3 stupid myths republicans believe

[Oldstyle]

Sure ... 37.2% unemployment ... exactly how retarded are you rightwingnuts?

You honestly think that 6.7 unemployment figure is a true depiction of the current job situation, with those who have run out of unemployment and are unable to find work? I mean you have heard of U-6, haven't you? How about the misery index? Just how delusional do you have to be to think the economy is actually improving for that 6.7 figure to be accurate?

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

The misery index isn't an economic indicator? Really? Since the misery index is determined by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate how do you figure neither of THOSE are economic indicators? Oh, let me guess...you don't have the faintest fucking idea what the Misery Index is...do you? Yet you come on here and spout off about "retarded" rightwingnuts? You're a piece of work...

 

[Faun]

You honestly think that 6.7 unemployment figure is a true depiction of the current job situation, with those who have run out of unemployment and are unable to find work? I mean you have heard of U-6, haven't you? How about the misery index? Just how delusional do you have to be to think the economy is actually improving for that 6.7 figure to be accurate?

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

The misery index isn't an economic indicator? Really? Since the misery index is determined by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate how do you figure neither of THOSE are economic indicators? Oh, let me guess...you don't have the faintest fucking idea what the Misery Index is...do you? Yet you come on here and spout off about "retarded" rightwingnuts? You're a piece of work...

You're claiming the misery index is an economic indicator and I'm the one who's a "piece of work?"

Here, watch as I make you look like an idiot ....

which of the following two examples of the misery index reveals the better economy ....

a) a misery index of 8; or
b) a misery index of 5

 

[Mertex]

Just one question, Deanie...is the Middle East more stable or less stable after five years of Obama foreign policy? Anyone looking at what's going on there NOW is going to be hard pressed to point to Obama foreign policy successes and is going to have an even harder time telling you what the Obama Middle East policy is going forward. Why? Because this Administration really doesn't HAVE a Middle East policy! After five years they don't know what to do!

The Dictators who had their heavy artillery aimed at their people during GW, or any other president, represented a more stable Middle East?
Is suppression of speech your definition of stability?

Ah, I hate to point out the OBVIOUS, Indie...but George W. Bush did something about the dictator who was killing his own people! As opposed to Barack Obama who drew a red line in the sand over Assad using chemical weapons against his people and then when push came to shove declared that he hadn't REALLY drawn that line at all!

Ha,ha, how's that KoolAid working for you. George Bush didn't go in to Iraq to get rid of the dictator because he was killing his own people....he went in so Cheney could make some money via HaliBurton....actually, he went in because Cheney wanted him to go in. And they made up some bullshit story about WMDs, which didn't even exist.
At least Obama didn't cause over 4000+ American's deaths, like Bush....I guess that makes you very proud? By working things out, Obama saved American lives, but what do you care, you probably wouldn't have volunteered to go....

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1991 when he created a contract vehicle for and gave contracts to Halliburton that resulted in millions of dollars of revenue. After leaving the administration Cheney served as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Then he became Vice President and Halliburton was awarded hundreds of millions of dollars of non-competitive contracts as part of the Gulf War in 2003.
Halliburton's Crooked Contracts*

The top civilian contracting official for the Army Corps of Engineers, charging that the Army granted the Halliburton Company large contracts for work in Iraq and the Balkans without following rules designed to ensure competition and fair prices to the government, has called for a high-level investigation of what she described as threats to the "integrity of the federal contracting program.". .In an Oct. 21 letter to the acting Army secretary, Ms. Greenhouse said that after her repeated questions about the Halliburton contracts, she was excluded from major decisions to award money and that her job status was threatened. . .The contracts to Halliburton, a Houston-based conglomerate headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, . . .involving work for more than $10 billion, have also been dogged by charges of overbilling and waste ERIK ECKHOLM, NY Times, 10/25/04

Cheney Halliburton Circle of Corruption

 

[Oldstyle]

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

The misery index isn't an economic indicator? Really? Since the misery index is determined by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate how do you figure neither of THOSE are economic indicators? Oh, let me guess...you don't have the faintest fucking idea what the Misery Index is...do you? Yet you come on here and spout off about "retarded" rightwingnuts? You're a piece of work...

