Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

Let me see if I've got this straight...you tell me that Canada isn't a good comparison to the US because it's economy is smaller than the US but then go on to tell me that I should compare Somalia to the US? Gee, which economy is bigger...Canada or Somalia? Hmmmmm...are you REALLY that stupid? Stupid? No, what was stupid was to think that I was comparing somalia to the us or Canada.. Dipshit. Canada's gdp is about 7% of the us GDP. So, yes I do believe that comparing canadian to us economic effects is stupid. I posted somalia just to make a point, dipshit. No, of course you would never compare somalia to the US. But Somalia is interesting in that it shows what happens when you try to have a libertarian economy. And it is the only libertarian country that I can think of.
As for cutting spending being the same as cutting taxes? They are two completely separate things. The reason Bush's tax cuts failed was that he didn't couple tax cuts with spending cuts. Instead, he cut taxes and increased spending which grew the deficit. Increasing taxes while increasing spending, which is what you're calling for, doesn't work either because tax raises slow down economic growth which stunts revenues while increased spending leads to inflation which is what we're starting to see now. Wrong again, oh great dipshit of the midwest. We are not seeing any inflation. And raising taxes does not create a slowdown anywhere like the increase in economic activity and the decrease in unemployment that stimulus spending causes. Again, why do you believe that Reagan raised taxes and used stimulus spending to get away from the economic mess that his huge tax decrease caused?? The reason that Canada's economy is in much better shape than ours is that they reacted to the recession . And by implementing across the board cuts to government spending whereas we reacted by spending trillions of dollars for stimulus Uh, I beg your pardon. The only stimulus reaction to the recession of 2008 was in the area of $500B, as I had to correct you about in your last post. Get a clue, dipshit. A little honesty goes a long way that we had to borrow elsewhere. Since that stimulus paid for by taxes, your efforts to suggest borrowing is either dishonest, or ignorant

And I would LOVE for you to show me the economic "experts" that are saying Canada isn't in as good economic shape as we are! I did not say that, as you know, dipshit. What I said is that what is true and what is out there, as you are about to understand if you check the links below, is that Canada is not in good economic shape at all. Nothing like your glowing report. But that is what you get if you only do your pittifully small amount of research that you do. And if, like you, you only use con web sites with con writers. So, read away, me poor ignorant boy. That's a hoot Read below, and keep hooting, my poor con tool! The reason Canadians are now worth more than Americans isn't because their economy is in the shitter like ours is...it's because compared to ours...their economy is flourishing. Yeah,right. Do some research some time useing something other than conservative "think" tanks.
You asked for info from economic experts?? OK, economic expert. Here are a few:
"Members of the public may not feel their tax load is going down. That’s because for most workers one of the few things shrinking more than the public sector is the value of their wages. Corporate profits and top incomes continue to escalate, but little trickles down.

Instead, business lobbyists are using the straitened circumstances of households and misinformation about public sector workers salaries to gain support for cuts to taxes and public spending. This leads to increased costs for households as public services are cut and downward pressure on wages—and an ongoing downward vicious cycle in the standard of living."
Canada's incredible shrinking public sector < Economics | CUPE
Cutting Spending Now is the Wrong Strategy for Reducing the Fiscal Deficit
Canada Economic Forecast 2012: Outlook Murky As Few Dare To Predict Outcome Of Global Problems
Canadian Outlook Long-Term Economic Forecast: 2012
Canadian Outlook Economic Forecast: Winter 2012
And, just about every independent analysis of the canadian economy. Unless, of course, you keep your head in conservative web sites. Try a little integrity, ass hole.

Do you yet see my point, oldstyle, about wasting my time. You tell me you have a great source, but upon a little investigation, it turns out to be a totally conservative site. Great. The author, pretty much unknown. But that is your proof. But then, your facts are all wrong. Turns out, according to the economic experts that things are not so good there. Nearly as bad as us, with a more gloomy projected future. Nice job of being honest.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me see if I've got this straight...you tell me that Canada isn't a good comparison to the US because it's economy is smaller than the US but then go on to tell me that I should compare Somalia to the US? Gee, which economy is bigger...Canada or Somalia? Hmmmmm...are you REALLY that stupid? Stupid? No, what was stupid was to think that I was comparing somalia to the us or Canada.. Dipshit. Canada's gdp is about 7% of the us GDP. So, yes I do believe that comparing canadian to us economic effects is stupid. I posted somalia just to make a point, dipshit. No, of course you would never compare somalia to the US. But Somalia is interesting in that it shows what happens when you try to have a libertarian economy. And it is the only libertarian country that I can think of.
As for cutting spending being the same as cutting taxes? They are two completely separate things. The reason Bush's tax cuts failed was that he didn't couple tax cuts with spending cuts. Instead, he cut taxes and increased spending which grew the deficit. Increasing taxes while increasing spending, which is what you're calling for, doesn't work either because tax raises slow down economic growth which stunts revenues while increased spending leads to inflation which is what we're starting to see now. Wrong again, oh great dipshit of the midwest. We are not seeing any inflation. And raising taxes does not create a slowdown anywhere like the increase in economic activity and the decrease in unemployment that stimulus spending causes. Again, why do you believe that Reagan raised taxes and used stimulus spending to get away from the economic mess that his huge tax decrease caused?? The reason that Canada's economy is in much better shape than ours is that they reacted to the recession . And by implementing across the board cuts to government spending whereas we reacted by spending trillions of dollars for stimulus Uh, I beg your pardon. The only stimulus reaction to the recession of 2008 was in the area of $500B, as I had to correct you about in your last post. Get a clue, dipshit. A little honesty goes a long way that we had to borrow elsewhere. Since that stimulus paid for by taxes, your efforts to suggest borrowing is either dishonest, or ignorant

And I would LOVE for you to show me the economic "experts" that are saying Canada isn't in as good economic shape as we are! I did not say that, as you know, dipshit. What I said is that what is true and what is out there, as you are about to understand if you check the links below, is that Canada is not in good economic shape at all. Nothing like your glowing report. But that is what you get if you only do your pittifully small amount of research that you do. And if, like you, you only use con web sites with con writers. So, read away, me poor ignorant boy. That's a hoot Read below, and keep hooting, my poor con tool! The reason Canadians are now worth more than Americans isn't because their economy is in the shitter like ours is...it's because compared to ours...their economy is flourishing. Yeah,right. Do some research some time useing something other than conservative "think" tanks.
You asked for info from economic experts?? OK, economic expert. Here are a few:
"Members of the public may not feel their tax load is going down. That&#8217;s because for most workers one of the few things shrinking more than the public sector is the value of their wages. Corporate profits and top incomes continue to escalate, but little trickles down.

Instead, business lobbyists are using the straitened circumstances of households and misinformation about public sector workers salaries to gain support for cuts to taxes and public spending. This leads to increased costs for households as public services are cut and downward pressure on wages&#8212;and an ongoing downward vicious cycle in the standard of living."
Canada's incredible shrinking public sector < Economics | CUPE
Cutting Spending Now is the Wrong Strategy for Reducing the Fiscal Deficit
Canada Economic Forecast 2012: Outlook Murky As Few Dare To Predict Outcome Of Global Problems
Canadian Outlook Long-Term Economic Forecast: 2012
Canadian Outlook Economic Forecast: Winter 2012
And, just about every independent analysis of the canadian economy. Unless, of course, you keep your head in conservative web sites. Try a little integrity, ass hole.

Do you yet see my point, oldstyle, about wasting my time. You tell me you have a great source, but upon a little investigation, it turns out to be a totally conservative site. Great. The author, pretty much unknown. But that is your proof. But then, your facts are all wrong. Turns out, according to the economic experts that things are not so good there. Nearly as bad as us, with a more gloomy projected future. Nice job of being honest.

Somalia isn't a "libertarian" country...it's a country without centralized government, splintered into various regions controlled by differing factions at war with each other. Trying to make the point that Somalia is what one would end up with if libertarian policies were adopted in this country is about as absurd as you can get.

As for your "cites"? If that was the best you could do then it illustrates how wrong your contentions are. Let's look at them...shall we?

The first is a newsletter put out by Canada's largest union! Gee, what a surprise that THEY would have a problem with spending cuts!!!

The second doesn't even MENTION Canada!

The third is the Huffington Post. (You actually have the gall to accuse me of trolling right wing sites and use Huff Po? Wow...you really must have been desperate.)

The fourth doesn't compare Canada's economy to the US economy at all...and the 5th is another article from the same source and that doesn't compare the two either.

In summary...you came up with ZERO proof that Canada's economy isn't in better shape than MOST of the world's. In fact if you read through most of the economic projections being made for Canada's economy you'd find that most of them predict a slowing of their economy BECAUSE...drum roll please...of the dire economic straits of both Europe and the United States. Bottom line is this...THEIR economy is still growing at a faster rate than ours and they haven't saddled themselves with the vast amount of debt that we have. Canada's economy is being slowed by how badly the US and Europe have been handling theirs.

