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

[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.

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!

See you're talking about an abstract, psychological idea affecting growth. It just doesn't work like that. If it does, we are talking about a minuscule amount. Also, this doesn't change the fact that the wealthy invest very little these days.

"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!"

What? That does not make any sense. How could giving UI discourage investment? Lol even if it did, in Obama's case he extended Bush's tax cuts so that wouldn't even be close to a problem.

Come on man. You are missing facts.

 

[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.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

ROFL ROFL ROFL... yeah you take a dollar out of my pocket, stopping me from spending said dollar, then claim when you give MY DOLLAR to someone else who is not working for two effing years, that my dollar now generates a 1.64 over what it would have generated if I had spent it. ROFL ROFL ROFL yeah cause workers are idiots who don't know how to spend their money and non-workers are brilliant economists who spend every dime given to them in a fashion to double it's value.

That anyone would believe this claptrap is truly remarkable.

That you and others like you believe punishing workers to the benefit of non-workers is a net positive gain on the Economy, is truly EPIC in its STUPIDITY.

 

[BluesLegend]

Breaking News: The left says Obama's isn't responsible for his domestic policy, his foreign policy, or his suck ass golf swing.

 

[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

ROFL ROFL ROFL... yeah you take a dollar out of my pocket, stopping me from spending said dollar, then claim when you give MY DOLLAR to someone else who is not working for two effing years, that my dollar now generates a 1.64 over what it would have generated if I had spent it. ROFL ROFL ROFL yeah cause workers are idiots who don't know how to spend their money and non-workers are brilliant economists who spend every dime given to them in a fashion to double it's value.

That anyone would believe this claptrap is truly remarkable.

That you and others like you believe punishing workers to the benefit of non-workers is a net positive gain on the Economy, is truly EPIC in its STUPIDITY.

Lol farmer Brown quit prentending you understand economics through your own personal logic. Your personal logic isn't smart enough to understand it.

Part of Obama's stimulus was extending Bush's tax cuts. That is what reimbursed the consumer.

Did you even read the article? There's a reason why unemployment benefits were singled out over any other government benefit. The people who received those benefits spent there money IMMEDIATELY on basic essentials like food, water, and shelter. You're a business man correct? You make a decent living? Well see if the gov were to give that money to you, you would either save it or you would wait to spend it and it could go to some less essential item that would do less for the economy, like say, an iPod or something. Or maybe you would spend it immediately on food, who knows? However, for the unemployed, it's much more likely they would spend it immediately on food etc. You see how that works? It's a targeted group.

A dollar spent on the market is going to generate growth (I.e the 1.64). That is the nature of capitalism

 

[Oldstyle]

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!

See you're talking about an abstract, psychological idea affecting growth. It just doesn't work like that. If it does, we are talking about a minuscule amount. Also, this doesn't change the fact that the wealthy invest very little these days.

"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!"

What? That does not make any sense. How could giving UI discourage investment? Lol even if it did, in Obama's case he extended Bush's tax cuts so that wouldn't even be close to a problem.

Come on man. You are missing facts.

The wealthy don't invest? That's one of the stupidest statements ever made on this board, Billy! Investment is what wealthy people do!!!! It's WHERE they invest that either creates or doesn't create employment. It scares me that there are so many people in this country as ignorant about economics as you are!

A wealthy person with a choice between a tax sheltered investment that carries zero risk but a small return...or an investment in a business start-up that promises a larger return but substantial risk is weighing the risks vs. the returns of both strategies. When you lower the tax they would have to pay on that risky start-up...then you alter the equation that they are looking at when they decide where to put part of their capital.

That risky start-up is what will create new jobs. When you chase investment capital out of such start-ups and into "safe" sheltered investments you are killing jobs. Raising taxes is one more reason for investors NOT to pull the trigger on that risky start-up.

 

[Billy000]

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!

See you're talking about an abstract, psychological idea affecting growth. It just doesn't work like that. If it does, we are talking about a minuscule amount. Also, this doesn't change the fact that the wealthy invest very little these days.

"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!"

What? That does not make any sense. How could giving UI discourage investment? Lol even if it did, in Obama's case he extended Bush's tax cuts so that wouldn't even be close to a problem.

Come on man. You are missing facts.

