US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

You know, I do not claim to be smart. But I do claim to be old. And I have spent a lot of time trying to understand several friends and a couple relatives who are right wing nut case. Like Oldstyle, you can take ANY subject and know what they are going to say before they open their mouths or type their responses. And I understand, at this point where it is coming from.
I also know that what they are saying is a response provided for them by well paid right wing operatives who develop the talking points, and that if you simply assume that what they support will be good for the very rich (who pay the bill for the talking point development and distribution) and bad for the middle class you will be correct. And, in the case of Oldstyle and several others out there, I know that they are paid to post their drivel.
So, with oldstyle, you get the normal right wing dogma, and you see it repeated over and over and over again. You see that he acknowledges only those opposing views that he has talking points to attack them with. The other opposing views he ignores, pretending over and over that he never heard them.
As I said, I have friends and relatives who are caught in this nonsense, who believe it fully, and attack those who do not buy their dogma as the enemy. To them, we are the enemy. To us, of course, we simply are trying to ferret out the truth. Which, unfortunately, they do not want to hear and do not want said to their audience.
So the real problem is determining which are simply right wing nut cases. My relatives and friends are typical examples. But then there are the web sites out there where discussion is encouraged. And there you find PAID right wingcon tools. Paid, that is, to post their dogma and to end discussion not going their way. Sad cases, of course, who are willing to lie for money. Most people have more integrity than to be paid tools, but some are willing to post their dogma. Whether they believe what they say is immaterial. They are part of the paid right wing force out there working for the wealthy that support them.
It is a breath of fresh air whenever I run into those willing to take on the "oldstyles" of the world, and look for what the rest of the world knows as truth. Truth which is not what you want to believe, not what a group of others believe, and not what makes you angry because you like being angry. But truth based on evidence, studies, journalistic principles, and in general what the majority of the population believes based on those principles.
And thanks for your open minded look at the real world. I love the fact that the majority of us believe what we believe based on an effort to be correct and fair with the subjects we look at. We can sit back, to some degree, and simply laugh at the oldstyles of thie world.

 

[Rshermr]

I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.

So Reagan wasn't as great as they say? Stupid? Gullible?

Lying welsher is more like it!

Reagan was a politician. Which is the same thing as saying he was a liar. But in his defense, he had alzheimer's. Poor guy could probably not help himself. Just keeping people from seeing his keepers wiping the drivel off of his chin was a major concern for them.

 

[Rshermr]

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

 

[rdean]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

And how many are of those illegals and still working minimum wage? Cheap labor. The Americans who can no longer qualify for unemployment benefits don't count in the statistics. The government leaves the homeless out as well as illegals. The government neglect to mention entrepreneurs working from home and retired people who have been released from their job position but still need extra income beyond SSI.

Where do the statistics come from?
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. This does not include the people who don't file unemployment at Dept of Labor

Actually, how many of those are Republican. Remember, Republicans are against education. How do we know? They tell us through their policies and party platform.

 

[Faun]

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.

 

[Oldstyle]

Time for you to run away? Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts? Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling. Bill Clinton understands that. It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam. If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

 

[Oldstyle]

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

You know, I do not claim to be smart. But I do claim to be old. And I have spent a lot of time trying to understand several friends and a couple relatives who are right wing nut case. Like Oldstyle, you can take ANY subject and know what they are going to say before they open their mouths or type their responses. And I understand, at this point where it is coming from.
I also know that what they are saying is a response provided for them by well paid right wing operatives who develop the talking points, and that if you simply assume that what they support will be good for the very rich (who pay the bill for the talking point development and distribution) and bad for the middle class you will be correct. And, in the case of Oldstyle and several others out there, I know that they are paid to post their drivel.
So, with oldstyle, you get the normal right wing dogma, and you see it repeated over and over and over again. You see that he acknowledges only those opposing views that he has talking points to attack them with. The other opposing views he ignores, pretending over and over that he never heard them.
As I said, I have friends and relatives who are caught in this nonsense, who believe it fully, and attack those who do not buy their dogma as the enemy. To them, we are the enemy. To us, of course, we simply are trying to ferret out the truth. Which, unfortunately, they do not want to hear and do not want said to their audience.
So the real problem is determining which are simply right wing nut cases. My relatives and friends are typical examples. But then there are the web sites out there where discussion is encouraged. And there you find PAID right wingcon tools. Paid, that is, to post their dogma and to end discussion not going their way. Sad cases, of course, who are willing to lie for money. Most people have more integrity than to be paid tools, but some are willing to post their dogma. Whether they believe what they say is immaterial. They are part of the paid right wing force out there working for the wealthy that support them.
It is a breath of fresh air whenever I run into those willing to take on the "oldstyles" of the world, and look for what the rest of the world knows as truth. Truth which is not what you want to believe, not what a group of others believe, and not what makes you angry because you like being angry. But truth based on evidence, studies, journalistic principles, and in general what the majority of the population believes based on those principles.
And thanks for your open minded look at the real world. I love the fact that the majority of us believe what we believe based on an effort to be correct and fair with the subjects we look at. We can sit back, to some degree, and simply laugh at the oldstyles of thie world.