 

[Rshermr]

Somalia isn't a "libertarian" country...it's a country without centralized government, splintered into various regions controlled by differing factions at war with each other. Trying to make the point that Somalia is what one would end up with if libertarian policies were adopted in this country is about as absurd as you can get. Problem is, oldstyle, you do not know what a libertarian economy is. Yes indeed, Somalia is what it has become, as a result of libertarian economic policies. And, of course, YOU ARE LYING AGAIN by saying that I said I was making the point that "Somalia is what one would end up with if libertarian policies were adopted in this country". If you do not try to make points with lies, you stand a chance that more people would take you seriously. Integrity is what you lack, oldstyle.

As for your "cites"? If that was the best you could do then it illustrates how wrong your contentions are. Let's look at them...shall we? I am sure we shall, oldstyle, with your normal lack of integrity and intelligence.

The first is a newsletter put out by Canada's largest union! Gee, what a surprise that THEY would have a problem with spending cuts!!! YYou are talking about labor, which automatically makes them invalid in your tiny con brain. You prefer to use con web sites, where labor is the enemy and the wealthy are the chosen ones who deserve the say in what happens within an economy. But, they are the ones who paid for the cuts, and they deserve to be heard in most peoples minds.. Unless, of course, you live in the world of con dogma. And, of course, you do not address what they say.


The second doesn't even MENTION Canada! Ah, but it does. Try reading again.

The third is the Huffington Post. (You actually have the gall to accuse me of trolling right wing sites and use cHuff Po? Wow...you really must have been desperate.) Sorry, oldstyle, me boy. Again, you are showing yourself to be a con dogma guy. Huffington is recognized as a impartial sourse, except to cons like you. Good try.

The fourth doesn't compare Canada's economy to the US economy at all...and the 5th is another article from the same source and that doesn't compare the two either. The fourth and fifth are Canadian Government economic sourses, and give an unbiassed look at the canadian economy and its projections for the future.

In summary...you came up with ZERO proof that Canada's economy isn't in better shape than MOST of the world's. And of course, that is true ONLY if you choose only one sourse, and that sourse is a conservative web sourse. And, again, you are being DISHONEST in saying that I said that Canada's economy is not in as good a shape as mo st of the worlds economies. In fact if you read through most of the economic projections being made for Canada's economy you'd find that most of them predict a slowing of their economy BECAUSE...drum roll please...of the dire economic straits of both Europe and the United States. Oldstyle, that drum roll you are hearing is your head.Bottom line is this...THEIR economy is still growing at a faster rate than ours and they haven't saddled themselves with the vast amount of debt that we have. Canada's economy is being slowed by how badly the US and Europe have been handling theirs. And your source is???
Stupid, oldstyle. You take a situation in a different country, with wholly different problems, and totally different economic issues, fail to look at any impartial web sites, claim that the web sites that I provide you (five, oldstyle, with links, compared to the single right wing site you provided several posts ago), and come up with the outcome you want to believe. You truly waste my time.
From a true standpoint,
In the 1990's canada's economy was in bad shape. It was not producing enough to cover costs and social programs were too large in some cases. A liberal prime minister came up then, not as a result of the 2008 worldwide recession, to cut expenditures. Canada's economy improved, for a variety of reasons. Economies usually do. But in no way was this a response to the great repub recession of 08. Then, the US economy went south as a result of the great repub recession of 08. combination of the two put the wealth of canadians ahead of the wealth of us citizens. And your analysis is from some right wing web site. Dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Somalia isn't a "libertarian" country...it's a country without centralized government, splintered into various regions controlled by differing factions at war with each other. Trying to make the point that Somalia is what one would end up with if libertarian policies were adopted in this country is about as absurd as you can get. Problem is, oldstyle, you do not know what a libertarian economy is. Yes indeed, Somalia is what it has become, as a result of libertarian economic policies. And, of course, YOU ARE LYING AGAIN by saying that I said I was making the point that "Somalia is what one would end up with if libertarian policies were adopted in this country". If you do not try to make points with lies, you stand a chance that more people would take you seriously. Integrity is what you lack, oldstyle.

As for your "cites"? If that was the best you could do then it illustrates how wrong your contentions are. Let's look at them...shall we? I am sure we shall, oldstyle, with your normal lack of integrity and intelligence.

The first is a newsletter put out by Canada's largest union! Gee, what a surprise that THEY would have a problem with spending cuts!!! YYou are talking about labor, which automatically makes them invalid in your tiny con brain. You prefer to use con web sites, where labor is the enemy and the wealthy are the chosen ones who deserve the say in what happens within an economy. But, they are the ones who paid for the cuts, and they deserve to be heard in most peoples minds.. Unless, of course, you live in the world of con dogma. And, of course, you do not address what they say.


The second doesn't even MENTION Canada! Ah, but it does. Try reading again.

The third is the Huffington Post. (You actually have the gall to accuse me of trolling right wing sites and use cHuff Po? Wow...you really must have been desperate.) Sorry, oldstyle, me boy. Again, you are showing yourself to be a con dogma guy. Huffington is recognized as a impartial sourse, except to cons like you. Good try.

The fourth doesn't compare Canada's economy to the US economy at all...and the 5th is another article from the same source and that doesn't compare the two either. The fourth and fifth are Canadian Government economic sourses, and give an unbiassed look at the canadian economy and its projections for the future.

In summary...you came up with ZERO proof that Canada's economy isn't in better shape than MOST of the world's. And of course, that is true ONLY if you choose only one sourse, and that sourse is a conservative web sourse. And, again, you are being DISHONEST in saying that I said that Canada's economy is not in as good a shape as mo st of the worlds economies. In fact if you read through most of the economic projections being made for Canada's economy you'd find that most of them predict a slowing of their economy BECAUSE...drum roll please...of the dire economic straits of both Europe and the United States. Oldstyle, that drum roll you are hearing is your head.Bottom line is this...THEIR economy is still growing at a faster rate than ours and they haven't saddled themselves with the vast amount of debt that we have. Canada's economy is being slowed by how badly the US and Europe have been handling theirs. And your source is???
Stupid, oldstyle. You take a situation in a different country, with wholly different problems, and totally different economic issues, fail to look at any impartial web sites, claim that the web sites that I provide you (five, oldstyle, with links, compared to the single right wing site you provided several posts ago), and come up with the outcome you want to believe. You truly waste my time.
From a true standpoint,
In the 1990's canada's economy was in bad shape. It was not producing enough to cover costs and social programs were too large in some cases. A liberal prime minister came up then, not as a result of the 2008 worldwide recession, to cut expenditures. Canada's economy improved, for a variety of reasons. Economies usually do. But in no way was this a response to the great repub recession of 08. Then, the US economy went south as a result of the great repub recession of 08. combination of the two put the wealth of canadians ahead of the wealth of us citizens. And your analysis is from some right wing web site. Dipshit.

Somalia hasn't become what it is because of libertarian economic policies...it's become what it is because the country hasn't had a central government to MAKE policies for many years. I'm not a libertarian but your contention that libertarian policies made Somalia into the hell hole that it is, is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard. A total lack of a central government IS NOT what libertarians espouse and if you say that it is you are either incredibly ignorant or a liar of the first order.

So you accuse me of using "con web sites", yet you use a newsletter put out by Canada's largest public sector union as proof that cuts to government spending didn't work? That's amusing...really!

You say that the second cite mentions Canada? Where? Here it is...show me...


by Christian Proaño, Assistant Professor of Economics, and Laura de Carvalho, SCEPA Research Assistant

It is undeniable that the U.S. sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio should be reduced from its current level of nearly 95% over the medium-run. However, an overly hasty reversal of the U.S. fiscal stance based primarily on government spending cuts could be counterproductive given the fragile situation of the U.S. economy. In short, the main priority of the Obama Administration should be the consolidation of the nascent economic recovery.

There are two main arguments for a sharp reduction in government spending to restore fiscal sustainability, private investment, and economic growth...

The first is that reducing the government deficit automatically leads to an increase in private investment and economic growth. This is based on standard textbook theory, which suggests that an increase in government deficits increases demand for loanable funds. Given a constant supply of savings, this would lead to more competition for loans and, therefore, higher interest rates, which would reduce capital accumulation and economic growth.

The second argument is the alleged existence of a threshold level of government or sovereign debt beyond which investors (the so-called bond vigilantes) would fear the inability of the government to meet its debt obligations and would require higher bond yields. This threshold argument has been fueled by the empirical study by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010). Based on annual data for dozens of countries over nearly two hundred years, this study identifies a debt level of 90% of GDP as the threshold beyond which a country is likely to slide into a debt crisis.

These justifications for spending cuts should be qualified. Concerning the first argument, fiscal hawks usually (like to) overlook the fact that deficit reduction is not only achieved through spending cuts; increasing taxes is an equally good &#8211; or better &#8211; alternative. In fact, as discussed in the IMF World Economic Outlook (2010), the empirical evidence for a short-term positive impact on economic activity from spending cuts (provided by Alesina and Perotti (1995) and Alesina and Ardagna (2010)) does not consider the effects of other expansionary policies happening simultaneously, namely loose monetary policy and exchange rate depreciation. Given that U.S. interest rates are already near zero, the case for an expansionary effect from cutting spending is even weaker.