The wealthy don't invest? That's one of the stupidest statements ever made on this board, Billy! Investment is what wealthy people do!!!! It's WHERE they invest that either creates or doesn't create employment. It scares me that there are so many people in this country as ignorant about economics as you are!

A wealthy person with a choice between a tax sheltered investment that carries zero risk but a small return...or an investment in a business start-up that promises a larger return but substantial risk is weighing the risks vs. the returns of both strategies. When you lower the tax they would have to pay on that risky start-up...then you alter the equation that they are looking at when they decide where to put part of their capital.

That risky start-up is what will create new jobs. When you chase investment capital out of such start-ups and into "safe" sheltered investments you are killing jobs. Raising taxes is one more reason for investors NOT to pull the trigger on that risky start-up.

No try and keep up will you? I didn't say the wealthy don't invest. I'm saying that nowadays, they keep much more of their money than they invest. Think about it. Why would they bother investing most of the money they save from tax cuts? They are already rich as hell. They don't need to invest extra to whatever they usually invest in. Like I said, the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated at the top. Look at the facts: job growth under Bush was pitiful despite his enormous cuts.

 

[Oldstyle]

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!

See you're talking about an abstract, psychological idea affecting growth. It just doesn't work like that. If it does, we are talking about a minuscule amount. Also, this doesn't change the fact that the wealthy invest very little these days.

"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!"

What? That does not make any sense. How could giving UI discourage investment? Lol even if it did, in Obama's case he extended Bush's tax cuts so that wouldn't even be close to a problem.

Come on man. You are missing facts.

The wealthy don't invest? That's one of the stupidest statements ever made on this board, Billy! Investment is what wealthy people do!!!! It's WHERE they invest that either creates or doesn't create employment. It scares me that there are so many people in this country as ignorant about economics as you are!

A wealthy person with a choice between a tax sheltered investment that carries zero risk but a small return...or an investment in a business start-up that promises a larger return but substantial risk is weighing the risks vs. the returns of both strategies. When you lower the tax they would have to pay on that risky start-up...then you alter the equation that they are looking at when they decide where to put part of their capital.

That risky start-up is what will create new jobs. When you chase investment capital out of such start-ups and into "safe" sheltered investments you are killing jobs. Raising taxes is one more reason for investors NOT to pull the trigger on that risky start-up.

No try and keep up will you? I didn't say the wealthy don't invest. I'm saying that nowadays, they keep much more of their money than they invest. Think about it. Why would they bother investing most of the money they save from tax cuts? They are already rich as hell. They don't need to invest extra to whatever they usually invest in. Like I said, the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated at the top. Look at the facts: job growth under Bush was pitiful despite his enormous cuts.

The rich are concerned with maintaining capital, Billy. What are you talking about when you say that they "keep more of their money than they invest"? Do you think that the wealthy have millions stuffed under their mattresses? They don't...the wealthy have to make their money work for them. They choose investment strategies designed to keep their capital intact and hopefully to increase it. They have expenses...expenses that they need income to pay. They don't "keep" capital...it's always going to be working for them somewhere. What Progressives like you don't seem to grasp is the effect that you have on potential investment when you start proposing things like letting tax cuts expire or doing a Cap & Trade thing that will increase the cost of energy for US businesses. Even if you don't GET that legislation passed...the mere threat of it being passed makes investors change their calculations on whether or not to risk capital on a start-up business or expansion of an existing one. That's something that Barry has done REPEATEDLY during his six years in office!

 

[Billy000]

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!

See you're talking about an abstract, psychological idea affecting growth. It just doesn't work like that. If it does, we are talking about a minuscule amount. Also, this doesn't change the fact that the wealthy invest very little these days.

"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!"

What? That does not make any sense. How could giving UI discourage investment? Lol even if it did, in Obama's case he extended Bush's tax cuts so that wouldn't even be close to a problem.

Come on man. You are missing facts.

The wealthy don't invest? That's one of the stupidest statements ever made on this board, Billy! Investment is what wealthy people do!!!! It's WHERE they invest that either creates or doesn't create employment. It scares me that there are so many people in this country as ignorant about economics as you are!

A wealthy person with a choice between a tax sheltered investment that carries zero risk but a small return...or an investment in a business start-up that promises a larger return but substantial risk is weighing the risks vs. the returns of both strategies. When you lower the tax they would have to pay on that risky start-up...then you alter the equation that they are looking at when they decide where to put part of their capital.