You're claiming the misery index is an economic indicator and I'm the one who's a "piece of work?"

Here, watch as I make you look like an idiot ....

which of the following two examples of the misery index reveals the better economy ....

a) a misery index of 8; or
b) a misery index of 5

Define "better economy". The REASON the Misery Index was created in the first place was as a more accurate assessment of how the economy was affecting people's everyday lives. Are you making the claim that the unemployment rate isn't an economic indicator? Or that the rate of inflation isn't an economic indicator? Let me guess...you don't know what the term economic indicator MEANS either...do you?

 

[Faun]

The misery index isn't an economic indicator? Really? Since the misery index is determined by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate how do you figure neither of THOSE are economic indicators? Oh, let me guess...you don't have the faintest fucking idea what the Misery Index is...do you? Yet you come on here and spout off about "retarded" rightwingnuts? You're a piece of work...

You're claiming the misery index is an economic indicator and I'm the one who's a "piece of work?"

Here, watch as I make you look like an idiot ....

which of the following two examples of the misery index reveals the better economy ....

a) a misery index of 8; or
b) a misery index of 5

Define "better economy". The REASON the Misery Index was created in the first place was as a more accurate assessment of how the economy was affecting people's everyday lives. Are you making the claim that the unemployment rate isn't an economic indicator? Or that the rate of inflation isn't an economic indicator? Let me guess...you don't know what the term economic indicator MEANS either...do you?

Moron... that you couldn't answer the question shows the misery index is not an economic indicator. To further highlight your idiocy, I never said the unemployment rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. I never said the inflation rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. What I said was that the misery index is not an economic indicator; which you proved by not being able to determine between two examples of the misery index.

This is also a prime example of why I find rightwingnuts to be such raging retards.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Dictators who had their heavy artillery aimed at their people during GW, or any other president, represented a more stable Middle East?
Is suppression of speech your definition of stability?

Ah, I hate to point out the OBVIOUS, Indie...but George W. Bush did something about the dictator who was killing his own people! As opposed to Barack Obama who drew a red line in the sand over Assad using chemical weapons against his people and then when push came to shove declared that he hadn't REALLY drawn that line at all!

Ha,ha, how's that KoolAid working for you. George Bush didn't go in to Iraq to get rid of the dictator because he was killing his own people....he went in so Cheney could make some money via HaliBurton....actually, he went in because Cheney wanted him to go in. And they made up some bullshit story about WMDs, which didn't even exist.
At least Obama didn't cause over 4000+ American's deaths, like Bush....I guess that makes you very proud? By working things out, Obama saved American lives, but what do you care, you probably wouldn't have volunteered to go....

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1991 when he created a contract vehicle for and gave contracts to Halliburton that resulted in millions of dollars of revenue. After leaving the administration Cheney served as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Then he became Vice President and Halliburton was awarded hundreds of millions of dollars of non-competitive contracts as part of the Gulf War in 2003.
Halliburton's Crooked Contracts*

The top civilian contracting official for the Army Corps of Engineers, charging that the Army granted the Halliburton Company large contracts for work in Iraq and the Balkans without following rules designed to ensure competition and fair prices to the government, has called for a high-level investigation of what she described as threats to the "integrity of the federal contracting program.". .In an Oct. 21 letter to the acting Army secretary, Ms. Greenhouse said that after her repeated questions about the Halliburton contracts, she was excluded from major decisions to award money and that her job status was threatened. . .The contracts to Halliburton, a Houston-based conglomerate headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, . . .involving work for more than $10 billion, have also been dogged by charges of overbilling and waste ERIK ECKHOLM, NY Times, 10/25/04

Cheney Halliburton Circle of Corruption

Gee, I thought the tin hat progressives were claiming we went into Iraq because we wanted to steal their oil! Now it's because Dick Cheney was going to make money through Haliburton? How about we went in because Saddam Hussein was a sociopath who wasn't abiding by the conditions imposed on him following the first Gulf War?

