Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Dot Com]

conservatives have no business making economic policy. ZERO

 

[KissMy]

Bush exploded Food Stamps! They were going down until Bush & Republicans took over in 2001. Food stamps went up every year Bush was in office.

Proving once more you can't read a chart.
There are more people on food stamps today than when Barry took office. Despite an economic recovery and impriving job situation. Even as a percent of the population there are many more.
So if Bush was a failure (he wasnt) Barry is failure squared.

You continue to prove how stupid you are! There were only 17K on SNAP when Bush took office. Bush doubled that to 34K when he left. That number only rose 38% under Obama to 47K. Now Obama has lowered that number by 1K even as he shrank government. It rose every year Bush was in office even as he inflated the housing bubble & exploded government. Bush increased SNAP spending 1,100% from $5 billion to $55 billion, it only rose 36% under Obama & is now falling. Bush destroyed 18 million jobs, Obama restored 10.5 million & climbing so far.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Yeah that fairytale has failed every time it's been tried. It's a loser, Billy. What about that dont you understand?

 

[The Rabbi]

Far too much conservative economic theory is based on things Reagan said that have just not panned out in practice but since the conservative messiah said it they intend to keep trying the same shit until it actually works.

Yeah the longest economic expansion up to that time just isnt panning out.
What a ******* tool.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush exploded Food Stamps! They were going down until Bush & Republicans took over in 2001. Food stamps went up every year Bush was in office.

Proving once more you can't read a chart.
There are more people on food stamps today than when Barry took office. Despite an economic recovery and impriving job situation. Even as a percent of the population there are many more.
So if Bush was a failure (he wasnt) Barry is failure squared.

You continue to prove how stupid you are! There were only 17K on SNAP when Bush took office. Bush doubled that to 34K when he left. That number only rose 38% under Obama to 47K. Now Obama has lowered that number by 1K even as he shrank government. It rose every year Bush was in office even as he inflated the housing bubble & exploded government. Bush increased SNAP spending 1,100% from $5 billion to $55 billion, it only rose 36% under Obama & is now falling. Bush destroyed 18 million jobs, Obama restored 10.5 million & climbing so far.

Wow, best post for most untruths per sentence.
Bush didnt increase funding. Congress does that. WHo controlled Congress for most of that time?
Second, look at your own chart. It disproved your claim.
Obama has never shrunk government. Government is bigger now than ever. Government spending is more now than ever.
Obama hasnt lowered the number of people on foodstamps. More people are on foodstamps than ever before. And more as a percentage of the population. And Bush left during a recession, Obama is presiding over a recovery.

 

[The Rabbi]

conservatives have no business making economic policy. ZERO

Because you hate success?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy"

It's not so much a poor understanding but their blind adherence to failed conservative fiscal dogma, the inability of most on the right to be fiscally pragmatic, and the unwillingness to pursue economic policies predicated on objective facts and evidence.

So yes, as a consequence of their blind adherence to failed conservative fiscal dogma, republicans are in no position to be making economic policy decisions - their continued advocacy of 'trickle-down' economics and propensity toward unwarranted, reckless, and irresponsible deregulation being two glaring examples.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy. People who don't allow themselves to be consumed by absolutist ideology, those who understand the delicate, intricate and symbiotic nature and relationships of domestic and international markets, business psychology and government involvement.

Not holding my breath, of course. It's so much easier for naive narcissists to point the finger at each other and spout platitudes.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

So making business transactions easier through deregulation won't help the economy? Tell me when something costs less to do, does it happen more or less?

if you raise the cost of things arbitrarily do people buy more or less of it?

and you are seriously think you know anything about economics? This is common sense. If people have more of their money they are more likely to spend more money. If you make compliance too expensive people will stop doing it.

economics is easy to understand. Not sure why the left doesn't understand it

 

[Avatar4321]

conservatives have no business making economic policy. ZERO

yeah heaven forbid the people who run business make economic policy. We might actually have a thriving domestic policy if that happens

 

[Freewill]

.

Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy. People who don't allow themselves to be consumed by absolutist ideology, those who understand the delicate, intricate and symbiotic nature and relationships of domestic and international markets, business psychology and government involvement.

Not holding my breath, of course. It's so much easier for naive narcissists to point the finger at each other and spout platitudes.

.

Using the 2008 crash as an example what do you think that the government did to caused the crash? It seems to me that we the people bailed out a whole lot of companies that were lead by people, I assume, fit the description you provide.

 

[Agit8r]

Supply-side economics are undemocratic, and unAmerican:

"Can any despotism be more cruel than a situation in which the existence of thousands depends on one will, and that will on the most slight and fickle of all motives, a mere whim of the imagination."
-- James Madison; from "Fashion" in the National Gazette (March, 20, 1792)

 

[Mac1958]

.

Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy. People who don't allow themselves to be consumed by absolutist ideology, those who understand the delicate, intricate and symbiotic nature and relationships of domestic and international markets, business psychology and government involvement.

Not holding my breath, of course. It's so much easier for naive narcissists to point the finger at each other and spout platitudes.

.

Using the 2008 crash as an example what do you think that the government did to caused the crash? It seems to me that we the people bailed out a whole lot of companies that were lead by people, I assume, fit the description you provide.

Plenty of villains in the Meltdown, from the government to the mortgage and bond rating industries to consumers.

As far as the government is concerned, the three largest blunders were the repeal of Glass Steagall, loose (at best) attention paid to Fannie & Freddie after standards were lowered, and the abject failure of regulatory agencies to identify (let alone act upon) the massive leverage built up in the system and the widespread, manic sale of comically opaque derivatives.

Of course, right on cue, the partisan ideologues will dismiss that and just point the finger at "the other guys". The righties will deny that widespread greed and corruption in private industry played a role, the lefties will deny that government and consumers played a role. And the noise will continue.

It was all "their" fault. Those guys, over there.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

G. W. Bush's first act as president, regarding the economy, was to intentionally bust the budget and bring back deficits.

He did it with his tax cuts.

 

[Roadrunner]

Republicans only econonic solutions are deregulation and cutting taxes for corporations/the wealthy. Both of these methods do next to nothing to help the overall economy.

Regulations cost GDP 2% every year. Now even if you were irresponsible and stupid enough to undo ALL regulations for the sake of growth, you would only be boosting 2%. The growth of that is not nearly worth the chaos that would ensue.

Cutting taxes for corporations does jack shit for the economy in general. Stimuluating supply means dick if you don't stimuluate demand. The extra supply that is created does not meet any increase in demand. This means there is no increase in business just because a company has more to sell. Not only that, but cutting taxes only makes the government borrow more which means more debt. The proposed republican tax cuts would add 440 billion to our national debt.

The recent "experiment" failure in Kansas' economy and the pathetic job growth under Bush proves this.

See the republicans you people elect know this. They say they want to help you but in reality they only care about keeping the wealthy happy.

The reality is that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by stimulating the middle class. That is the driving force of our consumption based economy. Republicans have barely done anything for the middle class since Reagan.

Obama's stimulus created close to 3 million jobs. Why? Because it gave the middle class the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. It also extended unemployment benefits for the millions who lost their jobs against their will. This allowed them to spend money they wouldn't have otherwise spent because they were unemployed.

This is what you call demand-side economics.

How does the middle class tax cuts (niggernomics) create jobs?

God you people are so thick. No wonder you vote republican. Tax cuts help the middle class spend money. They are the big spenders when it comes to economic demand in this consumer spending economy we have.

The middle class sucks, they vote for pols who tell them domestic harmony can be guaranteed through the provision of bread and circuses for the masses, and then they want tax cuts and massive borrowing so they themselves don't have to pay.

The middle class is the big problem in this country, but, it is disappearing rapidly.

 

[Freewill]

.

Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy. People who don't allow themselves to be consumed by absolutist ideology, those who understand the delicate, intricate and symbiotic nature and relationships of domestic and international markets, business psychology and government involvement.

Not holding my breath, of course. It's so much easier for naive narcissists to point the finger at each other and spout platitudes.

.

Using the 2008 crash as an example what do you think that the government did to caused the crash? It seems to me that we the people bailed out a whole lot of companies that were lead by people, I assume, fit the description you provide.

Plenty of villains in the Meltdown, from the government to the mortgage and bond rating industries to consumers.

As far as the government is concerned, the three largest blunders were the repeal of Glass Steagall, loose (at best) attention paid to Fannie & Freddie after standards were lowered, and the abject failure of regulatory agencies to identify (let alone act upon) the massive leverage built up in the system and the widespread, manic sale of comically opaque derivatives.

Of course, right on cue, the partisan ideologues will dismiss that and just point the finger at "the other guys". The righties will deny that widespread greed and corruption in private industry played a role, the lefties will deny that government and consumers played a role. And the noise will continue.

It was all "their" fault. Those guys, over there.

.

"Well now that is interesting and in all likelihood true. But I find your response interesting in light of your first statement: Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy."

I am not saying I disagree but the whole problem, in my opinion, was caused by allowing "more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults" or the buisness community, run the show. Which of course is correct but it seems to me that the government did nothing wrong in that they allowed businesses to run their businesses and we see what happened.

Yes, the government let them loose but they didn't have to do that which looked profitable but was idiotic.

My opinion, we could have a business atmosphere clear of government interference IF business did in fact have people who were, clear-thinking and pragmatic adults, instead of short term greedy bastards.

I guess what it comes down to is where do we get people who are more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults? Considering that the melt down wasn't caused by government interference but by what you say the lack there of.

 

[Freewill]

G. W. Bush's first act as president, regarding the economy, was to intentionally bust the budget and bring back deficits.

He did it with his tax cuts.

And the democrats had a year of filibuster free majority to correct the problem and what did they do? Right, increased spending. 6 years of Obamaeconomics and you are still blaming Bush? Really?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy. People who don't allow themselves to be consumed by absolutist ideology, those who understand the delicate, intricate and symbiotic nature and relationships of domestic and international markets, business psychology and government involvement.

Not holding my breath, of course. It's so much easier for naive narcissists to point the finger at each other and spout platitudes.

.

Using the 2008 crash as an example what do you think that the government did to caused the crash? It seems to me that we the people bailed out a whole lot of companies that were lead by people, I assume, fit the description you provide.

Plenty of villains in the Meltdown, from the government to the mortgage and bond rating industries to consumers.

As far as the government is concerned, the three largest blunders were the repeal of Glass Steagall, loose (at best) attention paid to Fannie & Freddie after standards were lowered, and the abject failure of regulatory agencies to identify (let alone act upon) the massive leverage built up in the system and the widespread, manic sale of comically opaque derivatives.

Of course, right on cue, the partisan ideologues will dismiss that and just point the finger at "the other guys". The righties will deny that widespread greed and corruption in private industry played a role, the lefties will deny that government and consumers played a role. And the noise will continue.

It was all "their" fault. Those guys, over there.

.

"Well now that is interesting and in all likelihood true. But I find your response interesting in light of your first statement: Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy."

I am not saying I disagree but the whole problem, in my opinion, was caused by allowing "more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults" or the buisness community, run the show. Which of course is correct but it seems to me that the government did nothing wrong in that they allowed businesses to run their businesses and we see what happened.

Yes, the government let them loose but they didn't have to do that which looked profitable but was idiotic.

My opinion, we could have a business atmosphere clear of government interference IF business did in fact have people who were, clear-thinking and pragmatic adults, instead of short term greedy bastards.

I guess what it comes down to is where do we get people who are more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults? Considering that the melt down wasn't caused by government interference but by what you say the lack there of.