Further, as recently corroborated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, 2010), the tax multiplier is much lower than the government spending multiplier. A fiscal consolidation put forward primarily by tax increases (for high-income people and financial corporations, just to name a few meaningful alternatives) is less likely to affect the nascent and fragile economic recovery than the sharp spending cuts proposed by the GOP.

Concerning the second argument, Reinhart and Rogoff simply show that periods where levels of debt are higher than 90% of GDP tend to be characterized by lower average growth rates. However, they ignore the different directions of causality and the impact over time involved in the interaction between economic growth, deficits and debt. As revealed by the current experience of most countries, there is strong causality running the other way around: low GDP growth reduces revenues and increases spending, with the resulting larger fiscal deficits accumulating into high levels of public debt. Further, as argued by Irons and Bivens (2010), even if bond vigilantes exist, there is no theoretical justification for contemporaneous effects of higher debt on economic growth. Studies based on simple correlations between high debt levels and low economic growth rates are more likely to capture the reverse direction of causality. As a matter of fact, as discussed in De Carvalho, Proaño and Taylor (2010), empirical evidence shows that a deficit reduction is not only contractionary in the short-run, but may lead to higher debt-to-GDP ratios in the medium-run if it has a significant negative impact on economic growth.

We should remember that the sharp increase in the U.S. fiscal deficits - and therefore in the level of U.S. government debt - was not solely caused by the fiscal stimulus program. Due to the operation of automatic stabilizers, the severe downturn in economic activity substantially reduced government revenues and increased spending, also contributing to a higher fiscal deficit, as seen in Figure 1.





Figure 1. Real government revenues and expenditures as compared to private domestic components of effective demand (2007Q3=100)


Finally, the importance of timing for the effectiveness of fiscal policy shocks on economic activity has been corroborated by recent empirical studies using state-of-the-art nonlinear econometric techniques such as Mittnik and Semmler (2010), Fazzari et al. (2011), Baum and Koester (2011), among others. According to these studies, an expansionary fiscal policy shock (such as the implementation of a fiscal stimulus program) increases economic activity to a more significant extent if executed during recessionary periods. Following the same logic, the contractionary effect of an austerity plan would be even higher if the economy has still not fully recovered.

As the Greek example shows, implementing a restrictive fiscal policy based on sharp spending cuts can turn out badly if executed while the economic recovery is still not well established. In fact, it could entail serious dangers for the United States, in social as well as economic terms. For all these reasons, a reduction in government spending as put forward by the usual fiscal hawks would not improve public finances, but would instead mainly serve their political agenda of reducing the role of the government in the U.S. economy."

You see Canada mentioned in that...really? You're so full of it at this point you've become a laughingstock.

The Huffington Post is recognized as an impartial source? By who...knee jerk liberals like yourself? If Huffington Post is an impartial source than I'm the freakin' King of England. The next thing you'll be telling me is that ThinkProgress is impartial as well...and so is MSNBC! Your credibility is next to nil at this point.

And if you look at the projections that your 4th and 5th cite give you'll see that in every instance they STILL see the Canadian economy being in better shape than the US economy. The difference between them and us? They didn't spend trillions in stimulus trying to spend their way out of the recession so they as a government are not even close to the level of debt that the US is which gives them options that we don't have.

As for my "source" for that contention? Your own cites, Einstein! Or didn't you read them? Judging from your belief that the second one is talking about Canada I'm beginning to doubt that you ever did.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says: Somalia hasn't become what it is because of libertarian economic policies...it's become what it is because the country hasn't had a central government to MAKE policies for many years. I'm not a libertarian but your contention that libertarian policies made Somalia into the hell hole that it is, is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard. A total lack of a central government IS NOT what libertarians espouse and if you say that it is you are either incredibly ignorant or a liar of the first order.
Wow. I would hate to be called a liar by you, because YOU know lying. Look, you are an incredible idiot, shown by what you say. somalia was an attempt at a libertarian state. Libertarians believe in NO Central GOV, Laise Faire economics to the max, and take a look at where As you said, no central gov any more. Run by private and very rich war lords, now. But it did indeed become that way because it was run with the concept of no central gov, and private enterprise ran it all. Here is a quote from Wickipedia:
Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies, or no government whatsoever.
So, oldstyle, did you see the part about No Government Whatsoever, oh great libertarian expert?? Damn troublesome research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

So you accuse me of using "con web sites", yet you use a newsletter put out by Canada's largest public sector union as proof that cuts to government spending didn't work? That's amusing...really! As I have told you before, me poor stupid person, stupid people are easy to amuse. so, no, I do not think it is amusing at all. People who are not cons like you, oldstyle, do not see labor as the enemy. Labor were the ones, in most cases, that paid for the revenue decreases with their jobs. And they have an understanding of what has happened to the middle class of canada. Which as a con, is of absolutely no concern to you. So, we, the normal people of this country, have some interest in unions opinions, and their reasons for those opinions. You, as a con, do not. Simple as that, oldstyle. You do not want to here from labor, or the middle class. You want to here from Heritage, from CATO, from FOX, and from a hundred other right wing web sites that get their marching orders from their talking points memos.
You say that the second cite mentions Canada? Where? Here it is...show me...


Sorry that this article was used. Looking back at it, I see why you are having such a difficult time with it. It is way beyond the commic book level sorts of things that you usually read. What this piece is about is when cutting spending is usefull, and when it is detrimental. It is dealing with the US economy. So, I understand that a simple statements like spending cuts helped there, so they will help here, is about as far as your simple little mind can take. This article is more complex, discussing when such efforts will or will not be helpfull. Much too involved for you to understand.
The Huffington Post is recognized as an impartial source? By who...knee jerk liberals like yourself? If Huffington Post is an impartial source than I'm the freakin' King of England. Sorry about that oldstyle. Did not realize you were the KING. I forgot that if the site does not look and feel like fox, then to you it must not be impartial. But it is known as impartial to the rest of the world, just not to you cons. The next thing you'll be telling me is that ThinkProgress is impartial as well...and so is MSNBC! Your credibility is next to nil at this point. I will keep that in mind. You know how much I value your opinion.

And if you look at the projections that your 4th and 5th cite give you'll see that in every instance they STILL see the Canadian economy being in better shape than the US economy. In the short term, but not in the longer term.The difference between them and us? They didn't spend trillions ????? in stimulus trying to spend their way out of the recession so they as a government are not even close to the level of debt that the US is which gives them options that we don't have.

As for my "source" for that contention? Your own cites, Einstein! Or didn't you read them? Judging from your belief that the second one is talking about Canada I'm beginning to doubt that you ever did. Yes, indeed I did. So, you just said we spent trillions in stimulus. I am calling you a liar. Again. I showed you before that we did not spend trillions on stimulus. And this is at least the third time that you have said that we spent trillions on stimulus. Twice I showed you you were wrong. And again you make the statement, that I am certain you know is a LIE. So, what is your response, or are you simply going to try to ignore me again, oldstyle. You are a con liar, and this is simply more proof. Cmon, me poor ignorant clown, prove me wrong.

Do you see yet why you are a total waste of time??? Christ, you are a complete liar and totally ignorant clown. All of this is based on your trying to defend a policy of decreasing the spending of the GOV by 20% accross the board as was done in Canada many years ago. Totally different set of problems. Ours is unemployment, theres was deficit. So, what do you want to solve, dipshit??? What they did had nothing to do with unemployment.
And you do it with lies, and with efforts to prove things with a single far right web reference. You are a waste. In economic circles, your proposal would be a joke, not even worth talking about. And your willingness no lie about what has happened, as in recent history, proves you to be exactly that. A waste of time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says: Somalia hasn't become what it is because of libertarian economic policies...it's become what it is because the country hasn't had a central government to MAKE policies for many years. I'm not a libertarian but your contention that libertarian policies made Somalia into the hell hole that it is, is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard. A total lack of a central government IS NOT what libertarians espouse and if you say that it is you are either incredibly ignorant or a liar of the first order.
Wow. I would hate to be called a liar by you, because YOU know lying. Look, you are an incredible idiot, shown by what you say. somalia was an attempt at a libertarian state. Libertarians believe in NO Central GOV, Laise Faire economics to the max, and take a look at where As you said, no central gov any more. Run by private and very rich war lords, now. But it did indeed become that way because it was run with the concept of no central gov, and private enterprise ran it all. Here is a quote from Wickipedia:
Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies, or no government whatsoever.
So, oldstyle, did you see the part about No Government Whatsoever, oh great libertarian expert?? Damn troublesome research.
Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you accuse me of using "con web sites", yet you use a newsletter put out by Canada's largest public sector union as proof that cuts to government spending didn't work? That's amusing...really! As I have told you before, me poor stupid person, stupid people are easy to amuse. so, no, I do not think it is amusing at all. People who are not cons like you, oldstyle, do not see labor as the enemy. Labor were the ones, in most cases, that paid for the revenue decreases with their jobs. And they have an understanding of what has happened to the middle class of canada. Which as a con, is of absolutely no concern to you. So, we, the normal people of this country, have some interest in unions opinions, and their reasons for those opinions. You, as a con, do not. Simple as that, oldstyle. You do not want to here from labor, or the middle class. You want to here from Heritage, from CATO, from FOX, and from a hundred other right wing web sites that get their marching orders from their talking points memos.
You say that the second cite mentions Canada? Where? Here it is...show me...