 

[Oldstyle]

You're claiming the misery index is an economic indicator and I'm the one who's a "piece of work?"

Here, watch as I make you look like an idiot ....

which of the following two examples of the misery index reveals the better economy ....

a) a misery index of 8; or
b) a misery index of 5

Define "better economy". The REASON the Misery Index was created in the first place was as a more accurate assessment of how the economy was affecting people's everyday lives. Are you making the claim that the unemployment rate isn't an economic indicator? Or that the rate of inflation isn't an economic indicator? Let me guess...you don't know what the term economic indicator MEANS either...do you?

Moron... that you couldn't answer the question shows the misery index is not an economic indicator. To further highlight your idiocy, I never said the unemployment rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. I never said the inflation rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. What I said was that the misery index is not an economic indicator; which you proved by not being able to determine between two examples of the misery index.

This is also a prime example of why I find rightwingnuts to be such raging retards.

So let me see if I've got this straight...you admit that the unemployment rate IS an economic indicator...and you admit that the inflation rate IS an economic indicator...but you deny that the Misery Index (which is obtained by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate) is an economic indicator?

Do you have any idea how stupid you look making that argument? YOU are a prime example why liberals are clueless when it comes to economics!

 

[Faun]

Define "better economy". The REASON the Misery Index was created in the first place was as a more accurate assessment of how the economy was affecting people's everyday lives. Are you making the claim that the unemployment rate isn't an economic indicator? Or that the rate of inflation isn't an economic indicator? Let me guess...you don't know what the term economic indicator MEANS either...do you?

Moron... that you couldn't answer the question shows the misery index is not an economic indicator. To further highlight your idiocy, I never said the unemployment rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. I never said the inflation rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. What I said was that the misery index is not an economic indicator; which you proved by not being able to determine between two examples of the misery index.

This is also a prime example of why I find rightwingnuts to be such raging retards.

So let me see if I've got this straight...you admit that the unemployment rate IS an economic indicator...and you admit that the inflation rate IS an economic indicator...but you deny that the Misery Index (which is obtained by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate) is an economic indicator?

Do you have any idea how stupid you look making that argument?

Cries the imbecile who couldn't determine if a misery index of 8 indicates a better economy than a misery index of 5.



This demonstrates how little you know about the economy. Don't worry, that's typical for retarded rightwingnuts.

If I compared an unemployment rate of 4% to one of 8%, the former indicates a better economy. If I compared an inflation rate of 2% with one of 10%, the former indicates a better economy.

But when comparing two examples of the misery index, you were incapable of showing which of the two indicated a better economy.

Do you need more evidence you're an idiot?

 

[Meister]

The Dictators who had their heavy artillery aimed at their people during GW, or any other president, represented a more stable Middle East?
Is suppression of speech your definition of stability?

Ah, I hate to point out the OBVIOUS, Indie...but George W. Bush did something about the dictator who was killing his own people! As opposed to Barack Obama who drew a red line in the sand over Assad using chemical weapons against his people and then when push came to shove declared that he hadn't REALLY drawn that line at all!

Ha,ha, how's that KoolAid working for you. George Bush didn't go in to Iraq to get rid of the dictator because he was killing his own people....he went in so Cheney could make some money via HaliBurton....actually, he went in because Cheney wanted him to go in. And they made up some bullshit story about WMDs, which didn't even exist.
At least Obama didn't cause over 4000+ American's deaths, like Bush....I guess that makes you very proud? By working things out, Obama saved American lives, but what do you care, you probably wouldn't have volunteered to go....