That risky start-up is what will create new jobs. When you chase investment capital out of such start-ups and into "safe" sheltered investments you are killing jobs. Raising taxes is one more reason for investors NOT to pull the trigger on that risky start-up.

No try and keep up will you? I didn't say the wealthy don't invest. I'm saying that nowadays, they keep much more of their money than they invest. Think about it. Why would they bother investing most of the money they save from tax cuts? They are already rich as hell. They don't need to invest extra to whatever they usually invest in. Like I said, the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated at the top. Look at the facts: job growth under Bush was pitiful despite his enormous cuts.

The rich are concerned with maintaining capital, Billy. What are you talking about when you say that they "keep more of their money than they invest"? Do you think that the wealthy have millions stuffed under their mattresses? They don't...the wealthy have to make their money work for them. They choose investment strategies designed to keep their capital intact and hopefully to increase it. They have expenses...expenses that they need income to pay. They don't "keep" capital...it's always going to be working for them somewhere. What Progressives like you don't seem to grasp is the effect that you have on potential investment when you start proposing things like letting tax cuts expire or doing a Cap & Trade thing that will increase the cost of energy for US businesses. Even if you don't GET that legislation passed...the mere threat of it being passed makes investors change their calculations on whether or not to risk capital on a start-up business or expansion of an existing one. That's something that Barry has done REPEATEDLY during his six years in office!

For Christ's sakes. Here is the proof you clown:

"Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. According to economist Richard Wolff, about half of the assets of the richest 1% are held inunincorporated business equity (personal business accounts). The Wall Street Journal notes that over three-quarters of individuals worth over $20 million are invested in hedge funds.

Angel investing (capital provided by affluent individuals for business start-ups) accounted for less than 1% of theinvestable assets of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011.

The Mendelsohn Affluent Survey confirmed that the very rich spend less than two percent of their money on new business startups. The last thing most of them want, apparently, is the risky business of hiring people for new innovation."

How the Job Creators REALLY Spend Their Money Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community

Trickle down economics is a lie my friend...

 

[Billy000]

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!

See you're talking about an abstract, psychological idea affecting growth. It just doesn't work like that. If it does, we are talking about a minuscule amount. Also, this doesn't change the fact that the wealthy invest very little these days.

"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!"

What? That does not make any sense. How could giving UI discourage investment? Lol even if it did, in Obama's case he extended Bush's tax cuts so that wouldn't even be close to a problem.

Come on man. You are missing facts.

The wealthy don't invest? That's one of the stupidest statements ever made on this board, Billy! Investment is what wealthy people do!!!! It's WHERE they invest that either creates or doesn't create employment. It scares me that there are so many people in this country as ignorant about economics as you are!

A wealthy person with a choice between a tax sheltered investment that carries zero risk but a small return...or an investment in a business start-up that promises a larger return but substantial risk is weighing the risks vs. the returns of both strategies. When you lower the tax they would have to pay on that risky start-up...then you alter the equation that they are looking at when they decide where to put part of their capital.

That risky start-up is what will create new jobs. When you chase investment capital out of such start-ups and into "safe" sheltered investments you are killing jobs. Raising taxes is one more reason for investors NOT to pull the trigger on that risky start-up.

No try and keep up will you? I didn't say the wealthy don't invest. I'm saying that nowadays, they keep much more of their money than they invest. Think about it. Why would they bother investing most of the money they save from tax cuts? They are already rich as hell. They don't need to invest extra to whatever they usually invest in. Like I said, the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated at the top. Look at the facts: job growth under Bush was pitiful despite his enormous cuts.

The rich are concerned with maintaining capital, Billy. What are you talking about when you say that they "keep more of their money than they invest"? Do you think that the wealthy have millions stuffed under their mattresses? They don't...the wealthy have to make their money work for them. They choose investment strategies designed to keep their capital intact and hopefully to increase it. They have expenses...expenses that they need income to pay. They don't "keep" capital...it's always going to be working for them somewhere. What Progressives like you don't seem to grasp is the effect that you have on potential investment when you start proposing things like letting tax cuts expire or doing a Cap & Trade thing that will increase the cost of energy for US businesses. Even if you don't GET that legislation passed...the mere threat of it being passed makes investors change their calculations on whether or not to risk capital on a start-up business or expansion of an existing one. That's something that Barry has done REPEATEDLY during his six years in office!

