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.
61% of Americans think economy won't recover until 2017..... thank you Obumanation!
CNNMoney poll: Americans think economy won't recover until 2017 or later - Jun. 6, 2014
61% of Americans think economy won't recover until 2017..... thank you Obumanation!
CNNMoney poll: Americans think economy won't recover until 2017 or later - Jun. 6, 2014
Excellent article and worth thinking about.
We must never, ever let the Congress like the one we had from 1994 to 2006 work hand in hand with business again.
Once again, this needs to be answered: "Weird you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales yet can't point to ONE successful use of libertarian economic policy EVER that benefited more than the top 1%."
Come on, Kaz: step up. Dad here and I in the other thread have shown the hollowness of glibertarianism.
You are fucking DESPERATE to try and make your case. The economy is improving. That is ALL anyone has said. And it is. More people working is a good thing. The fact that it doesn't serve the Republican purpose of trying to convince everyone how bad it is, is besides the point.
Sure, the economy is improving.
You can also say a person making a salary of $15,000 getting a 10 cents an hour raise is improving.
Yet in the big scheme of things we both know that person is pretty bad off.
So let's reword it.....do you think the American people think Obama's economic policies have been effective enough?
OK, we reword it because the OP has failed: thank you for that admission.
Since the population's confidence is at a seven year high, sure.
Anyone who says government does not create economic value, does not understand economics or business at all.
Let's move on.
Anyone who says government does not create economic value, does not understand economics or business at all.
Let's move on.
I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?
Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.
You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.
You need to keep your mouth shut, because every time you run it, you regret it.
One example of economic value created by government is the salaries paid to the military who spend it in the civilian economy, helping business and jobs and the economy.
We can go on for a long time making your statement look like what it is, uneducated.
You're asking the wrong questions.
Your questions should be:
What was the extent of the adverse effect republican foot-dragging had on the economic recovery?
Given the fact of republican foot-dragging, can an accurate assessment be made of the Administration's economic policies?
Do conservatives understand that the Administration's economic policies can only be comprehensively implemented with the co-operation of Congress, something Congressional republicans have refused to do?
And can there be an accurate, objective, non-partisan assessment of the president's economic policies well before the end of his time in office.
The last question is rhetorical, as of course its answer is 'no.'
But that's no different for any other president. When Bush took the WH, Clinton's economy had hit the trough that Bush had to reverse. Then Bush got hit with the impact of 9/11 on the economy. I never see a liberal explain how that unfairly weighed on Bush's numbers. And anyone who says it was a 1% quarter impact is way off.
There were people who were worried that because it hit when we were so heavily leveraged during the trough of a business cycle that it almost collapsed us.
No one makes excuses for what Bush had to do to recover not only economically but to combat an enemy. That's never discussed.
The thing is.....yes, we were pulling out of a crisis and a recession when Obama took the reins...but on the other hand, there were signs we were starting to recover from the recession only a few months into O's tenure.
The other problem is that Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders.
DISCUSS WHAT?
David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
(Reagans deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy, Stockman wrote.
David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.
In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?
Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders."
LOL
Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.
Supply Side Economics
supply side did not work under reagan nor bush[/B].the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.
01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% . Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%
01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%
01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%
It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8
Anyone who says government does not create economic value, does not understand economics or business at all.
Let's move on.
I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?
Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.
You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.
There are some very important problems that dont get worked on naturally. That is the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the government to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and having brilliant people who care and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to. Bill Gates
IF your premise was correct, Somalia and most of Latin America would be thriving and prosperous?
But that's no different for any other president. When Bush took the WH, Clinton's economy had hit the trough that Bush had to reverse. Then Bush got hit with the impact of 9/11 on the economy. I never see a liberal explain how that unfairly weighed on Bush's numbers. And anyone who says it was a 1% quarter impact is way off.
There were people who were worried that because it hit when we were so heavily leveraged during the trough of a business cycle that it almost collapsed us.
No one makes excuses for what Bush had to do to recover not only economically but to combat an enemy. That's never discussed.
The thing is.....yes, we were pulling out of a crisis and a recession when Obama took the reins...but on the other hand, there were signs we were starting to recover from the recession only a few months into O's tenure.
The other problem is that Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders.
DISCUSS WHAT?
David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
(Reagans deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy, Stockman wrote.
David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country
The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.