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1991 when he created a contract vehicle for and gave contracts to Halliburton that resulted in millions of dollars of revenue. After leaving the administration Cheney served as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. Then he became Vice President and Halliburton was awarded hundreds of millions of dollars of non-competitive contracts as part of the Gulf War in 2003.
Halliburton's Crooked Contracts*

The top civilian contracting official for the Army Corps of Engineers, charging that the Army granted the Halliburton Company large contracts for work in Iraq and the Balkans without following rules designed to ensure competition and fair prices to the government, has called for a high-level investigation of what she described as threats to the "integrity of the federal contracting program.". .In an Oct. 21 letter to the acting Army secretary, Ms. Greenhouse said that after her repeated questions about the Halliburton contracts, she was excluded from major decisions to award money and that her job status was threatened. . .The contracts to Halliburton, a Houston-based conglomerate headed by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, . . .involving work for more than $10 billion, have also been dogged by charges of overbilling and waste ERIK ECKHOLM, NY Times, 10/25/04

Cheney Halliburton Circle of Corruption

Actually Haliburton is an infrastructure building company that has exposure throughout the world. They're not just based in the US, but in several counties and are shovel ready. Not too many companies have this kind of exosure. One of the main reason their type of work is on a no bid basis. It would take years to process a bid contract and to get companies wired up and moved to a country to begin the contract. This had nothing to do with Cheney.....it just is what it is.
When he was vice president and our government used Haliburton, his money wasn't invested in Haliburton.
Haiburton being dogged with charges? But, notice nothing ever became of them, which lends one to think it was politically motivated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FOX News is fair and balanced

 

[Oldstyle]

Moron... that you couldn't answer the question shows the misery index is not an economic indicator. To further highlight your idiocy, I never said the unemployment rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. I never said the inflation rate is not an economic indicator. Of course it is. What I said was that the misery index is not an economic indicator; which you proved by not being able to determine between two examples of the misery index.

This is also a prime example of why I find rightwingnuts to be such raging retards.

So let me see if I've got this straight...you admit that the unemployment rate IS an economic indicator...and you admit that the inflation rate IS an economic indicator...but you deny that the Misery Index (which is obtained by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate) is an economic indicator?

Do you have any idea how stupid you look making that argument?

Cries the imbecile who couldn't determine if a misery index of 8 indicates a better economy than a misery index of 5.



This demonstrates how little you know about the economy. Don't worry, that's typical for retarded rightwingnuts.

If I compared an unemployment rate of 4% to one of 8%, the former indicates a better economy. If I compared an inflation rate of 2% with one of 10%, the former indicates a better economy.

But when comparing two examples of the misery index, you were incapable of showing which of the two indicated a better economy.

Do you need more evidence you're an idiot?

I didn't answer your idiotic question because I was so flabbergasted that you could make the claim that the two things that make up the Misery Index are economic indicators yet the Misery Index is not. Kindly explain how THAT is possible!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

It would be akin to saying A is white and B is white...but when you add A and B together...they are black.

But you don't seem to grasp the absurdity of what you're saying...it's an amazing display of ignorance...

 

[Oldstyle]

As for what would indicate a better economy...once again I ask you to define "better".

For someone who is out of work...a lower unemployment number would be "better". If someone is working then a lower inflation number would be "better". The Misery Index number might remain exactly the same and have it's components change dramatically...which would mean different things for different people.

 

[OnePercenter]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

2) The leadership sure leans that way. Progressives called themselves progressives because they believe in progresing society towards socialism/communism step by step. Through evolution rather than revolution. When progressives were exposed in the 1920s, they scared the heck out of the population and so rebranded themselves as liberals, while traditional "liberal" viewpoints were adopted by conservatives and libertarians.

3) Who the heck are you to determine what too wealthy is? If someone is blessed more for his labor, why should I have a right to force him to pay for what I want to be done? Why should I be angry at my brother because of his success? Rather, I should rejoice in it. And persuade and encourage him to use his resources wisely. But how he ultimately uses it is between him and God. Why do you want to be a robber in your heart?

