Do Republicans Not Understand How Moronic It Is To Blame Obama For Today's Economy Yet Won't Give..

[ClosedCaption]

Its only Moronic if you believe they believe it. It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the point of they will say anything to blame Obama for everything.

See? Now it all makes sense

Sure....

We are almost six years into the reign of your Affirmative Action Failure and he is still blaming Bush.

Whatever gets you re-elected....I guess.

Blaming Bush for things Bush is responsible for isnt unacceptable

 

[Oldstyle]

And yet, the Obama forced a Dem-controlled Congress to extend those tax cuts for 2 years.
How was that Bush's fault?

Actually it was the GOP filibuster threat that forced the Dems to extend the job destroying Bush tax cuts.

The "threat" that forced Barack Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts was having the tepid growth we were seeing in the economy come to a grinding halt! Obama extended the Bush tax cuts because someone who actually took economics in college appears to have finally gotten it through Barry's skull that letting them expire was going hurt employment and the economy. By the way it wasn't just the GOP who didn't want the Bush tax cuts to expire...there were a large number of moderate Democrats who wanted nothing to do with seeing that happen!

 

[Meathead]

Its only Moronic if you believe they believe it. It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the point of they will say anything to blame Obama for everything.

See? Now it all makes sense

Sure....

We are almost six years into the reign of your Affirmative Action Failure and he is still blaming Bush.

Whatever gets you re-elected....I guess.

Blaming Bush for things Bush is responsible for isnt unacceptable

Would blaming Obama be acceptable if He had flaws? This is theoretical of course.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its only Moronic if you believe they believe it. It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the point of they will say anything to blame Obama for everything.

See? Now it all makes sense

Sure....

We are almost six years into the reign of your Affirmative Action Failure and he is still blaming Bush.

Whatever gets you re-elected....I guess.

Blaming Bush for things Bush is responsible for isnt unacceptable

Would blaming Obama be acceptable if He had flaws? This is theoretical of course.

I dont understand your question unless you're saying someone doesnt have flaws

 

[kaz]

W was responsible for a recession that started six months before he became President. Obama never will be responsible for the economy over two terms in office.

The first Bush recession began March 2001, not 6 months before the Bush coup.

Actually, it started in July, 2000. Later they came back and revised the number that it grew by a microscopic percentage, and therefore wasn't a recession as defined by the Fed. However, that microscopic amount was less than population growth, people lost money. You're going to hang your hat on that technicality, LOL. That's what Democrats have.

But you are right about one thing, you are cynical about people who don't trust government, that you are, Ed.

 

[hadit]

W was responsible for a recession that started six months before he became President. Obama never will be responsible for the economy over two terms in office.

The first Bush recession began March 2001, not 6 months before the Bush coup.

Actually, it started in July, 2000. Later they came back and revised the number that it grew by a microscopic percentage, and therefore wasn't a recession as defined by the Fed. However, that microscopic amount was less than population growth, people lost money. You're going to hang your hat on that technicality, LOL. That's what Democrats have.

But you are right about one thing, you are cynical about people who don't trust government, that you are, Ed.

I remember Bubba and Algore complaining that Bush somehow "talked down" the economy during the campaign season. I still find it amusing that a single private citizen's voice can have more impact on the entire US economy than that of the most powerful man in the world.

 

[kaz]

W was responsible for a recession that started six months before he became President. Obama never will be responsible for the economy over two terms in office.

The first Bush recession began March 2001, not 6 months before the Bush coup.

Actually, it started in July, 2000. Later they came back and revised the number that it grew by a microscopic percentage, and therefore wasn't a recession as defined by the Fed. However, that microscopic amount was less than population growth, people lost money. You're going to hang your hat on that technicality, LOL. That's what Democrats have.

But you are right about one thing, you are cynical about people who don't trust government, that you are, Ed.

I remember Bubba and Algore complaining that Bush somehow "talked down" the economy during the campaign season. I still find it amusing that a single private citizen's voice can have more impact on the entire US economy than that of the most powerful man in the world.