Nah, you just claim to have a college degree in economics...yet you didn't know what the Chicago School referred to! You're so full of shit it's laughable! You're not here on some noble search for the truth...you're here to tell lies.

 

[Faun]

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

 

[sealybobo]

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

 

[Rshermr]

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

You know, I do not claim to be smart. But I do claim to be old. And I have spent a lot of time trying to understand several friends and a couple relatives who are right wing nut case. Like Oldstyle, you can take ANY subject and know what they are going to say before they open their mouths or type their responses. And I understand, at this point where it is coming from.
I also know that what they are saying is a response provided for them by well paid right wing operatives who develop the talking points, and that if you simply assume that what they support will be good for the very rich (who pay the bill for the talking point development and distribution) and bad for the middle class you will be correct. And, in the case of Oldstyle and several others out there, I know that they are paid to post their drivel.
So, with oldstyle, you get the normal right wing dogma, and you see it repeated over and over and over again. You see that he acknowledges only those opposing views that he has talking points to attack them with. The other opposing views he ignores, pretending over and over that he never heard them.
As I said, I have friends and relatives who are caught in this nonsense, who believe it fully, and attack those who do not buy their dogma as the enemy. To them, we are the enemy. To us, of course, we simply are trying to ferret out the truth. Which, unfortunately, they do not want to hear and do not want said to their audience.
So the real problem is determining which are simply right wing nut cases. My relatives and friends are typical examples. But then there are the web sites out there where discussion is encouraged. And there you find PAID right wingcon tools. Paid, that is, to post their dogma and to end discussion not going their way. Sad cases, of course, who are willing to lie for money. Most people have more integrity than to be paid tools, but some are willing to post their dogma. Whether they believe what they say is immaterial. They are part of the paid right wing force out there working for the wealthy that support them.
It is a breath of fresh air whenever I run into those willing to take on the "oldstyles" of the world, and look for what the rest of the world knows as truth. Truth which is not what you want to believe, not what a group of others believe, and not what makes you angry because you like being angry. But truth based on evidence, studies, journalistic principles, and in general what the majority of the population believes based on those principles.
And thanks for your open minded look at the real world. I love the fact that the majority of us believe what we believe based on an effort to be correct and fair with the subjects we look at. We can sit back, to some degree, and simply laugh at the oldstyles of thie world.

Nah, you just claim to have a college degree in economics...yet you didn't know what the Chicago School referred to! You're so full of shit it's laughable! You're not here on some noble search for the truth...you're here to tell lies.

Now, now oldstyle. We all know who you are. But about my degree in economics. This is about the 50th time you have tried that old lie. Now, as I have always said, find the correct person to judge if my credentials are true, and I will meet any bet you would like to put out there. $10K ok with you? We simply let them look at the diploma I have and judge if it is valid, call the college if you would like to require it, and if it is a valid degree, you pay. Otherwise, you just made $10K. If a person with integrity makes a claim like you just did and have in the past, they would back up their claim. But you, me poor ignorant con tool, you simply make claims and run. You can add my other degree, if you would like, and we can agree to $10K each. Show your integrity (like you had any!!) and lets make some money flow.
But, of course, you will not, because you know better. Just another personal attack, and another lie. Poor little dish washer.
Thing is, as you know, I have a couple years of experience with your personal attacks. You have lots of attack, but NO ability to back up your mouth. Lets see, once I mentioned a secretary I had had years before, and you attacked that. I suggested a bet, and you gave up on that one. Then I mentioned working with some executives at BP in Alaska, and you said I claimed to be a BP Executive. So I showed you my post, and that I said no such thing, and you had to back off again. Really, dipshit, all you have shown over the years is that you have no integrity at all, and that as soon as you loose your "economic argument", you scurry away. No nerve, no integrity.
Here is your problem, me poor ignorant con tool, I never ever lie. I do not feel I have anything to lie about. Lying is your purview, not mine.

 

[Oldstyle]

