies. Congress passed and the president signed a financial reform bill that is a complicated and a politically driven mixture of sensible reforms, and senseless changes that have little to do with stabilizing the financial architecture, or correcting what was defective in prior regulations.

It is no surprise that this rhetoric and the proposed and actual policies discouraged business investment and slowed down the recovery.

The Slow Economic Recovery-Becker - The Becker-Posner Blog

Now, I'm sure you're asking, why would this require the President to have a time machine? Because the fall in business investment started in 2007, two years before Obama took office, and bottomed out in early 2009.

I'm sick and tired of ignorant leftists constantly bemoaning Obama's innocence regarding the state of the economy. Does the time he has been in office and all of the sweeping, unprecedented policies not count?

You want to know which god damn party caused the housing crisis. Watch the congressional hearing below, and SHUT THE **** UP.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs]YouTube - ‪Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis‬‏[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

Close the thread!

Obama is duplicating the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: prosperous people do not accept Socialism

They don't? How are government subsidies not "socialism" for corporations (the prosperous)?

Tax Justice Network: Bob McIntyre's $365 billion testimony to U.S. Senate Budget Committee

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by America’s largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent — barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
He makes three key arguments about these subsidies.

First, they are expensive. He draws out Treasury data to provide an (incomplete) list of tax subsidies for corporations, business owners and business investors comes with an estimated annual cost of a staggering $365 billion in 2011. That is, a billion dollars of subsidies per day - and this is most likely an underestimate.
...
There's more dynamite, too, on the subject of Mcintyre's third argument: that these corporate subsidies are fundamentally unfair. Mcintyre's CTJ is working on a large new study:

"our preliminary results so far suggest that corporate tax subsidies are now larger than corporate taxes paid."

It is a form of socialism. Of course you would not find anyone here defending any cooperate subsidies but you don’t care about consistency. YOU are the one that supports such ideas. Conservatives here would like to see an end to those subsidies as well as an end to a TON of other things. It is the libs that simply want to move those subsidies to other forms of giveaways. I am tired of the liberals here leaving that claim like it is a common held belief by the conservatives here to give big business subsidies. If you believe that is the case, please provide some links to posts that back that claim up.

If subsidies were cut or eliminated, it would be up to the House Appropriations Committee to decide what to do with the excess. And right now, that would be the Republicans.