Well, the only way this would be done - and I'm not predicting this by any stretch, mind you - would be for a group of people from all areas involved to come together and work out some new ideas and cooperate.

That would require leadership, humility and effort. So it ain't gonna happen.

.

 

[Freewill]

.

Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy. People who don't allow themselves to be consumed by absolutist ideology, those who understand the delicate, intricate and symbiotic nature and relationships of domestic and international markets, business psychology and government involvement.

Not holding my breath, of course. It's so much easier for naive narcissists to point the finger at each other and spout platitudes.

.

Using the 2008 crash as an example what do you think that the government did to caused the crash? It seems to me that we the people bailed out a whole lot of companies that were lead by people, I assume, fit the description you provide.

Plenty of villains in the Meltdown, from the government to the mortgage and bond rating industries to consumers.

As far as the government is concerned, the three largest blunders were the repeal of Glass Steagall, loose (at best) attention paid to Fannie & Freddie after standards were lowered, and the abject failure of regulatory agencies to identify (let alone act upon) the massive leverage built up in the system and the widespread, manic sale of comically opaque derivatives.

Of course, right on cue, the partisan ideologues will dismiss that and just point the finger at "the other guys". The righties will deny that widespread greed and corruption in private industry played a role, the lefties will deny that government and consumers played a role. And the noise will continue.

It was all "their" fault. Those guys, over there.

.

"Well now that is interesting and in all likelihood true. But I find your response interesting in light of your first statement: Both ends of the political spectrum would be doing the country a great favor by just sticking what they do best -- personal insults, lies and name-calling -- and by letting more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults to work on the economy."

I am not saying I disagree but the whole problem, in my opinion, was caused by allowing "more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults" or the buisness community, run the show. Which of course is correct but it seems to me that the government did nothing wrong in that they allowed businesses to run their businesses and we see what happened.

Yes, the government let them loose but they didn't have to do that which looked profitable but was idiotic.

My opinion, we could have a business atmosphere clear of government interference IF business did in fact have people who were, clear-thinking and pragmatic adults, instead of short term greedy bastards.

I guess what it comes down to is where do we get people who are more clear-thinking and pragmatic adults? Considering that the melt down wasn't caused by government interference but by what you say the lack there of.

Well, the only way this would be done - and I'm not predicting this by any stretch, mind you - would be for a group of people from all areas involved to come together and work out some new ideas and cooperate.

That would require leadership, humility and effort. So it ain't gonna happen.

.

That is why I say we need to elect someone like Romney or Trump. To hell with ideologues that think what they do is "for the little guy." When in fact they are doing exactly the opposite.

Even at that we have all sorts of business groups meeting and discussing nothing but business. That, in my opinion, is how we got where we were in 2008. Government loosened the reigns and greedy bastards took advantage. Worse yet, we then BAILED them OUT.

If we want fairness to business and the people we need a congress that has our interests in mind. Yes, it is great to want to help the poor but what we have been doing certainly has helped no one.

Warren? Hillary? You got to be kidding me. If they are nominated and worse elected it tells me that the electorate doesn't give a crap about the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy"

It's not so much a poor understanding but their blind adherence to failed conservative fiscal dogma, the inability of most on the right to be fiscally pragmatic, and the unwillingness to pursue economic policies predicated on objective facts and evidence.

So yes, as a consequence of their blind adherence to failed conservative fiscal dogma, republicans are in no position to be making economic policy decisions - their continued advocacy of 'trickle-down' economics and propensity toward unwarranted, reckless, and irresponsible deregulation being two glaring examples.

Lemme see: Democrats had unfettered access to making law for the first two years. The results have been disaster: slow growth, high unemployment, high government dependence, a decimated workforce, and flat income.
Remind me how much better Democrat policies are than the GOP's.
Bush inherited a recession and turned it around in 18 months.
Obama inherited a recession and a majority of Americans think it isnt over yet.