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

You know, I do not claim to be smart. But I do claim to be old. And I have spent a lot of time trying to understand several friends and a couple relatives who are right wing nut case. Like Oldstyle, you can take ANY subject and know what they are going to say before they open their mouths or type their responses. And I understand, at this point where it is coming from.
I also know that what they are saying is a response provided for them by well paid right wing operatives who develop the talking points, and that if you simply assume that what they support will be good for the very rich (who pay the bill for the talking point development and distribution) and bad for the middle class you will be correct. And, in the case of Oldstyle and several others out there, I know that they are paid to post their drivel.
So, with oldstyle, you get the normal right wing dogma, and you see it repeated over and over and over again. You see that he acknowledges only those opposing views that he has talking points to attack them with. The other opposing views he ignores, pretending over and over that he never heard them.
As I said, I have friends and relatives who are caught in this nonsense, who believe it fully, and attack those who do not buy their dogma as the enemy. To them, we are the enemy. To us, of course, we simply are trying to ferret out the truth. Which, unfortunately, they do not want to hear and do not want said to their audience.
So the real problem is determining which are simply right wing nut cases. My relatives and friends are typical examples. But then there are the web sites out there where discussion is encouraged. And there you find PAID right wingcon tools. Paid, that is, to post their dogma and to end discussion not going their way. Sad cases, of course, who are willing to lie for money. Most people have more integrity than to be paid tools, but some are willing to post their dogma. Whether they believe what they say is immaterial. They are part of the paid right wing force out there working for the wealthy that support them.
It is a breath of fresh air whenever I run into those willing to take on the "oldstyles" of the world, and look for what the rest of the world knows as truth. Truth which is not what you want to believe, not what a group of others believe, and not what makes you angry because you like being angry. But truth based on evidence, studies, journalistic principles, and in general what the majority of the population believes based on those principles.
And thanks for your open minded look at the real world. I love the fact that the majority of us believe what we believe based on an effort to be correct and fair with the subjects we look at. We can sit back, to some degree, and simply laugh at the oldstyles of thie world.

Nah, you just claim to have a college degree in economics...yet you didn't know what the Chicago School referred to! You're so full of shit it's laughable! You're not here on some noble search for the truth...you're here to tell lies.

Now, now oldstyle. We all know who you are. But about my degree in economics. This is about the 50th time you have tried that old lie. Now, as I have always said, find the correct person to judge if my credentials are true, and I will meet any bet you would like to put out there $10K ok with you? We simply let them look at the diploma I have and judge if it is valid, call the college if you would like to require it, and if it is a valid degree, you pay. Otherwise, you just made $10K.
But, of course, you will not, because you know better. Just another personal attack, and another lie. Poor little dish washer.

Anyone who claims to be an econ major but doesn't know what the Chicago School refers to is such an obvious liar the discussion stops there. It would be like someone claiming to be an electrician who doesn't know what an amp is. You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr...and not a very good one!

 

[Oldstyle]

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...

 

[Oldstyle]

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?

 

[Rshermr]

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

 

[Rshermr]

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?

Where is the link to W's statement, me boy? Or are you making the obviously stupid claim that anyone should believe you. Dipshit.

 

[Faun]

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!
Now, now oldstyle. Here you are posting your opinion again. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!
Lets be fair, dipshit. I did not accuse you of being a con tool. I accused you of being a PAID con tool. And please, me boy, do not use the term unbiased. You have no ability to be unbiased. But then, most of us understand that the recession was based on the policies of a republican administration. That some dems were involved, we fully understand. So, did you have a point??
How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Ah, but you lie again, me paid con tool. The repubs worked hard to get as much tax decrease into the legislation as they could. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! Another lie, of course. After Kennedy died, there was a tie in congress. Every single republican voted against the legislation, which would have (according to all impartial economists) caused the country to fall into a depression. For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!
well, lets see, me poor dishwasher. We can believe you, or the CBO. But since we know you are a lying con tool, and that the CBO is the most trusted economic source out there, my vote is for the CBO. And, me boy, the cbo among many others say that many many many jobs were created. And shill?\?? We all recognize you, the right wing shill who lies over and over and over.

It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.

That's right.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?

Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

[cue the Barney song...]

 

[Rshermr]

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...

Well, me poor ignorant paid con tool, lets look at that jobs saved statement. Do the experts
understand the concept of "created or saved"?
"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.

• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created."
Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created
Yup, they all know what it is. Only the bat shit crazy con world has been saying saved does not count. Which simply proves: They, and you, are liars, and they and you are apparently incapable of understanding that a saved job is the same as a created job in terms of unemployment.
Jesus, you are a waste of space, dipshit. If we wanted someone to parrot dogma, we could get a copy machine.

 

[Oldstyle]

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I have no integrity? I'm not the person hanging out on an internet chat site pretending to be something I'm not. That would be you. You claimed to have a degree in economics but didn't know what the Chicago School was. My advice to you is that if you're going to pose as something you're not...at least study up on the subject a little so you don't embarrass yourself like you have here.

 

[Faun]

Again, proving you are a con tool. Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy. Obviously you do not, as you know. So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers. And then, me boy, lets be rational. If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K. So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP. Any other method is nonsense. Which, of course, you would like. Because you are a con tool. So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush. Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain. That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/ It is well known by every rational mind in the world. There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over. He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars. Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases. So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted. And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president. The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending? Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed. It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad. Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy. So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions. And quit being an ass hole. Now do us all a favor and **** off.

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation? Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"? I think we both know the answer to that. They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created. You know it...I know it...

What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?

Again....

Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you think his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation.

As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...

This will save jobs and make U.S. exports much more competitive.

... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?

Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.