The economy turned down before the elections started. And Democrats spent eight years talking down the economy

 

[Billy000]

If President Obama and the democrats did SO well, as you claim, in creating so many jobs and pushing this nation into recovery through the stimulus, then approval numbers would be up and Nancy Pelosi would have kept her seat as speaker. The truth of satisfaction with the American people wouldn't be any more evident than that.

Americans are easily duped by the bullshit propaganda of Fox News and this unfounded belief that government has made things worse. If people would just bother to learn facts and stop listening to the stupidity of Faux News and republicans, they will see things for what they are. Of course, republicans have a disapproval rating far worse than Obama's. Funny how you cons love to ignore that...

So FOX News was single handedly responsible for the downfall of Nancy Pelosi? Is that the story you want to stick with, along with your stimulus boosted the economy belief?

Let me ask you something. If the stimulus created a strong recovery of jobs, why did the Democrats push for Federal unemployment extensions even well after a year since the stimulus was passed? Did the Democrats not have enough confidence in their leader that they needed to push the blame on Republicans for standing in the way of providing those "much needed benefits"? I mean the stimulus was working right? No need for Harry Reed to be fighting so hard for the passage of Federal extensions after extensions. The Republicans would have been right to say, "Why are we wasting millions of lost revenue dollars on unemployment extensions when Obama and the Democrats are all puffed up and proud of how many jobs are being created? The liberal media tells the nation just how well this stimulus has worked to help turn this recession around, why the big urgency to throw so much money on Federal extensions?" Simply allow the Democrats to sink in their own "Mission Accomplished" media frenzy, obviously the stimulus worked or someone among the Democrats is lying.

I simply can't help but find these "inconvenient truths" that seem to be putting holes in your argument. Perhaps you were the one that was foolishly ill informed as to fall for this propaganda?

Lol why are we talking about Nancy? I don't give a shit about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care about democrats, but I do know they come up with effective policies.

Yes once again you cons demonstrate you don't even know what was even in the stimulus. The extension of unemployment was the heart of the stimulus package. The dems pushing for the extension was simply trying to extend what made the stimulus worked. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but extending unemployment benefits creates jobs. How you ask? Demand side economics. See what extending unemployment benefits does is put money in hands in the people who would otherwise not be spending money in the market. These people used their money on basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter. That boosted economic growth which in turn created jobs. Yes it added to our national debt, but every dollar lost in revenue created $1.21 in economic growth.

You know what's amusing, Billy? That you actually BELIEVE that nonsense!

The Obama Stimulus "created" so few jobs at such a cost per job...that the Democrats were forced to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Created or Saved" to cover up just how bad it really was...and MAN was it ever bad!

The facts are not on your side. The "jobs created or saved" phrasing originated from the CBO. Obama's admin just quoted it. If you understood demand side economics you would understand it. The increase in economic demand stimulated the economy. Jobs that would have been otherwise lost were saved due to the extra consumer spending.

The 3 million figure also comes from the CBO.

 

[Oldstyle]

If President Obama and the democrats did SO well, as you claim, in creating so many jobs and pushing this nation into recovery through the stimulus, then approval numbers would be up and Nancy Pelosi would have kept her seat as speaker. The truth of satisfaction with the American people wouldn't be any more evident than that.

Americans are easily duped by the bullshit propaganda of Fox News and this unfounded belief that government has made things worse. If people would just bother to learn facts and stop listening to the stupidity of Faux News and republicans, they will see things for what they are. Of course, republicans have a disapproval rating far worse than Obama's. Funny how you cons love to ignore that...

So FOX News was single handedly responsible for the downfall of Nancy Pelosi? Is that the story you want to stick with, along with your stimulus boosted the economy belief?

Let me ask you something. If the stimulus created a strong recovery of jobs, why did the Democrats push for Federal unemployment extensions even well after a year since the stimulus was passed? Did the Democrats not have enough confidence in their leader that they needed to push the blame on Republicans for standing in the way of providing those "much needed benefits"? I mean the stimulus was working right? No need for Harry Reed to be fighting so hard for the passage of Federal extensions after extensions. The Republicans would have been right to say, "Why are we wasting millions of lost revenue dollars on unemployment extensions when Obama and the Democrats are all puffed up and proud of how many jobs are being created? The liberal media tells the nation just how well this stimulus has worked to help turn this recession around, why the big urgency to throw so much money on Federal extensions?" Simply allow the Democrats to sink in their own "Mission Accomplished" media frenzy, obviously the stimulus worked or someone among the Democrats is lying.