The Laffer Curve? You mean the Ford-Cheney-Rumsfeld curve? Simplistic with a shitload of assumptions.

 

[The Rabbi]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

2) The leadership sure leans that way. Progressives called themselves progressives because they believe in progresing society towards socialism/communism step by step. Through evolution rather than revolution. When progressives were exposed in the 1920s, they scared the heck out of the population and so rebranded themselves as liberals, while traditional "liberal" viewpoints were adopted by conservatives and libertarians.

3) Who the heck are you to determine what too wealthy is? If someone is blessed more for his labor, why should I have a right to force him to pay for what I want to be done? Why should I be angry at my brother because of his success? Rather, I should rejoice in it. And persuade and encourage him to use his resources wisely. But how he ultimately uses it is between him and God. Why do you want to be a robber in your heart?

The Laffer Curve? You mean the Ford-Cheney-Rumsfeld curve? Simplistic with a shitload of assumptions.

Because you're much smarter than Art Laffer?
:

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Tax cuts pay for themselves.

Wrong. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the government needs to borrow to pay their bills. It's so obnoxious when repubs complain of gov spending yet are too ignorant to realize tax cutting leads to more borrowing. You think over spending is the only reason for our debt? No, it is also because of Bush's tax cuts.

2) Liberals are socialists/communists

Also wrong. We are talking about fundamental definitions of words here. Saying liberals are socialists is just as stupid as saying conservatives are liberals.

3) The wealthy are not too wealthy.

95% of income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners despite the fact that the lower classes are responsible for most of the productivity. In fact, productivity has grown exponentially in the lower classes since the 30s yet wages have remained flat.

1) They do pay for themselves. You see, if you have more people paying taxes on more economic activity you can actually make MORE money then you currently have. In fact, every time taxes are cut, the economy improves and the treasury brings more money in. It's called the Laffer Curve, look it up.

2) The leadership sure leans that way. Progressives called themselves progressives because they believe in progresing society towards socialism/communism step by step. Through evolution rather than revolution. When progressives were exposed in the 1920s, they scared the heck out of the population and so rebranded themselves as liberals, while traditional "liberal" viewpoints were adopted by conservatives and libertarians.

3) Who the heck are you to determine what too wealthy is? If someone is blessed more for his labor, why should I have a right to force him to pay for what I want to be done? Why should I be angry at my brother because of his success? Rather, I should rejoice in it. And persuade and encourage him to use his resources wisely. But how he ultimately uses it is between him and God. Why do you want to be a robber in your heart?

The Laffer Curve? You mean the Ford-Cheney-Rumsfeld curve? Simplistic with a shitload of assumptions.

The Laffer Curve was conceived before Cheney, Rumsfeld or Ford came to any prominence in American politics. Franky the ideas and concepts behind it were in existence before any of us were born. And If you are indeed referring to Gerald R. Ford, I doubt he had any fundamental knowledge of the tax system or macroeconomics outside of his advisers, which were none other than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Neither of whom are or ever were economists.

Would it surprise you to know that the idea behind Laffer Curve was conceptualized by men such as John Maynard Keynes? Yes, that's the one.The other influence behind this was Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), the universally recognized founding father of economics. Laffer gave credit to both of these men's ideas for helping him develop and further attune the Curve. So, as you can see, neither Ford, Cheney nor Rumsfeld had anything to do with it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Sure ... 37.2% unemployment ... exactly how retarded are you rightwingnuts?

You honestly think that 6.7 unemployment figure is a true depiction of the current job situation, with those who have run out of unemployment and are unable to find work? I mean you have heard of U-6, haven't you? How about the misery index? Just how delusional do you have to be to think the economy is actually improving for that 6.7 figure to be accurate?

