Just more of your insane lies, you stupid crazy shit. Get off of the board if all you do is lie all of the time.
I'm starting to think you don't understand the meaning of the word "lie" and you think it means "anything other than what Neubarth thinks."
So, as I often do, I'm giving you the chance to point out my lies (which you never do).
I said: "Toro presented data from the BEA." True or False?
"The numbers were pretty plain." True, or False?
"You're free to present your own data and demonstrate why it's more reliable." True, or False?
And the last part was a rhetorical question, so not really subject to being true or false, "But you've never been big on facts or evidence, have you?" but you could certainly have replied with your own opinion on how much facts and evidence (as opposed to opinion and unsupported claims) you usually present.
So again....which of my statements was a lie?
The FED has (at Obama's request) bought nearly two trillion worth of toxic assets in the United States and in foreign countries.
I wasn't aware of that...don't get a whole lot of news here, so a cite would be helpful so I could see the numbers for myself.
That you stupid shit is money infusion into the economy.
Buying a foreign asset is not an infusion of money into the economy; quite the opposite. For that matter, neither is buying a domestic asset, that's just a redistribution of money within the economy.
I do have a degree in this, you know.
That in turn allows for investment in the economy. Remember the formula you stupid shit?
Yes, but apparently you don't, because you're getting it wrong.
[quoteThe Obama administration has been pumping money galor into the economy in the form of income tax reductions, house purchase credits, new car purchase cash and a hundred other benefits, including a million new Federal Employees who have paychecks that they would not have were it not for the beneficence of Obama. CASH! CASH! CASH![/quote]Actually most of it isn't cash, but that's another story. Secondly, tax reductions, house purchase credits, and many other benefits don't add money into the economy. Tax reductions raise Consumer spending and lower Government Revenue (which may or may not affect Government Spending) but they don't introduce more money into the economy. Same thing with house purchase credits, though since purchas of a house is also an investment, I'm not sure how that would be allocated.
THEN STUPID IDIOTIC NINCOMPOOPS COME ON THIS BOARD AND LIE LIKE HELL SAYING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE FED HAVE DONE NOTHING AND THAT THE SO CALLED POSITIVE GDP ARE REAL.
Well, GDP is an accounting tool...it's as real as anything else in finance and accounting. I have no idea why you want to discount government involvement at all, but it also does not change the FACT of what Consumption and Government Spending are.
Somehow you want to say that since people pay less taxes, their extra consumption doesn't count? Or that a shift from money allocated to G goes to C or I instead invalidates the increases in those categories. Is that correct? Of course, even though I'm asking for clarification, my bet is that you'll say I'm lying about your position. Which is very bizzarre.