I simply can't help but find these "inconvenient truths" that seem to be putting holes in your argument. Perhaps you were the one that was foolishly ill informed as to fall for this propaganda?

Lol why are we talking about Nancy? I don't give a shit about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care about democrats, but I do know they come up with effective policies.

Yes once again you cons demonstrate you don't even know what was even in the stimulus. The extension of unemployment was the heart of the stimulus package. The dems pushing for the extension was simply trying to extend what made the stimulus worked. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but extending unemployment benefits creates jobs. How you ask? Demand side economics. See what extending unemployment benefits does is put money in hands in the people who would otherwise not be spending money in the market. These people used their money on basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter. That boosted economic growth which in turn created jobs. Yes it added to our national debt, but every dollar lost in revenue created $1.21 in economic growth.

You know what's amusing, Billy? That you actually BELIEVE that nonsense!

The Obama Stimulus "created" so few jobs at such a cost per job...that the Democrats were forced to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Created or Saved" to cover up just how bad it really was...and MAN was it ever bad!

The facts are not on your side. The "jobs created or saved" phrasing originated from the CBO. Obama's admin just quoted it. If you understood demand side economics you would understand it. The increase in economic demand stimulated the economy. Jobs that would have been otherwise lost were saved due to the extra consumer spending.

The 3 million figure also comes from the CBO.

Where the phrase "originated" means little, Billy! The fact is that the Obama Administration latched onto it because it obscured how few job were created under the Obama Stimulus.

And I DO understand economics...hence my understanding of why tax cuts promote real job growth and extending unemployment does not.

 

[Billy000]

Americans are easily duped by the bullshit propaganda of Fox News and this unfounded belief that government has made things worse. If people would just bother to learn facts and stop listening to the stupidity of Faux News and republicans, they will see things for what they are. Of course, republicans have a disapproval rating far worse than Obama's. Funny how you cons love to ignore that...

So FOX News was single handedly responsible for the downfall of Nancy Pelosi? Is that the story you want to stick with, along with your stimulus boosted the economy belief?

Let me ask you something. If the stimulus created a strong recovery of jobs, why did the Democrats push for Federal unemployment extensions even well after a year since the stimulus was passed? Did the Democrats not have enough confidence in their leader that they needed to push the blame on Republicans for standing in the way of providing those "much needed benefits"? I mean the stimulus was working right? No need for Harry Reed to be fighting so hard for the passage of Federal extensions after extensions. The Republicans would have been right to say, "Why are we wasting millions of lost revenue dollars on unemployment extensions when Obama and the Democrats are all puffed up and proud of how many jobs are being created? The liberal media tells the nation just how well this stimulus has worked to help turn this recession around, why the big urgency to throw so much money on Federal extensions?" Simply allow the Democrats to sink in their own "Mission Accomplished" media frenzy, obviously the stimulus worked or someone among the Democrats is lying.

I simply can't help but find these "inconvenient truths" that seem to be putting holes in your argument. Perhaps you were the one that was foolishly ill informed as to fall for this propaganda?

Lol why are we talking about Nancy? I don't give a shit about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care about democrats, but I do know they come up with effective policies.

Yes once again you cons demonstrate you don't even know what was even in the stimulus. The extension of unemployment was the heart of the stimulus package. The dems pushing for the extension was simply trying to extend what made the stimulus worked. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but extending unemployment benefits creates jobs. How you ask? Demand side economics. See what extending unemployment benefits does is put money in hands in the people who would otherwise not be spending money in the market. These people used their money on basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter. That boosted economic growth which in turn created jobs. Yes it added to our national debt, but every dollar lost in revenue created $1.21 in economic growth.

You know what's amusing, Billy? That you actually BELIEVE that nonsense!

The Obama Stimulus "created" so few jobs at such a cost per job...that the Democrats were forced to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Created or Saved" to cover up just how bad it really was...and MAN was it ever bad!

