Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Yeah, sure you did.
Fact is, Bush spent us into the hole and Obama has worked against the Repubs to get us out.
Deal with it.
...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
Bush's fault the Obama has sex with 20 different men daily
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.
And yet you can't explain why she is wrong. Have some humility. Economists know more than you, k pumpkin?Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the EconomyROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.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.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.
Same tired bullshit you Keynesians have been posting for decades.
She's wrong which makes you stupid.
Another one bites the dust...ROFL Your an idiot.Lol farmer Brown quit prentending you understand economics through your own personal logic. Your personal logic isn't smart enough to understand it.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.Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the EconomyROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.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.
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.
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
For Christ's sakes. Here is the proof you clown: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.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.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!
"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.
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!
"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...
Do you happen to know what the actual tax rate Obama proposed for the wealthy?For Christ's sakes. Here is the proof you clown: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.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.
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!
"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...
"Trickle down economics" IS a lie, Billy! It doesn't exist except as a pejorative uttered by liberals like yourself who don't understand the first thing about economics.
Profits trickle up...not down! They always have...they always will. Labor gets paid before ownership takes it's profit...if indeed they ever DO take a profit. Labor gets paid whether ownership makes a profit or not.
As for that article you cited? Should it come as a shock to anyone that the wealthy didn't choose to invest in start-ups in 2011? Refresh my memory on the dates we're talking about...wasn't Barack Obama President of the United States back then? Weren't the Democrats pushing a campaign message of "we need to tax the rich more!"? Why WOULD the rich invest in risky start-ups when you Progressives were promising to tax the living begeezus out of what ever profits they DID make?
Which time, Billy? Obama has been all over the place with most of his economic proposals...it's one of the reasons why the Private Sector has had such difficulty trying to figure out how to plan for the future! They have to try and figure out what Barry really wants to do and what is just part of his non-stop campaigning. Uncertainty isn't a good thing in the business world...something that the Obama folks STILL don't seem to understand.Do you happen to know what the actual tax rate Obama proposed for the wealthy?For Christ's sakes. Here is the proof you clown: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 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.
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!
"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...
"Trickle down economics" IS a lie, Billy! It doesn't exist except as a pejorative uttered by liberals like yourself who don't understand the first thing about economics.
Profits trickle up...not down! They always have...they always will. Labor gets paid before ownership takes it's profit...if indeed they ever DO take a profit. Labor gets paid whether ownership makes a profit or not.
As for that article you cited? Should it come as a shock to anyone that the wealthy didn't choose to invest in start-ups in 2011? Refresh my memory on the dates we're talking about...wasn't Barack Obama President of the United States back then? Weren't the Democrats pushing a campaign message of "we need to tax the rich more!"? Why WOULD the rich invest in risky start-ups when you Progressives were promising to tax the living begeezus out of what ever profits they DID make?
Which ever one you want to answer. What was the actual proposed tax rate?Which time, Billy? Obama has been all over the place with most of his economic proposals...it's one of the reasons why the Private Sector has had such difficulty trying to figure out how to plan for the future! They have to try and figure out what Barry really wants to do and what is just part of his non-stop campaigning. Uncertainty isn't a good thing in the business world...something that the Obama folks STILL don't seem to understand.Do you happen to know what the actual tax rate Obama proposed for the wealthy?For Christ's sakes. Here is the proof you clown: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!
"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...
"Trickle down economics" IS a lie, Billy! It doesn't exist except as a pejorative uttered by liberals like yourself who don't understand the first thing about economics.
Profits trickle up...not down! They always have...they always will. Labor gets paid before ownership takes it's profit...if indeed they ever DO take a profit. Labor gets paid whether ownership makes a profit or not.
As for that article you cited? Should it come as a shock to anyone that the wealthy didn't choose to invest in start-ups in 2011? Refresh my memory on the dates we're talking about...wasn't Barack Obama President of the United States back then? Weren't the Democrats pushing a campaign message of "we need to tax the rich more!"? Why WOULD the rich invest in risky start-ups when you Progressives were promising to tax the living begeezus out of what ever profits they DID make?
Bull shit... it's not idiocy if it's true. And it is true. The man is wrong all the time on everything.There's so much republicans don't understand it's hard to keep track.
Since he took office the inane republican/conservative mantra has been “Obama: always wrong, all the time.” And in the context of this rightwing idiocy conservatives have sought to blame the president for everything no matter how ridiculous and unfounded, thus rendering serious, meaningful debate concerning the president's policies impossible and pointless.
And yet you can't explain why she is wrong. Have some humility. Economists know more than you, k pumpkin?Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the EconomyROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.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.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.
Same tired bullshit you Keynesians have been posting for decades.
She's wrong which makes you stupid.
There's so much republicans don't understand it's hard to keep track.
Since he took office the inane republican/conservative mantra has been “Obama: always wrong, all the time.” And in the context of this rightwing idiocy conservatives have sought to blame the president for everything no matter how ridiculous and unfounded, thus rendering serious, meaningful debate concerning the president's policies impossible and pointless.
Republicans continue to refuse to actually DO anything except obstruct and vacation.
And, blame Obama.
Its their entire platform.
Well if that's true you should be able to sum it up. Go ahead. I'll wait.And yet you can't explain why she is wrong. Have some humility. Economists know more than you, k pumpkin?Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the EconomyROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.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.
Same tired bullshit you Keynesians have been posting for decades.
She's wrong which makes you stupid.
I don't need to. The whole foundation of her claims have been blown apart for decades. Her math doesn't add up and she's excluding key parameters. It's all about making the conclusion fit the POV.
She knows nothing...just like you.
There's so much republicans don't understand it's hard to keep track.
Since he took office the inane republican/conservative mantra has been “Obama: always wrong, all the time.” And in the context of this rightwing idiocy conservatives have sought to blame the president for everything no matter how ridiculous and unfounded, thus rendering serious, meaningful debate concerning the president's policies impossible and pointless.