Sorry that this article was used. Looking back at it, I see why you are having such a difficult time with it. It is way beyond the commic book level sorts of things that you usually read. What this piece is about is when cutting spending is usefull, and when it is detrimental. It is dealing with the US economy. So, I understand that a simple statements like spending cuts helped there, so they will help here, is about as far as your simple little mind can take. This article is more complex, discussing when such efforts will or will not be helpfull. Much too involved for you to understand.
The Huffington Post is recognized as an impartial source? By who...knee jerk liberals like yourself? If Huffington Post is an impartial source than I'm the freakin' King of England. Sorry about that oldstyle. Did not realize you were the KING. I forgot that if the site does not look and feel like fox, then to you it must not be impartial. But it is known as impartial to the rest of the world, just not to you cons. The next thing you'll be telling me is that ThinkProgress is impartial as well...and so is MSNBC! Your credibility is next to nil at this point. I will keep that in mind. You know how much I value your opinion.

And if you look at the projections that your 4th and 5th cite give you'll see that in every instance they STILL see the Canadian economy being in better shape than the US economy. In the short term, but not in the longer term.The difference between them and us? They didn't spend trillions ????? in stimulus trying to spend their way out of the recession so they as a government are not even close to the level of debt that the US is which gives them options that we don't have.

As for my "source" for that contention? Your own cites, Einstein! Or didn't you read them? Judging from your belief that the second one is talking about Canada I'm beginning to doubt that you ever did. Yes, indeed I did. So, you just said we spent trillions in stimulus. I am calling you a liar. Again. I showed you before that we did not spend trillions on stimulus. And this is at least the third time that you have said that we spent trillions on stimulus. Twice I showed you you were wrong. And again you make the statement, that I am certain you know is a LIE. So, what is your response, or are you simply going to try to ignore me again, oldstyle. You are a con liar, and this is simply more proof. Cmon, me poor ignorant clown, prove me wrong.

Do you see yet why you are a total waste of time??? Christ, you are a complete liar and totally ignorant clown. All of this is based on your trying to defend a policy of decreasing the spending of the GOV by 20% accross the board as was done in Canada many years ago. Totally different set of problems. Ours is unemployment, theres was deficit. So, what do you want to solve, dipshit??? What they did had nothing to do with unemployment.
And you do it with lies, and with efforts to prove things with a single far right web reference. You are a waste. In economic circles, your proposal would be a joke, not even worth talking about. And your willingness no lie about what has happened, as in recent history, proves you to be exactly that. A waste of time.

Your "take" on reality is quite astonishing. You actually think that Somalia made a conscious effort not to have a central government? It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard and I would LOVE to know what idiot site you got such a notion from. What Libertarians are calling for "no government" here? You make that claim and it's as far fetched as your claim that Somalia sought to have no central government. Libertarians call for smaller government...something which I agree wholeheartedly with.

I don't see Labor as the "enemy" but I AM intelligent enough to know that public sector unions are not unbiased when they speak out against cuts to government spending. You for some reason don't seem to grasp that concept.

Rather pathetic attempt at trying to bluster your way out of admitting that the second article you cited, the one that was supposedly about Canada's economy didn't refer to Canada at all...a fact that you didn't realize when you first cited it and that you further didn't realize when you doubled down by telling me that it did and I needed to go read it again!!!

Still trying to portray Huffington Post as "impartial"? No lie like a big lie...right, Rshermr?

As for what we've spent on stimulus not adding up to trillions? Well let's see...in just 2009 alone, we spent 862 billion dollars on stimulus...on just the GM bailout alone we're down another 15 billion plus the 45 billion dollars that we've waived on taxes to future GM profits...it was 44 billion to extend unemployment in just 2011...plus we had to borrow all of that money and we WILL be paying interest on that money. Let me guess...you don't count interest payments on money that we've blown...do you? Gee, if only we could get our creditors to go along with that! Now what did you claim was the cost of Obama's stimulus plans? You're not even CLOSE.

The exact total of what we've spent on stimulus isn't really the point though is it? (although you've made a valiant effort to make it relevant!) What's to the point is who's economy is in better shape...Canada's, who responded to the recession by cutting spending...or the US economy who responded to the recession by massive government borrowing and spending. You've yet to show me a single person who is saying that OUR economy is in better shape than the Canadian one. Why? Because it obviously isn't.

You still think my calls for across the board cuts won't work? Sweden doesn't agree with you. Check out the following.

With Most Of Europe Still On Its Back, Sweden Tries Policies That Actually Work - Forbes

Gee, kind of blows your whole rant right out of the water...doesn't it, Sparky? Policies that actually work!!! What a concept...

 

[Rshermr]

OLDSTYLE says: Your "take" on reality is quite astonishing. You actually think that Somalia made a conscious effort not to have a central government? It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard and I would LOVE to know what idiot site you got such a notion from. What Libertarians are calling for "no government" here? You make that claim and it's as far fetched as your claim that Somalia sought to have no central government. Libertarians call for smaller government...something which I agree wholeheartedly with. You are toast on your effort here, dipshit. First, you tell me that libertarian economies have a small gov. Which is not true some of the time. So I give you: Here is a quote from Wickipedia:
Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies, or no government whatsoever.
So, oldstyle, did you see the part about No Government Whatsoever, oh great libertarian expert?? Damn troublesome research.
Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you are telling me that you are more of an expert than those noted in Wickepedia. Sorry, my poor lying clown. You loose. You just do not have the class or the sense to know when you are toast. Dipshit.


I don't see Labor as the "enemy" but I AM intelligent enough to know that public sector unions are not unbiased when they speak out against cuts to goverment spending. You for some reason don't seem to grasp that concept. In my humble but correct opinion, it was you who said no sourse is completely impartial, to which I agreed. So, now you think not?? Of course not, me poor forgetfull twitt. So my point is correct that they have a place in this debate, and you have no point except the con position that you do not want to consider the thoughts of labor. To hell with the middle class, says oldstyle. Let them eat cake.

Rather pathetic attempt at trying to bluster your way out of admitting that the second article you cited, the one that was supposedly about Canada's economy didn't refer to Canada at all...a fact that you didn't realize when you first cited it and that you further didn't realize when you doubled down by telling me that it did and I needed to go read it again! No bluster at all, me boy. When I said go read it again I was wrong as I had forgotten what quote that was. And I should have checked, because you were unable to understand what was being said, and I should have known it was too complex for you.

Still trying to portray Huffington Post as "impartial"? No lie like a big lie...right, Rshermr? Again, you show yourself to be a good con. Won't the other cons be proud of you for staying in the fox bubble. Such a good little rule following con boy. But no, the rest of the world considers the HP a valid sourse of information.
Consider: On February 7, 2011, AOL acquired the mass market[9] Huffington Post for US$315 million, making Arianna Huffington editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group.[10][11] In 2012, The Huffington Post was the first commercially run, United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize.[12]
In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank which bases its list off each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank, and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[13]
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, as I said, HP is well respected by all except cons. But cons also hate ABC, CBS, NBC, and any other sourse that Rush tells them to hate. dipshit.

As for what we've spent on stimulus not adding up to trillions? Well let's see...in just 2009 alone, wee spent 862 Not sure who wee is, but the $862B is a lie. If someone told you that they lied to you, and you should be pissed at them. I would be. But I am sure you will not. You do not mind being lied to, do you oldstyle, as long as it aligns with what you WANT to believe. I have given you the real numbers, and do so again below. You can thank me for telling you the truth at your pleasure. billion dollars on stimulus...on just the GM bailout alone we're down another 15 billion plus the 45 billion dollars that we've waived on taxes to future GM profits...it was 44 billion to extend unemployment in just 2011...plus we had to borrow all of that money and we WILL be paying interest on that money. Let me guess...you don't count interest payments on money that we've blown...do you? Gee, if only we could get our creditors to go along with that! Now what did you claim was the cost of Obama's stimulus plans? 440 billion? You're not even CLOSE. Wow but you do lie a lot when you have to cover past lies. It is fun to see you squirm, I have to admit. See below and you will see the statement I made, which pegs the stimulus at $545B.

First, your tiny brain is confused, or maybe is just part of the lie, but the Stimulus is the Stimulus. The gm bailout, as you call it, was part of the auto bailout, which was a part of TARP. NOT THE STIMULUS. Nice try at another lie, dishonest one. If you are looking at tarp money to auto makers, that is a seperate thing and you need to identify it as such. Dipshit. And by the way, clown, most of that money has been paid back, which you seem to "forget".