The facts are not on your side. The "jobs created or saved" phrasing originated from the CBO. Obama's admin just quoted it. If you understood demand side economics you would understand it. The increase in economic demand stimulated the economy. Jobs that would have been otherwise lost were saved due to the extra consumer spending.

The 3 million figure also comes from the CBO.

Where the phrase "originated" means little, Billy! The fact is that the Obama Administration latched onto it because it obscured how few job were created under the Obama Stimulus.

And I DO understand economics...hence my understanding of why tax cuts promote real job growth and extending unemployment does not.

You keep saying that it created few jobs yet you offer no evidence or explanation. I can give you the link to the CBO article if you'd like as well as the independent article explaining why extending unemployment benefits created jobs.

Tax cuts for the middle class stimulates some growth, but tax cuts for the wealthy do very little. Why? Because this is a consumer based economy. The wealthy, in reality, invest very little of their money. They keep it. That's mostly why 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. Economic growth relies more on consumer demand than it does investment anyway. Investment only accounts for 30% of our economy. And if you do understand that tax cuts allow for more consumer spending, why wouldn't you understand that extending unemployment benefits stimulates consumer spending as well. Yes, it adds to our debt but so do tax cuts! The difference is that stimulating demand is more beneficial to the economy than investment. Again this is further complicated by the fact that the wealthy invest less and less these days.

 

[Oldstyle]

So FOX News was single handedly responsible for the downfall of Nancy Pelosi? Is that the story you want to stick with, along with your stimulus boosted the economy belief?

Let me ask you something. If the stimulus created a strong recovery of jobs, why did the Democrats push for Federal unemployment extensions even well after a year since the stimulus was passed? Did the Democrats not have enough confidence in their leader that they needed to push the blame on Republicans for standing in the way of providing those "much needed benefits"? I mean the stimulus was working right? No need for Harry Reed to be fighting so hard for the passage of Federal extensions after extensions. The Republicans would have been right to say, "Why are we wasting millions of lost revenue dollars on unemployment extensions when Obama and the Democrats are all puffed up and proud of how many jobs are being created? The liberal media tells the nation just how well this stimulus has worked to help turn this recession around, why the big urgency to throw so much money on Federal extensions?" Simply allow the Democrats to sink in their own "Mission Accomplished" media frenzy, obviously the stimulus worked or someone among the Democrats is lying.

I simply can't help but find these "inconvenient truths" that seem to be putting holes in your argument. Perhaps you were the one that was foolishly ill informed as to fall for this propaganda?

Lol why are we talking about Nancy? I don't give a shit about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care about democrats, but I do know they come up with effective policies.

Yes once again you cons demonstrate you don't even know what was even in the stimulus. The extension of unemployment was the heart of the stimulus package. The dems pushing for the extension was simply trying to extend what made the stimulus worked. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but extending unemployment benefits creates jobs. How you ask? Demand side economics. See what extending unemployment benefits does is put money in hands in the people who would otherwise not be spending money in the market. These people used their money on basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter. That boosted economic growth which in turn created jobs. Yes it added to our national debt, but every dollar lost in revenue created $1.21 in economic growth.

You know what's amusing, Billy? That you actually BELIEVE that nonsense!

The Obama Stimulus "created" so few jobs at such a cost per job...that the Democrats were forced to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Created or Saved" to cover up just how bad it really was...and MAN was it ever bad!

The facts are not on your side. The "jobs created or saved" phrasing originated from the CBO. Obama's admin just quoted it. If you understood demand side economics you would understand it. The increase in economic demand stimulated the economy. Jobs that would have been otherwise lost were saved due to the extra consumer spending.

The 3 million figure also comes from the CBO.

Where the phrase "originated" means little, Billy! The fact is that the Obama Administration latched onto it because it obscured how few job were created under the Obama Stimulus.

And I DO understand economics...hence my understanding of why tax cuts promote real job growth and extending unemployment does not.

You keep saying that it created few jobs yet you offer no evidence or explanation. I can give you the link to the CBO article if you'd like as well as the independent article explaining why extending unemployment benefits created jobs.