In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
WHICH SIDE WAS CORRECT?
Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" Reagan inherited the nastiest economy ever and he turned it around to firing on all cylinders."
LOL
Reagan created the recession began under HIM after his disastrous tax cuts.
Supply Side Economics
supply side did not work under reagan nor bush[/B].the worse recession happened under REAGAN not carter.sure he picked up the economy after he trashed it.
01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% . Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%
01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%
01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%
01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%
It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8
David Stockman....????
Once again, this needs to be answered: "Weird you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales yet can't point to ONE successful use of libertarian economic policy EVER that benefited more than the top 1%."
Come on, Kaz: step up. Dad here and I in the other thread have shown the hollowness of glibertarianism.
I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?
Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.
You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.
There are some very important problems that dont get worked on naturally. That is the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the government to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and having brilliant people who care and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to. Bill Gates
IF your premise was correct, Somalia and most of Latin America would be thriving and prosperous?
Can you fart out any more fallacies ?
First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?
Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.
The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.
So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks
There are some very important problems that dont get worked on naturally. That is the market does not drive the scientists, the communicators, the thinkers, the government to do the right things. And only by paying attention to these things, and having brilliant people who care and draw other people in, can we make as much progress as we need to. Bill Gates
IF your premise was correct, Somalia and most of Latin America would be thriving and prosperous?
Can you fart out any more fallacies ?
First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?
Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.
The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.
Right, because in nations with low Gov't spending, their economies are booming right? lol
I note you provide no example of what you are talking about, because of course you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, I thought your family had a business, did you not learn anything?
Companies take raw materials, hire employees, create products and services and sell them at a profit. While profit is of course evil, it is never the less what grows our economy. Government hiring people to sit in an office who don't create anything does not grow the economy. And worse, they take the money from the companies who do.
You need to take an econ 101 course Jake, it would change your world.
You need to keep your mouth shut, because every time you run it, you regret it.
One example of economic value created by government is the salaries paid to the military who spend it in the civilian economy, helping business and jobs and the economy.
We can go on for a long time making your statement look like what it is, uneducated.
No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.
Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster.
The only think you go on doing for a long time is playing with your self.
Can you fart out any more fallacies ?
First, who gives a shit about anything Bill Gates said ?
Second.....The premise does not naturally draw to that conclusion. Or by the same logic, Exxon and other should never have run their R&D programs.
The communicators ??? Now, that's funny.
Right, because in nations with low Gov't spending, their economies are booming right? lol
Sure, and Rape and Ice Cream sales can be correlated too.
And you call conservatives simple minded.
So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks
What's to refute.
Stockman was pissed when he got told to shut up about tax cuts and then hoped they failed as he predicted. They didn't.
He lost credibility with anyone except dicks like you.
You need to keep your mouth shut, because every time you run it, you regret it.
One example of economic value created by government is the salaries paid to the military who spend it in the civilian economy, helping business and jobs and the economy.
We can go on for a long time making your statement look like what it is, uneducated.
No stupid ass....that does not create economic value.
Taxing money and putting it back in the economy is only slowing it down. If you didn't tax it to start, it would be moving that much faster.
The only think you go on doing for a long time is playing with your self.
You libertarian fuktards should understand the US hit Korean war level revenues (15% OF GDP) (TAXES OUT OF THE ECONOMY) AND spending 2 (UNFUNDED wars) and the economy under Dubya was in the crapper, EVEN with his homes ponzi scheme. Weird according to YOUR theory, the economy should've done MUCH better than when Clinton COLLECTED nearly 25% more tax revenues (20%+), and spent less on the Gopv't? HMM
Once again, this needs to be answered: "Weird you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales yet can't point to ONE successful use of libertarian economic policy EVER that benefited more than the top 1%."
Come on, Kaz: step up. Dad here and I in the other thread have shown the hollowness of glibertarianism.
United States 1920's.
The Forgotten Depression of 1920 - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - Mises Daily
So you CAN NOT refute a single word he wrote. Thanks
What's to refute.
Stockman was pissed when he got told to shut up about tax cuts and then hoped they failed as he predicted. They didn't.
He lost credibility with anyone except dicks like you.
You mean when Reagan had to increase revenues 11 times AFTER he cut them for the rich AND still took in less money than Carter who had 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to Ronnie's 14 million in 8 years? lol