Second, as I have proven to you previously, the amount paid for the actual stimulus, which is what you have been talking about, was explained to you by ME. Here is the copy and paste of the exact response to your statement:
Oldstyle said: You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion... I said: And that number came from where? Out of your ass does not work, oldstyle. The ARRA totaled $815K. And of this, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, demanded by repubs. that leaves about $545K that was spent. See the difference if you are actually honest, oldstyle?? Dipshit.
So where is your malfunction, dipshit. You must know that you are lying, or you are a congenital idiot.
Remember you just said Trillions. Do you have some real problems with math??

The exact total of what we've spent on stimulus isn't really the point though is it? (although you've made a valiant effort to make it relevant!) What's to the point is who's economy is in better shape...Canada's, who responded to the recession by cutting spending...or the US economy who responded to the recession by massive government borrowing and spending. You've yet to show me a single person who is saying that OUR economy is in better shape than the Canadian one. Why? Because it obviously isn't.
Ah, but you are lying again. It was you who continually brought up what we had spent in stimulus dollars. I only try to educate you as to what the real amount was when you lie about the actual amount so I am sure you want to get out of this little mess you have made. It was you who lied, dipshit. I was honest, you lied. Like normal, dipshit. And even here you can not admit that you have lied. You simply try to get around it. You loose, oldstyle. You lied, you are caught, and now you say it did not matter. So, if you look at it carefully, you can see that apparently you do not have a problem with a couple trillion in stimulus, since it does not make any real difference if you say "the exact total of what we've spent on stimulus isn't really the point though is it?" then maybe we whould spend a trillion or so right away!!!

You still think my calls for across the board cuts won't work? Sweden doesn't agree Good for Sweden, dipshit. Now you are trying to use a socialist economy even smaller to compare to ours. Get a clue. AND STOP WASTING MY TIME!!! with you. Check out the following.

 

[Oldstyle]

OLDSTYLE says: Your "take" on reality is quite astonishing. You actually think that Somalia made a conscious effort not to have a central government? It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard and I would LOVE to know what idiot site you got such a notion from. What Libertarians are calling for "no government" here? You make that claim and it's as far fetched as your claim that Somalia sought to have no central government. Libertarians call for smaller government...something which I agree wholeheartedly with. You are toast on your effort here, dipshit. First, you tell me that libertarian economies have a small gov. Which is not true some of the time. So I give you: Here is a quote from Wickipedia:
Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association without violent coercion. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies, or no government whatsoever.
So, oldstyle, did you see the part about No Government Whatsoever, oh great libertarian expert?? Damn troublesome research.
Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you are telling me that you are more of an expert than those noted in Wickepedia. Sorry, my poor lying clown. You loose. You just do not have the class or the sense to know when you are toast. Dipshit.


I don't see Labor as the "enemy" but I AM intelligent enough to know that public sector unions are not unbiased when they speak out against cuts to goverment spending. You for some reason don't seem to grasp that concept. In my humble but correct opinion, it was you who said no sourse is completely impartial, to which I agreed. So, now you think not?? Of course not, me poor forgetfull twitt. So my point is correct that they have a place in this debate, and you have no point except the con position that you do not want to consider the thoughts of labor. To hell with the middle class, says oldstyle. Let them eat cake.

Rather pathetic attempt at trying to bluster your way out of admitting that the second article you cited, the one that was supposedly about Canada's economy didn't refer to Canada at all...a fact that you didn't realize when you first cited it and that you further didn't realize when you doubled down by telling me that it did and I needed to go read it again! No bluster at all, me boy. When I said go read it again I was wrong as I had forgotten what quote that was. And I should have checked, because you were unable to understand what was being said, and I should have known it was too complex for you.

Still trying to portray Huffington Post as "impartial"? No lie like a big lie...right, Rshermr? Again, you show yourself to be a good con. Won't the other cons be proud of you for staying in the fox bubble. Such a good little rule following con boy. But no, the rest of the world considers the HP a valid sourse of information.
Consider: On February 7, 2011, AOL acquired the mass market[9] Huffington Post for US$315 million, making Arianna Huffington editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group.[10][11] In 2012, The Huffington Post was the first commercially run, United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize.[12]
In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank which bases its list off each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank, and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[13]
The Huffington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, as I said, HP is well respected by all except cons. But cons also hate ABC, CBS, NBC, and any other sourse that Rush tells them to hate. dipshit.

As for what we've spent on stimulus not adding up to trillions? Well let's see...in just 2009 alone, wee spent 862 Not sure who wee is, but the $862B is a lie. If someone told you that they lied to you, and you should be pissed at them. I would be. But I am sure you will not. You do not mind being lied to, do you oldstyle, as long as it aligns with what you WANT to believe. I have given you the real numbers, and do so again below. You can thank me for telling you the truth at your pleasure. billion dollars on stimulus...on just the GM bailout alone we're down another 15 billion plus the 45 billion dollars that we've waived on taxes to future GM profits...it was 44 billion to extend unemployment in just 2011...plus we had to borrow all of that money and we WILL be paying interest on that money. Let me guess...you don't count interest payments on money that we've blown...do you? Gee, if only we could get our creditors to go along with that! Now what did you claim was the cost of Obama's stimulus plans? 440 billion? You're not even CLOSE. Wow but you do lie a lot when you have to cover past lies. It is fun to see you squirm, I have to admit. See below and you will see the statement I made, which pegs the stimulus at $545B.

First, your tiny brain is confused, or maybe is just part of the lie, but the Stimulus is the Stimulus. The gm bailout, as you call it, was part of the auto bailout, which was a part of TARP. NOT THE STIMULUS. Nice try at another lie, dishonest one. If you are looking at tarp money to auto makers, that is a seperate thing and you need to identify it as such. Dipshit. And by the way, clown, most of that money has been paid back, which you seem to "forget".

Second, as I have proven to you previously, the amount paid for the actual stimulus, which is what you have been talking about, was explained to you by ME. Here is the copy and paste of the exact response to your statement:
Oldstyle said: You find it remarkable that by spending almost a trillion... I said: And that number came from where? Out of your ass does not work, oldstyle. The ARRA totaled $815K. And of this, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, demanded by repubs. that leaves about $545K that was spent. See the difference if you are actually honest, oldstyle?? Dipshit.
So where is your malfunction, dipshit. You must know that you are lying, or you are a congenital idiot.
Remember you just said Trillions. Do you have some real problems with math??

The exact total of what we've spent on stimulus isn't really the point though is it? (although you've made a valiant effort to make it relevant!) What's to the point is who's economy is in better shape...Canada's, who responded to the recession by cutting spending...or the US economy who responded to the recession by massive government borrowing and spending. You've yet to show me a single person who is saying that OUR economy is in better shape than the Canadian one. Why? Because it obviously isn't.
Ah, but you are lying again. It was you who continually brought up what we had spent in stimulus dollars. I only try to educate you as to what the real amount was when you lie about the actual amount so I am sure you want to get out of this little mess you have made. It was you who lied, dipshit. I was honest, you lied. Like normal, dipshit. And even here you can not admit that you have lied. You simply try to get around it. You loose, oldstyle. You lied, you are caught, and now you say it did not matter. So, if you look at it carefully, you can see that apparently you do not have a problem with a couple trillion in stimulus, since it does not make any real difference if you say "the exact total of what we've spent on stimulus isn't really the point though is it?" then maybe we whould spend a trillion or so right away!!!

You still think my calls for across the board cuts won't work? Sweden doesn't agree Good for Sweden, dipshit. Now you are trying to use a socialist economy even smaller to compare to ours. Get a clue. AND STOP WASTING MY TIME!!! with you. Check out the following.

Once again you've refused to answer what was asked of you. What Libertarian is asking for "no government" here in the US? When did the Somalis ever make a conscious decision to dissolve their central government because they were pursuing a "libertarian" country? You can't answer either of those questions because your premise is total BULLSHIT.

Does labor have a place in the debate? Of course. Should someone take what Canada's biggest government labor union puts out about cutting government spending as "gospel"? Not unless they are naive to the point of being brain dead...which you obviously are. That you have to USE a source like that simply underscores that you can't find a main stream source that will back up your distortions of what has happened in Canada.

Huffington Post is not well respected as an unbiased news source. I notice that you used Wikipedia as "proof" that Huffington Post is legitimate but I also notice that you conveniently left out something from what you cut and pasted. "The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet..." and "Jon Bekken, journalism professor at Suffolk University, has cited the The Huffington Post as an example of an "advocacy newspaper."[54]". Gee, Rshermr...why did you have to "cherry pick" from the very source that you say "proves" The Huffington Post isn't biased?