Tax cuts for the middle class stimulates some growth, but tax cuts for the wealthy do very little. Why? Because this is a consumer based economy. The wealthy, in reality, invest very little of their money. They keep it. That's mostly why 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. Economic growth relies more on consumer demand than it does investment anyway. Investment only accounts for 30% of our economy. And if you do understand that tax cuts allow for more consumer spending, why wouldn't you understand that extending unemployment benefits stimulates consumer spending as well. Yes, it adds to our debt but so do tax cuts! The difference is that stimulating demand is more beneficial to the economy than investment. Again this is further complicated by the fact that the wealthy invest less and less these days.

For God's sake Billy...get your head out of your posterior! THE REASON THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAD TO USE "JOBS SAVED" IS BECAUSE THEY CREATED SO FEW JOBS!!!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

...any blame to Bush for it? You have this mantra that liberals love to blame Bush for everything yet when it is so obvious something is Bush's fault you still say that bullshit.

Now it's debatable how much Bush had to do with the Great Recession but I think it is safe to say he at least contributed a small part to it (TIME has a great article on that). Despite that, you put most of the blame on Obama for the economy that he inherited and it's just fucking stupid.

According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created close to 3 million private jobs. Not only that, but we have seen twice as many private sector jobs created in his first term than in both of Bush's. These are facts. The stock market has never been better. You can whine about them being false but they are very much true.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say this recovery has been "slow". The economy lost 8 million jobs to that recession. What kind of job growth are you repubs expecting? What would be suitable for you? A million jobs a month? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Do you really expect any economy from any part of the globe to get a million jobs a month? That seems to be what you clowns are demanding. I mean how many jobs should we be creating every month? Why is it Obama's fault we haven't your magic number? Nowadays, we have regained all the jobs we lost. Yes, you can whine about it not keeping up with population growth if you want but it is still true.

Oh, and some of you love to bring up the small number of parttime jobs created under Obama. Tell me, if job creators are wealthier than they have ever been, why is it that you don't put any blame on them for the economic mess this country suffered? Why don't you ask them where all the full time jobs are?

Obama 8217 s Numbers July 2014 Update

news flash, ya retard, OBAMA IS THE POTUS

 

[Oldstyle]

I am so tired of Progressives trying to manipulate economic numbers in an attempt to "polish a turd"! I'm sorry but the stimulus was not successful. If you broke down how much we spent for how many jobs we created then the cost per job was ridiculous. That's the reason they started with the whole "jobs saved" bullshit! They used THAT because it's an impossible number to verify.

 

[Billy000]

I am so tired of Progressives trying to manipulate economic numbers in an attempt to "polish a turd"! I'm sorry but the stimulus was not successful. If you broke down how much we spent for how many jobs we created then the cost per job was ridiculous. That's the reason they started with the whole "jobs saved" bullshit! They used THAT because it's an impossible number to verify.

Not true. See when it comes to extending unemployment benefits, there is $1.21 in economic growth for every dollar lost in revenue. For Bush's tax cuts, there was only 70 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue. These are facts.

 

[Billy000]

Lol why are we talking about Nancy? I don't give a shit about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care about democrats, but I do know they come up with effective policies.

Yes once again you cons demonstrate you don't even know what was even in the stimulus. The extension of unemployment was the heart of the stimulus package. The dems pushing for the extension was simply trying to extend what made the stimulus worked. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but extending unemployment benefits creates jobs. How you ask? Demand side economics. See what extending unemployment benefits does is put money in hands in the people who would otherwise not be spending money in the market. These people used their money on basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter. That boosted economic growth which in turn created jobs. Yes it added to our national debt, but every dollar lost in revenue created $1.21 in economic growth.

You know what's amusing, Billy? That you actually BELIEVE that nonsense!

The Obama Stimulus "created" so few jobs at such a cost per job...that the Democrats were forced to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Created or Saved" to cover up just how bad it really was...and MAN was it ever bad!

The facts are not on your side. The "jobs created or saved" phrasing originated from the CBO. Obama's admin just quoted it. If you understood demand side economics you would understand it. The increase in economic demand stimulated the economy. Jobs that would have been otherwise lost were saved due to the extra consumer spending.

The 3 million figure also comes from the CBO.

Where the phrase "originated" means little, Billy! The fact is that the Obama Administration latched onto it because it obscured how few job were created under the Obama Stimulus.