You haven't explained why Job growth under Bush sucked so much....

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Oh come on, your MessiahRushie has been saying the Dems were able to talk down the Bush economy, the strongest economy in the entire history of the US.

April 5, 2010
RUSH: Between 2000 and 2006 we had the strongest economy that the United States ever had.

August 06, 2010
RUSH: The Democrats who talked down the economy, the Democrats who wanted this recession, the Democrats who gave us this recession (just so they could get control of Congress and the White House)

 

[Rinata]

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

Yes, it does. I do believe that they make themselves believe only lies about our president.

 

[edthecynic]

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

There you go, a DittoTard who swallowed his MessiahRushie's claim that the strongest economy in the history of the US could be simply TALKED into a recession.

 

[kaz]

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.

Demand side economics is st

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.

Oh come on, your MessiahRushie has been saying the Dems were able to talk down the Bush economy, the strongest economy in the entire history of the US.

April 5, 2010
RUSH: Between 2000 and 2006 we had the strongest economy that the United States ever had.

August 06, 2010
RUSH: The Democrats who talked down the economy, the Democrats who wanted this recession, the Democrats who gave us this recession (just so they could get control of Congress and the White House)

Why is Rush your messiah? I thought that was Obama. Why are you doing what Rush says now?

 

[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

There you go, a DittoTard who swallowed his MessiahRushie's claim that the strongest economy in the history of the US could be simply TALKED into a recession.

First of all moron, you can't read, that isn't what I said. And I'm confused, why is Rush programming me to be libertarian exactly? Liberals are always telling me I'm being programmed to be a libertarian by conservatives, but none of you can explain why they are doing that. I think you need to tighten the tin foil on your head, alien mind waves are getting through.

 

[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.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

ROFL ROFL ROFL... yeah you take a dollar out of my pocket, stopping me from spending said dollar, then claim when you give MY DOLLAR to someone else who is not working for two effing years, that my dollar now generates a 1.64 over what it would have generated if I had spent it. ROFL ROFL ROFL yeah cause workers are idiots who don't know how to spend their money and non-workers are brilliant economists who spend every dime given to them in a fashion to double it's value.

That anyone would believe this claptrap is truly remarkable.

That you and others like you believe punishing workers to the benefit of non-workers is a net positive gain on the Economy, is truly EPIC in its STUPIDITY.

Lol farmer Brown quit prentending you understand economics through your own personal logic. Your personal logic isn't smart enough to understand it.

Part of Obama's stimulus was extending Bush's tax cuts. That is what reimbursed the consumer.

Did you even read the article? There's a reason why unemployment benefits were singled out over any other government benefit. The people who received those benefits spent there money IMMEDIATELY on basic essentials like food, water, and shelter. You're a business man correct? You make a decent living? Well see if the gov were to give that money to you, you would either save it or you would wait to spend it and it could go to some less essential item that would do less for the economy, like say, an iPod or something. Or maybe you would spend it immediately on food, who knows? However, for the unemployed, it's much more likely they would spend it immediately on food etc. You see how that works? It's a targeted group.

A dollar spent on the market is going to generate growth (I.e the 1.64). That is the nature of capitalism

ROFL Your an idiot.

 

[Listening]

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

Which is a non issue since Obama blames him for everything he is unwilling to accept responsibility for.

Or is that (being Obama's deflection of accountability) the reason Obama chose to run for a second term in spite of his claim that he wouldn't if the economy sucked (which it did).

 

[Listening]

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

Same tired bullshit you Keynesians have been posting for decades.

She's wrong which makes you stupid.

 

[Listening]

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.

No, they are not.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Compare the dates and the figures.

Bush damn near bankrupted us and Obama has pulled us out. He has done this in spite of the Republicans unceasing, untiring efforts to finish what Bush started.

 

[Listening]

Compare the dates and the figures.

Bush damn near bankrupted us and Obama has pulled us out. He has done this in spite of the Republicans unceasing, untiring efforts to finish what Bush started.

We already obliterated this piece of horseshit on another thread.

Please try to keep up.