As for what constitutes "stimulus" spending by the Obama Administration? You may WANT to say that anything that wasn't in the Obama Stimulus proper doesn't count towards what Barry's spent but that's hardly reality since the entire premise of the auto bail outs was supposedly to prevent the loss of a million jobs...correct? If that doesn't fit the definition of stimulus, I don't know what does. Extension to unemployment compensation was supposed to give us that $2 for every $1 we spent on it and creates jobs if you believe the horseshit that Nancy Pelosi was pushing several years ago. Wouldn't that fall under the heading of stimulus as well? I notice that you don't want to even talk about the billions that we gave to GM in tax waivers...isn't that "stimulus"? Or would that just be a good old fashioned "pay off". You see, that's the problem with this Administration...they play fast and loose with numbers on EVERYTHING so it's almost impossible to know what things are really going to cost. The one constant is that they ALWAYS cost more than you progressives have told us they would. And that you think most of the GM bailout has been "paid back" shows just how ignorant you are about the topic.

So are you ever going to provide someone who will state that the US economy is in better shape than Canada's? You said you could...you said you would...but you don't. Instead you bluster about me supposedly telling "lies". Let's see you actually back up your contentions for a change.

The fact that a "socialist" country like Sweden has gone to across the board cuts and they have been successful is one more nail in the coffin of your supposed argument that they don't work. Once again you don't have a way to refute reality so you pooh pooh it. You're failing miserably trying to argue this topic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

did you see the part about No Government Whatsoever, .

too stupid !! I've been a libertarian all my life. I've never known a libertarian or read about a libertarian who wanted no government. Ron Paul for example is uber libertarian but wants the government to prevent abortion.

You have to understand that "against" or "no" government is hyperbolic. It does not literally mean no government or anarachy notwithstanding whatever wikipedia might say.

These are subtle issues that a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

Did Steve Jobs create jobs or did the consumers who bought his products?

Any society that incents consumers over Steve Jobs types is obviously stupid and liberal

 

[Rshermr]

Once again you've refused to answer what was asked of you. First, oldstylem me poor igorant twit, I feel no reason to answer any question for you. I did not say any libertarian was looking for no gov in the us. That is your statement, not mine. I simply pointed out that according to experts on the subject, libertareian ideals are for little or no gov. And gave you a link for proof of the statement. So, sorry you have problems with that. What Libertarian is asking for "no government" here in the US? When did the Somalis ever make a conscious decision to dissolve their central government because they were pursuing a "libertarian" country? Beats me, dipshit. I do not know nor do I care. I did not say they did. What I said was that the libertarian dream led to somalia today. Research it. You will find many who believe that to be true.. You can't answer either of those questions because your premise is total BULLSHIT. Which premis is that, dipshit. And why should I care what you thinK?? Here is the thing, ass hole. There is no true libertarian economy, or gov, or society. There are only theories, which do not work. You can not make a libertarian economy work, dipshit. Have you ever taken the time to look around. But, idiot, there have been efforts to make such an economy. But it always ends in failure. So, what is your point. I have NO idea what it is that you are trying to say, except that you are trying to put words in my mouth. Which you are too stupid to notice is not working. Who cares about libertarianism. It is just a theory that CATO, the koche brothers, and a lot of clowns like you like to discuss. I do not. Libertarian economics is generally popular with pre pubescent males believe in. Almost all of them see the light, and no longer believe by the time they reach puberty. So, you see, I do not find it of any interest.

Does labor have a place in the debate? Of course. Should someone take what Canada's biggest government labor union puts out about cutting government spending as "gospel"? Not unless they are naive to the point of being brain dead...which you obviously are. That you have to USE a source like that simply underscores that you can't find a main stream source that will back up your distortions of what has happened in Canada. As I said, cons hate labor. You are a con. You hate labor. What is your point again????

Huffington Post is not well respected as an unbiased news source. So, I can either believe you or the research done about HP that I provided you. Wonder who I and any normal person would believe. Probably not you, dipshit. I notice that you used Wikipedia as "proof" that Huffington Post is legitimate but I also notice that you conveniently left out something from what you cut and pasted. "The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet..." and "Jon Bekken, journalism professor at Suffolk University, has cited the The Huffington Post as an example of an "advocacy newspaper."[54]". Gee, Rshermr...why did you have to "cherry pick" from the very source that you say "proves" The Huffington Post isn't biased? I gave you the link, dipshit. Did you forget that? What I was pointing out is that what the HP is today is a solid sourse of info, and one of the most popular among non cons. Cons only listen to what they want to believe, like you, oldstyle. Non cons use many sourses of info, do not see HP as hugely biassed as you do, and find the info there interesting and usefull. Cons do not like HP. You are a con. You do not like HP. What a surprise, dipshit.

As for what constitutes it is not, as you know, my dishonest con, what constitutes stimulus. You said the Stimulus spent trillions. Would you like me to go back and copy and paste it for you??"stimulus" spending by the Obama Administration? You may WANT to say that anything that wasn't in the Obama Stimulus proper doesn't count towards what Barry's spent but that's hardly reality since the entire premise of the auto bail outs was supposedly to prevent the loss of a million jobs...correct? If that doesn't fit the definition of stimulus, I don't know what does. Extension to unemployment compensation was supposed to give us that $2 for every $1 we spent on it and creates jobs if you believe the horseshit that Nancy Pelosi was pushing several years ago. Wouldn't that fall under the heading of stimulus as well? No, dipshit, it was not. I notice that you don't want to even talk about the billions that we gave to GM in tax waivers...isn't that "stimulus"? Or would that just be a good old fashioned "pay off". You see, that's the problem with this Administration...they play fast and loose with numbers on EVERYTHING so it's almost impossible to know what things are really going to cost. The one constant is that they ALWAYS cost more than you progressives have told us they would. And that you think most of the GM bailout has been "paid back" shows just how ignorant you are about the topic.Wowl, I never saw anyone try to get around a bunch of lies so hard, oldstyle. Thought you took economics. Stimulus spending, or a stimulus, is not taxes nor tax reduction. Stimulus spending is spending. Get it yet. And you, as I, and as anyone who knows anything about what was called the STIMULUS knows that it was not part of TARP. And though you would like to make the auto bailout look lika a bad idea, check with the CBO. Again, it is the CBO or you, dipshit. And you, of course, loose. Increasing the time for unemployment was just that, the unemployment extension. Which was traded to the repubs for continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Aas for the rest of your accusations, they are again, worthless con dogma.\\\
So, if you add it all up, you still to not have trillions. And you do not consider what has been paid back, or what will be paid back. Just over looked those things? I think you just lied, like always.

So are you ever going to provide someone who will state that the US economy is in better shape than Canada's? You said you could...you said you would...but you don't. Actually I did not, would not, and yes, I don't And I do not bluster about your lies. I am simply tired of you lying to make your points. You lied big time, oldstyle. And you are still lying trying to get out of your lies. You said Trillions. The stimulus spending was closer to 1/2 trillion. So, yes, me boy. Trillions, with an s as you said, would mean at least 2 Instead of about 1/2 trillion. That is a big difference. So yes, oldstyle, you see it as bluster. You should be appologetic. But you have not the honesty to admit your lies, Because you are a con, and cons lie||| you bluster about me supposedly telling "lies". Let's see you actually back up your contentions for a change. I already did back up my contentions, showed you your own words, educated you on what the stimulus was. What else can I do, oldstyle. Apparantly you are unable to stop yourself from lying.\

 

[Rshermr]

did you see the part about No Government Whatsoever, .

too stupid !! I've been a libertarian all my life. I've never known a libertarian or read about a libertarian who wanted no government. Ron Paul for example is uber libertarian but wants the government to prevent abortion.

You have to understand that "against" or "no" government is hyperbolic. It does not literally mean no government or anarachy notwithstanding whatever wikipedia might say.

These are subtle issues that a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

Wow. An admitted libertarian. So, libertarian ed. Name one successfull libertarian economy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again you've refused to answer what was asked of you. First, oldstylem me poor igorant twit, I feel no reason to answer any question for you. I did not say any libertarian was looking for no gov in the us. That is your statement, not mine. I simply pointed out that according to experts on the subject, libertareian ideals are for little or no gov. And gave you a link for proof of the statement. So, sorry you have problems with that. What Libertarian is asking for "no government" here in the US? When did the Somalis ever make a conscious decision to dissolve their central government because they were pursuing a "libertarian" country? Beats me, dipshit. I do not know nor do I care. I did not say they did. What I said was that the libertarian dream led to somalia today. Research it. You will find many who believe that to be true.. You can't answer either of those questions because your premise is total BULLSHIT. Which premis is that, dipshit. And why should I care what you thinK?? Here is the thing, ass hole. There is no true libertarian economy, or gov, or society. There are only theories, which do not work. You can not make a libertarian economy work, dipshit. Have you ever taken the time to look around. But, idiot, there have been efforts to make such an economy. But it always ends in failure. So, what is your point. I have NO idea what it is that you are trying to say, except that you are trying to put words in my mouth. Which you are too stupid to notice is not working. Who cares about libertarianism. It is just a theory that CATO, the koche brothers, and a lot of clowns like you like to discuss. I do not. Libertarian economics is generally popular with pre pubescent males believe in. Almost all of them see the light, and no longer believe by the time they reach puberty. So, you see, I do not find it of any interest.