And I DO understand economics...hence my understanding of why tax cuts promote real job growth and extending unemployment does not.

You keep saying that it created few jobs yet you offer no evidence or explanation. I can give you the link to the CBO article if you'd like as well as the independent article explaining why extending unemployment benefits created jobs.

Tax cuts for the middle class stimulates some growth, but tax cuts for the wealthy do very little. Why? Because this is a consumer based economy. The wealthy, in reality, invest very little of their money. They keep it. That's mostly why 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. Economic growth relies more on consumer demand than it does investment anyway. Investment only accounts for 30% of our economy. And if you do understand that tax cuts allow for more consumer spending, why wouldn't you understand that extending unemployment benefits stimulates consumer spending as well. Yes, it adds to our debt but so do tax cuts! The difference is that stimulating demand is more beneficial to the economy than investment. Again this is further complicated by the fact that the wealthy invest less and less these days.

For God's sake Billy...get your head out of your posterior! THE REASON THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAD TO USE "JOBS SAVED" IS BECAUSE THEY CREATED SO FEW JOBS!!!!!

Lol you saying that over and over does not make it true.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am so tired of Progressives trying to manipulate economic numbers in an attempt to "polish a turd"! I'm sorry but the stimulus was not successful. If you broke down how much we spent for how many jobs we created then the cost per job was ridiculous. That's the reason they started with the whole "jobs saved" bullshit! They used THAT because it's an impossible number to verify.

Not true. See when it comes to extending unemployment benefits, there is $1.21 in economic growth for every dollar lost in revenue. For Bush's tax cuts, there was only 70 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue. These are facts.

ROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.

 

[Billy000]

...any blame to Bush for it? You have this mantra that liberals love to blame Bush for everything yet when it is so obvious something is Bush's fault you still say that bullshit.

Now it's debatable how much Bush had to do with the Great Recession but I think it is safe to say he at least contributed a small part to it (TIME has a great article on that). Despite that, you put most of the blame on Obama for the economy that he inherited and it's just fucking stupid.

According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created close to 3 million private jobs. Not only that, but we have seen twice as many private sector jobs created in his first term than in both of Bush's. These are facts. The stock market has never been better. You can whine about them being false but they are very much true.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say this recovery has been "slow". The economy lost 8 million jobs to that recession. What kind of job growth are you repubs expecting? What would be suitable for you? A million jobs a month? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Do you really expect any economy from any part of the globe to get a million jobs a month? That seems to be what you clowns are demanding. I mean how many jobs should we be creating every month? Why is it Obama's fault we haven't your magic number? Nowadays, we have regained all the jobs we lost. Yes, you can whine about it not keeping up with population growth if you want but it is still true.

Oh, and some of you love to bring up the small number of parttime jobs created under Obama. Tell me, if job creators are wealthier than they have ever been, why is it that you don't put any blame on them for the economic mess this country suffered? Why don't you ask them where all the full time jobs are?

Obama 8217 s Numbers July 2014 Update

news flash, ya retard, OBAMA IS THE POTUS

That's your response huh? Reminding me that Obama is the president. Nice farmer Brown. Yeah, you're not retarded at all.

 

[Billy000]

I am so tired of Progressives trying to manipulate economic numbers in an attempt to "polish a turd"! I'm sorry but the stimulus was not successful. If you broke down how much we spent for how many jobs we created then the cost per job was ridiculous. That's the reason they started with the whole "jobs saved" bullshit! They used THAT because it's an impossible number to verify.

Not true. See when it comes to extending unemployment benefits, there is $1.21 in economic growth for every dollar lost in revenue. For Bush's tax cuts, there was only 70 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue. These are facts.

ROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.

Lol I can give you the article confirming that fact. It's amazing how little you cons actually know about economics.

 

[Billy000]

I am so tired of Progressives trying to manipulate economic numbers in an attempt to "polish a turd"! I'm sorry but the stimulus was not successful. If you broke down how much we spent for how many jobs we created then the cost per job was ridiculous. That's the reason they started with the whole "jobs saved" bullshit! They used THAT because it's an impossible number to verify.