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

When faced with the tools of how an individual makes an more educated assessment of how the economy is more accurately doing, you still choose to make a feeble attempt to actually try and DEFEND the lower 6.7 unemployment figure? You would have appeared more "knowledgable" on the subject if you were actually capable of at least defending your answer, instead of wasting a post with nothing but empty rhetoric. Simply calling someone retarded may help stroke your ego, but I doubt many here are really that impressed with your response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sure ... 37.2% unemployment ... exactly how retarded are you rightwingnuts?

You honestly think that 6.7 unemployment figure is a true depiction of the current job situation, with those who have run out of unemployment and are unable to find work? I mean you have heard of U-6, haven't you? How about the misery index? Just how delusional do you have to be to think the economy is actually improving for that 6.7 figure to be accurate?

Thanks, your answer to my question is exactly the answer I expected. You rightwingnuts are completely retarded. I said nothing about the U3 rate versus the U6 rate nor did I say anything about the misery index (which is not actually an economic indicator anyway). What I did was question just how retarded you rightwingnuts have to be to accept the idiotic notion that the unemployment rate is 37.2%.

Geez, thanks for proving to the rest of us how unstable you are. But hey, we're all just "retarded."

 

[Faun]

So let me see if I've got this straight...you admit that the unemployment rate IS an economic indicator...and you admit that the inflation rate IS an economic indicator...but you deny that the Misery Index (which is obtained by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate) is an economic indicator?

Do you have any idea how stupid you look making that argument?

Cries the imbecile who couldn't determine if a misery index of 8 indicates a better economy than a misery index of 5.



This demonstrates how little you know about the economy. Don't worry, that's typical for retarded rightwingnuts.

If I compared an unemployment rate of 4% to one of 8%, the former indicates a better economy. If I compared an inflation rate of 2% with one of 10%, the former indicates a better economy.

But when comparing two examples of the misery index, you were incapable of showing which of the two indicated a better economy.

Do you need more evidence you're an idiot?

I didn't answer your idiotic question because I was so flabbergasted that you could make the claim that the two things that make up the Misery Index are economic indicators yet the Misery Index is not. Kindly explain how THAT is possible!!!

You`re a funny idiot, I'll grant you that. You claim that I`m wrong but then rather than demonstate I'm wrong by answering a question I claim can't be answered, you prove me right by not answering it. You actually thought you could bluff your way out of the corner you boxed yourself into with your nonsensical feigned flabbergast.

And here's why you couldn't answer it....

Which of the following 2 misery indexes indicates the better economy, a) 8; or b) 5? There is no answer because either of them can, it depends on the underlying indicators...

The answer could be (b) if it's comprised of an unemployment rate of 3% with 2% inflation; compared to (a) 8% unemployment rate with 0% inflation.

Or the answer could be a) if it's comprised of an unemployment rate of 5% with 3% inflation and (b) is 8% unemployment with 3% deflation.

You don't know which indicates a better economy because the misery index doesn't indicate which is. And the reason it doesn't is because deflation , which can be worse than inflation, LOWERS the misery index.

Here's a real life example.... in April, 1997, the economy was doing very well with 5.1% unemployment and 2.3% infation. Comparatively speaking, in July, 2009, the economy sucked with 9.5% unemployment and 2.1% deflation. The former producing a misery index of 7.4 with the latter also producing a misery index of 7.4. According to your moronic claim, the misery index "indicates" the economy in July, 2009 was as good as the economy was in April, 1997.

But thanks, you proved to be a very useful tool for me in demonstrating yet again just how fucking retarded rightwingnuts are.

 

[Faun]

It would be akin to saying A is white and B is white...but when you add A and B together...they are black.

But you don't seem to grasp the absurdity of what you're saying...it's an amazing display of ignorance...

No, it would not be akin to that since neither a nor b in your analogy can lessen the sum total of white in that example. As opposed to the misery index where one of the two components can be negative, causing an artificial improvement on the sum total.