Does labor have a place in the debate? Of course. Should someone take what Canada's biggest government labor union puts out about cutting government spending as "gospel"? Not unless they are naive to the point of being brain dead...which you obviously are. That you have to USE a source like that simply underscores that you can't find a main stream source that will back up your distortions of what has happened in Canada. As I said, cons hate labor. You are a con. You hate labor. What is your point again????

Huffington Post is not well respected as an unbiased news source. So, I can either believe you or the research done about HP that I provided you. Wonder who I and any normal person would believe. Probably not you, dipshit. I notice that you used Wikipedia as "proof" that Huffington Post is legitimate but I also notice that you conveniently left out something from what you cut and pasted. "The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, and is known as a left-leaning commentary outlet..." and "Jon Bekken, journalism professor at Suffolk University, has cited the The Huffington Post as an example of an "advocacy newspaper."[54]". Gee, Rshermr...why did you have to "cherry pick" from the very source that you say "proves" The Huffington Post isn't biased? I gave you the link, dipshit. Did you forget that? What I was pointing out is that what the HP is today is a solid sourse of info, and one of the most popular among non cons. Cons only listen to what they want to believe, like you, oldstyle. Non cons use many sourses of info, do not see HP as hugely biassed as you do, and find the info there interesting and usefull. Cons do not like HP. You are a con. You do not like HP. What a surprise, dipshit.

As for what constitutes it is not, as you know, my dishonest con, what constitutes stimulus. You said the Stimulus spent trillions. Would you like me to go back and copy and paste it for you??"stimulus" spending by the Obama Administration? You may WANT to say that anything that wasn't in the Obama Stimulus proper doesn't count towards what Barry's spent but that's hardly reality since the entire premise of the auto bail outs was supposedly to prevent the loss of a million jobs...correct? If that doesn't fit the definition of stimulus, I don't know what does. Extension to unemployment compensation was supposed to give us that $2 for every $1 we spent on it and creates jobs if you believe the horseshit that Nancy Pelosi was pushing several years ago. Wouldn't that fall under the heading of stimulus as well? No, dipshit, it was not. I notice that you don't want to even talk about the billions that we gave to GM in tax waivers...isn't that "stimulus"? Or would that just be a good old fashioned "pay off". You see, that's the problem with this Administration...they play fast and loose with numbers on EVERYTHING so it's almost impossible to know what things are really going to cost. The one constant is that they ALWAYS cost more than you progressives have told us they would. And that you think most of the GM bailout has been "paid back" shows just how ignorant you are about the topic.Wowl, I never saw anyone try to get around a bunch of lies so hard, oldstyle. Thought you took economics. Stimulus spending, or a stimulus, is not taxes nor tax reduction. Stimulus spending is spending. Get it yet. And you, as I, and as anyone who knows anything about what was called the STIMULUS knows that it was not part of TARP. And though you would like to make the auto bailout look lika a bad idea, check with the CBO. Again, it is the CBO or you, dipshit. And you, of course, loose. Increasing the time for unemployment was just that, the unemployment extension. Which was traded to the repubs for continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Aas for the rest of your accusations, they are again, worthless con dogma.\\\
So, if you add it all up, you still to not have trillions. And you do not consider what has been paid back, or what will be paid back. Just over looked those things? I think you just lied, like always.

So are you ever going to provide someone who will state that the US economy is in better shape than Canada's? You said you could...you said you would...but you don't. Actually I did not, would not, and yes, I don't And I do not bluster about your lies. I am simply tired of you lying to make your points. You lied big time, oldstyle. And you are still lying trying to get out of your lies. You said Trillions. The stimulus spending was closer to 1/2 trillion. So, yes, me boy. Trillions, with an s as you said, would mean at least 2 Instead of about 1/2 trillion. That is a big difference. So yes, oldstyle, you see it as bluster. You should be appologetic. But you have not the honesty to admit your lies, Because you are a con, and cons lie||| you bluster about me supposedly telling "lies". Let's see you actually back up your contentions for a change. I already did back up my contentions, showed you your own words, educated you on what the stimulus was. What else can I do, oldstyle. Apparantly you are unable to stop yourself from lying.\

"Beats me, dipshit. I do not know nor do I care."

That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. You don't know.

What you consider 'backing up your contentions' has consisted of your telling me that Canada and Sweden don't count...that Libertarians want to do away with all government...that Somalia chose to be in the situation they are in because they deliberately wanted no government...that a newsletter put out by a public sector union isn't biased when it comes to government cuts...that we haven't lost billions on the GM bailout and that The Huffington Post isn't a far left source of news.

You're an idiot...plain and simple.

 

[Rshermr]

"Beats me, dipshit. I do not know nor do I care."

That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. You don't know.

What you consider 'backing up your contentions' has consisted of your telling me that Canada and Sweden don't count..So, as I understand it, your one far right british web site is what we should consider as valid info, right??? Makes perfect sense, if you are a con tool. I gave you 5 sourses, and there are many more, should you care to look. But then, you do not. Because you want to believe what you want to believe. Good for you, oldstyle. And you think you should be taken seriously???.that Libertarians want to do away with all government..Well, of course, that is not EXACTLY what I said, now is it, oldstyle. I said SOME libertarians want to do away with all gov. Typical misquote from you, oldstyle. Go look again. AND, I provided a non partial sourse that made that statement. So, not sure why you care so much. Most Libs want as little gov as possible, some want none. Why is that such a big deal to you, dipshit???Another case of you wasting my time..that Somalia chose to be in the situation they are in because they deliberately wanted no government.. Again, oldstyle. You lie again. I said no such thing. Integrity, me boy, integrity.that a newsletter put out by a public sector union isn't biased when it comes to government cuts.Another lie, oldstyle. I said no such thing. I admitted they have a bias. And I pointed out that when you used a biased source, and I pointed that out, you said every source has some bias. Integrity, me boy. Lies show a total lack or integrity...that we haven't lost billions I objected when you lied about the amount of the STIMULUS. I pointed out to you that the GM bailout was not part of the Stimulus, but part of the Auto bailout, and that the Auto Bailout was part of TARP, not the Stimulus. So, you lie again. Integrity, me boy, you need to stop lying about lots of things, but what I said, in particular. You see, I do my best to tell the truth. To you truth is of no real concern.on the GM bailout and that The Huffington Post isn't a far left source of news.
And I gave you the impartial analysis of HP. You do not like it. Sorry about that. But if it helps, you are welcome to your opinion. You know how much I respect your opinion.
You're an idiot...plain and simple. Which is what I think you are, oldstyle. Makes it a tie. But, and this is important, I do not lie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But, and this is important, I do not lie.[/COLOR]

A liberal will be slow, very very slow so will often lie, but , being slow, not know it.

It's easy to prove too. Please say something intelligent and substantive in support of liberalism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wow. An admitted libertarian. So, libertarian ed. Name one successfull libertarian economy.

Simple, the US is the richest and the most libertarian!! Friedman felt the more llibertarian we become the more successful we will become.
Imagine, you thought you had asked a Perry Mason style question!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[Oldstyle]

"Beats me, dipshit. I do not know nor do I care."

That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. You don't know.

What you consider 'backing up your contentions' has consisted of your telling me that Canada and Sweden don't count..So, as I understand it, your one far right british web site is what we should consider as valid info, right??? Makes perfect sense, if you are a con tool. I gave you 5 sourses, and there are many more, should you care to look. But then, you do not. Because you want to believe what you want to believe. Good for you, oldstyle. And you think you should be taken seriously???.that Libertarians want to do away with all government..Well, of course, that is not EXACTLY what I said, now is it, oldstyle. I said SOME libertarians want to do away with all gov. Typical misquote from you, oldstyle. Go look again. AND, I provided a non partial sourse that made that statement. So, not sure why you care so much. Most Libs want as little gov as possible, some want none. Why is that such a big deal to you, dipshit???Another case of you wasting my time..that Somalia chose to be in the situation they are in because they deliberately wanted no government.. Again, oldstyle. You lie again. I said no such thing. Integrity, me boy, integrity.that a newsletter put out by a public sector union isn't biased when it comes to government cuts.Another lie, oldstyle. I said no such thing. I admitted they have a bias. And I pointed out that when you used a biased source, and I pointed that out, you said every source has some bias. Integrity, me boy. Lies show a total lack or integrity...that we haven't lost billions I objected when you lied about the amount of the STIMULUS. I pointed out to you that the GM bailout was not part of the Stimulus, but part of the Auto bailout, and that the Auto Bailout was part of TARP, not the Stimulus. So, you lie again. Integrity, me boy, you need to stop lying about lots of things, but what I said, in particular. You see, I do my best to tell the truth. To you truth is of no real concern.on the GM bailout and that The Huffington Post isn't a far left source of news.
And I gave you the impartial analysis of HP. You do not like it. Sorry about that. But if it helps, you are welcome to your opinion. You know how much I respect your opinion.
You're an idiot...plain and simple. Which is what I think you are, oldstyle. Makes it a tie. But, and this is important, I do not lie.

When did I ever say that Canada and Sweden don't count? You asked me to show you where across the board cuts to government spending had worked and I showed you that they had worked in both Canada and Sweden. "YOU" were the one that decided that those two countries "don't count". THAT is you at your finest.