Not true. See when it comes to extending unemployment benefits, there is $1.21 in economic growth for every dollar lost in revenue. For Bush's tax cuts, there was only 70 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue. These are facts.

ROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

 

[Oldstyle]

So FOX News was single handedly responsible for the downfall of Nancy Pelosi? Is that the story you want to stick with, along with your stimulus boosted the economy belief?

Let me ask you something. If the stimulus created a strong recovery of jobs, why did the Democrats push for Federal unemployment extensions even well after a year since the stimulus was passed? Did the Democrats not have enough confidence in their leader that they needed to push the blame on Republicans for standing in the way of providing those "much needed benefits"? I mean the stimulus was working right? No need for Harry Reed to be fighting so hard for the passage of Federal extensions after extensions. The Republicans would have been right to say, "Why are we wasting millions of lost revenue dollars on unemployment extensions when Obama and the Democrats are all puffed up and proud of how many jobs are being created? The liberal media tells the nation just how well this stimulus has worked to help turn this recession around, why the big urgency to throw so much money on Federal extensions?" Simply allow the Democrats to sink in their own "Mission Accomplished" media frenzy, obviously the stimulus worked or someone among the Democrats is lying.

I simply can't help but find these "inconvenient truths" that seem to be putting holes in your argument. Perhaps you were the one that was foolishly ill informed as to fall for this propaganda?

Lol why are we talking about Nancy? I don't give a shit about Nancy Pelosi. I don't care about democrats, but I do know they come up with effective policies.

Yes once again you cons demonstrate you don't even know what was even in the stimulus. The extension of unemployment was the heart of the stimulus package. The dems pushing for the extension was simply trying to extend what made the stimulus worked. I know it sounds counter intuitive, but extending unemployment benefits creates jobs. How you ask? Demand side economics. See what extending unemployment benefits does is put money in hands in the people who would otherwise not be spending money in the market. These people used their money on basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter. That boosted economic growth which in turn created jobs. Yes it added to our national debt, but every dollar lost in revenue created $1.21 in economic growth.

You know what's amusing, Billy? That you actually BELIEVE that nonsense!

The Obama Stimulus "created" so few jobs at such a cost per job...that the Democrats were forced to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Created or Saved" to cover up just how bad it really was...and MAN was it ever bad!

The facts are not on your side. The "jobs created or saved" phrasing originated from the CBO. Obama's admin just quoted it. If you understood demand side economics you would understand it. The increase in economic demand stimulated the economy. Jobs that would have been otherwise lost were saved due to the extra consumer spending.

The 3 million figure also comes from the CBO.

Where the phrase "originated" means little, Billy! The fact is that the Obama Administration latched onto it because it obscured how few job were created under the Obama Stimulus.

And I DO understand economics...hence my understanding of why tax cuts promote real job growth and extending unemployment does not.

You keep saying that it created few jobs yet you offer no evidence or explanation. I can give you the link to the CBO article if you'd like as well as the independent article explaining why extending unemployment benefits created jobs.

Tax cuts for the middle class stimulates some growth, but tax cuts for the wealthy do very little. Why? Because this is a consumer based economy. The wealthy, in reality, invest very little of their money. They keep it. That's mostly why 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. Economic growth relies more on consumer demand than it does investment anyway. Investment only accounts for 30% of our economy. And if you do understand that tax cuts allow for more consumer spending, why wouldn't you understand that extending unemployment benefits stimulates consumer spending as well. Yes, it adds to our debt but so do tax cuts! The difference is that stimulating demand is more beneficial to the economy than investment. Again this is further complicated by the fact that the wealthy invest less and less these days.

God, Billy...you're SO clueless when it comes to economics! It's like arguing philosophy with a two year old!

You create jobs with the anticipation of profit. Cutting taxes is one way of letting investors know that if they DO risk capital to start up or expand a business that they will be able to keep more of their possible profits. It's a way of changing the equation in the minds of investors to take a risk. When the government agrees to take less that means that an investor stands to make more which might change that equation just enough to get them to risk that capital. When the government sends the message that they want more...that also changes the equation for investors. Letting consumers have more money to spend isn't going to create more jobs if at the same time you take away some of the anticipation of profit from the investors that are needed to create those jobs!