Yes, you gave me 5 sources. One was HuffPo...one was a newsletter from Canada's largest governmental employee union...two were the same source. neither of which said that the US economy was in better shape than the Canadian economy...and the last DIDN'T EVEN MENTION CANADA!!! So much for your 5 sources...

I never made the claim that Libertarians wanted to do away with all government...that was YOUR idiotic claim...something you backed up by stating that Somalia was a Libertarian form of government...a claim that is SO ridiculous as to be laughable.

As for the auto bailout? Yes, it was paid for by TARP funds but the GM bailout was a program that was totally Barack Obama's creature not the previous administration. Obama used unspent TARP money (money that was supposed to go towards buying up bad debt in the banking system) and instead used it for the GM deal. Since that was supposed to save a million jobs (which is an interesting concept because the entire auto industry in the US is less than 800,000!) how is it that you can NOT consider that to be stimulus spending on the part of the President? You have the idiot notion that anything that wasn't specifically in the Obama Stimulus...even though it was obviously spent AS stimulus, shouldn't be counted. Nor do you seem to think that the 47 billion dollars in tax waivers that Barry gave to GM to sweeten the deal should count either. And you also seem to believe that any interest on the money we've had to borrow to DO the stimulus shouldn't be counted as part of the cost of stimulus.

The only opinion you gave me about HuffPo was something you got out of Wikipedia...which if you had half a brain you would KNOW isn't a reliable source of factual information. What's REALLY sad about that is you had to cherry pick what you posted from Wikipedia...leaving out the parts that said HuffPo was a left leaning publication and an example of an advocacy newspaper. EVEN YOUR OWN SHITTY SOURCES DON'T BACK UP YOUR CONTENTIONS!!!!

Tie? You've had your ass handed to you this entire debate...you're simply too ignorant to know it.

 

[Rshermr]

When did I ever say that Canada and Sweden don't count?Are you having a conversation with yourself?? You asked me to show you where across the board cuts to government spending had worked and I showed you that they had worked in both Canada and Sweden. Actually, since we were not talking about the canadian, or swedish, economy, I assumed that you would understand that examples in those countries would be of no interest. So, since you could not find an example in this country, you found a far right british web site, and used that as interest of evidence in this country. So, here is the problem, oh one of little intellect. Canada or sweden have entirely different economies, and economic issues. Not sure what time frame you were looking at. So, yes, one of a higher intellect would wonder WHY you are looking at economic issues in canada and sweden. And why you could not at least find a source that could explain why we would care what went on in canada, or sweden, and fill in all the blanks you left out. "YOU" were the one that decided that those two countries "don't count". THAT is you at your finest.

Yes, you gave me 5 sources. One was HuffPo...one was a newsletter from Canada's largest governmental employee union...two were the same source. neither of which said that the US economy was in better shape than the Canadian economy...and the last DIDN'T EVEN MENTION CANADA!!! So much for your 5 sources... Got it. You hate labor and do not want to here their opinions. Typical con. You hate huf pro. It is not a web site approved by Limbaugh. The one that did not mention canada, was about lowering spending, which was the point of your contentions. Too complex for your simple mind. And the other two were the canadian gov office that explains where their economy is and where it is going. I never suggested it talked about where they were in relation to the US. But if you cared to read their own projections, you would have seen that they are not in anywhere near as great a shape as you would like us all to believe. Keeps the lie alive if you can ignore their own projections. Quite dishonest, don't you think???

I never made the claim that Libertarians wanted to do away with all government...that was YOUR idiotic claim...something you backed up by stating that Somalia was a Libertarian form of government...a claim that is SO ridiculous as to be laughable.And another lie on your part. I did not say you did, oldstyle. Nor did I say that they did, except in some cases. And I then provided you proof. Sorry you do not believe it, but there you go. ON the OTHER HAND, you have no proof that all libertarians want some government. Do you, oldstyle.

As for the auto bailout? Yes, it was paid for by TARP funds but the GM bailout was a program that was totally Barack Obama's creature not the previous administration. OOPS. I am sure that you would like this major error corrected. So, consider:
"Republicans continue to blast President Obama for that auto bailout three years ago. Mitt Romney says he would have -- as he argued back in 2008 when the issue was being debated -- let the automakers go through a structured bankruptcy: sell off some stuff, downsize and so forth.

But former President George W. Bush, most annoyingly, keeps coming to Obama’s defense, saying the bailout was essential to stave off complete disaster.

He defended the move in his memoir and he popped up again last week at the Las Vegas convention of the National Automobile Dealers Association, saying he would “do it again.”

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” Bush told the 22,000 attendees. “Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy.”

“I said, ‘No depression.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lout-was-mine/2012/02/13/gIQA6oDPBR_blog.html
www.dailytech.com/Bush...Auto+Bailout+Amid.../article23952.htm
Bush on auto bailouts: 'I'd do it again' - Bottom Line
There are many more articles out there about Bush W starting and supporting the auto bailouts. So, do you still want to say that the bailouts were entirely Obamas creation. Or do you want to continue the lie.
Obama used unspent TARP money (money that was supposed to go towards buying up bad debt in the banking system) and instead used it for the GM deal. Since that was supposed to save a million jobs (which is an interesting concept because the entire auto industry in the US is less than 800,000!Only to someone with an agenda, oldstyle. The projection of over a million is supported by most economists, because it did not affect just the auto industry. It affected, in addition, all of the businesses that supported the auto industry. You need to be at least a little honest in your statements.) how is it that you can NOT consider that to be stimulus spending on the part of the President? You said stimulus, not I. Not my fault that you do not know the difference between the stimulus and TARP. Relative to jobs saved and taxes, I could just let you get away with this lie. But here is some more info.
A study in 2010 by the Center for Automotive Research found that the auto rescue likely saved 1.14 million jobs and saved the government $28.6 billion in lost tax revenue. And those estimates, McAlinden said, are likely conservative.
Auto Bailout Prevented $28.6 Billion Loss for U.S., Research Group Says - Bloomberg
So, lets just put an end to the lying about the cost and benefit of the TARP Auto Bailout.
You have the idiot notion that anything that wasn't specifically in the Obama Stimulus...even though it was obviously spent AS stimulus, shouldn't be counted. Nor do you seem to think that the 47 billion dollars in tax waivers that Barry gave to GM to sweeten the deal should count either. And you also seem to believe that any interest on the money we've had to borrow to DO the stimulus shouldn't be counted as part of the cost of stimulus.
Not at all, oldstyle. The auto bailout has been about 50% repaid. Latest projections are that the auto bailout, not just for GM, but also Chrysler and other auto industry companies, will end up up costing in the area of $25.1B.
Auto bailout price tag rises to $25 billion. How high will it go?
So, another of your lies debunked.

The only opinion you gave me about HuffPo was something you got out of Wikipedia...which if you had half a brain you would KNOW isn't a reliable source of factual information. What's REALLY sad about that is you had to cherry pick what you posted from Wikipedia...leaving out the parts that said HuffPo was a left leaning publication and an example of an advocacy newspaper. EVEN YOUR OWN SHITTY SOURCES DON'T BACK UP YOUR CONTENTIONS!!!!Ah, but it is not a Wikipedia quote, but a quote run in Wikipedia meant to cover what Huff Post is all about TODAY, as well as at its founding. Since I am quoting today's info then the info about its current condition is important. And, of course, you did use the link that I provided you. So, seems to further your intention to mislead, eh, oldstyle. All I said, and what you are having trouble with, is that the Huff Post is the most popular site on the web discussing political issues. I certainly do not intend to say that cons, like you, hate it. It is just that most people disagree. Understand yet, oldstyle.

Tie? You've had your ass handed to you this entire debate...you're simply too ignorant to know it. Well, that is your opinion, of course. And you know how much I respect your opinion!! And of course, we could argue who is ignorant. But this is about honesty, oldstyle. It is about you lying continuously.
What I suggest is that you should stop all the lying. Makes for a more rational discussion.
One of the problems with lies is that it takes a few secons to post them, but a good deal of time to research the subject and present the truth. I do not lie. I am wrong from time to time, but I do not lie. You, on the other hand, lie continuously. Like your statement in a post or two of the Stimulus costing over $1T, then within a post or two, you are saying Trillions. And lying about why what you say is valid. It is NOT valid. It IS lying.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Private sector cannot create jobs without consumers. [/B]

OMG!! The world has 7 billion consumers so that obviously is not a problem. Do you want a law that everyone must reproduce more so we'll have even more consumers???

What is very very rare are geniuses like Steve Jobs who created the jobs and products that got us from the stone age to here!! Obviously the liberal war on the rich is horrible for the economy. Imagine if Jobs had grown up the current liberal marxist atmosphere. Would he want to go into business or not??

 

[Rshermr]

So, how many apple products did Steve Jobs buy??? Do you suppose he bought enough to keep the company in business??
You need both. A product to selll, and consumers to buy them.
Ed is a libertarian. He does not know what consumers are, and what increased demand can do to help companies make money. Like most libertarians, ed is an idiot.