Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah - they parrot that talking point as if it's an article of faith, but I would like to see someone draw a line between big cuts and increased employment...map out how that exactly works.

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Here ya go:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VOE6JRfDs8]YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏[/ame]

A Maddow opinion piece?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Maddow is an imbecile and a liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah - they parrot that talking point as if it's an article of faith, but I would like to see someone draw a line between big cuts and increased employment...map out how that exactly works.

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Here ya go:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VOE6JRfDs8]YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏[/ame]

Yeah, didn't see any proof there. Try again?
Obama's people promised the stimulus, if passed, would keep unemployment from rising above 8%.
Did it pass? Is unemployment above 8%?
Maybe if we spend $1.5 trillion more than we bring in, that will create some jobs?

 

[Synthaholic]

There is no fast and easy fix for the corener we have eagerly worked ourselves into.
We are into a downward spiral.

The Right keeps trying to sell this fantasy that big cuts in government spending will cause some sort of boom in jobs creation.

That's not how austerity works. If austerity worked that way, BOTH parties would be cutting spending like mad.

The grim reality is that austerity would cost thousands, perhaps millions of jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, ignorant, or lying.

You seem to think that Democrats want high employment.

That is incorrect. Democrats, who have been overrun with big government statists, want as many people as possible dependent on government, trading votes for handouts.

Moron.

Democrats want higher employment because it means more tax revenue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maddow is an imbecile and a liar.

Come on, Maddow seems like a nice young fellow. Cut him some slack.

 

[Synthaholic]

Your perception of conservatism is astoundingly goofy.

If you can show any evidence that the mainstream conservative Republican consensus supports meaningful real cuts in defense spending,

by all means do so. Otherwise admit that I'm right.

Ok, which do you want to address, Conservatism or the GOP?

They are by no means synonymous.

But you defend them equally.

 

[candycorn]

When the Congress is a of a different party than the President, they do whatever they can to impede him. In the past it's been holding up the appointments of judges, officials, etc...

This is just an escalation. If there was a GOPster in the White House and Congress was split as it is now, the Dems would be doing the same thing.

I would expect that some of the leaders of the party would tell their constituents that is isn't something to fuck around with but we don't have that level of wise men any more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Right keeps trying to sell this fantasy that big cuts in government spending will cause some sort of boom in jobs creation.

That's not how austerity works. If austerity worked that way, BOTH parties would be cutting spending like mad.

The grim reality is that austerity would cost thousands, perhaps millions of jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, ignorant, or lying.

You seem to think that Democrats want high employment.

That is incorrect. Democrats, who have been overrun with big government statists, want as many people as possible dependent on government, trading votes for handouts.

Moron.

Democrats want higher employment because it means more tax revenue.

If they want more employment, maybe they should lower taxes on employers?
Having the highest corporate tax rate is the world isn't helpful.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Here ya go:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VOE6JRfDs8]YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏[/ame]

A Maddow opinion piece?

Well, I knew an idiot like you wouldn't watch it, but it's not opinion at all - she presents the facts of GOP Congresscritters denouncing the stimulus, then posing with big checks of stimulus money that was used to create jobs in their districts.

So what about that would be opinion?

 

[Synthaholic]

Maddow is an imbecile and a liar.

OK - refute anything in that video.

I'll be waiting for your failure.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Here ya go:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VOE6JRfDs8"]YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏[/ame]

Yeah, didn't see any proof there. Try again?
Obama's people promised the stimulus, if passed, would keep unemployment from rising above 8%.
Did it pass? Is unemployment above 8%?
Maybe if we spend $1.5 trillion more than we bring in, that will create some jobs?

That's not what you asked. You asked:

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Maddow just proved that it did.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Right keeps trying to sell this fantasy that big cuts in government spending will cause some sort of boom in jobs creation.

That's not how austerity works. If austerity worked that way, BOTH parties would be cutting spending like mad.

The grim reality is that austerity would cost thousands, perhaps millions of jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, ignorant, or lying.

You seem to think that Democrats want high employment.

That is incorrect. Democrats, who have been overrun with big government statists, want as many people as possible dependent on government, trading votes for handouts.

Moron.

Democrats want higher employment because it means more tax revenue.

Exactly, a growing economy, not growing tax rates, generate higher tax receipts.

Thanks!

 

[Synthaholic]

You seem to think that Democrats want high employment.

That is incorrect. Democrats, who have been overrun with big government statists, want as many people as possible dependent on government, trading votes for handouts.

Moron.

Democrats want higher employment because it means more tax revenue.

If they want more employment, maybe they should lower taxes on employers?
Having the highest corporate tax rate is the world isn't helpful.

Not every business is a corporation.

We've had low taxes for the past ten years - where are all the jobs?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here ya go:


YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏

Yeah, didn't see any proof there. Try again?
Obama's people promised the stimulus, if passed, would keep unemployment from rising above 8%.
Did it pass? Is unemployment above 8%?
Maybe if we spend $1.5 trillion more than we bring in, that will create some jobs?

That's not what you asked. You asked:

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Maddow just proved that it did.

No, Madcow opined that it did.

BTW, unemployment is near 10% in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Political Junky]

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Here ya go:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VOE6JRfDs8]YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏[/ame]

Yeah, didn't see any proof there. Try again?
Obama's people promised the stimulus, if passed, would keep unemployment from rising above 8%.
Did it pass? Is unemployment above 8%?
Maybe if we spend $1.5 trillion more than we bring in, that will create some jobs?

Obama never promised 8% unemployment. Feel free to show me evidence that he did.

 

[Synthaholic]

You seem to think that Democrats want high employment.

That is incorrect. Democrats, who have been overrun with big government statists, want as many people as possible dependent on government, trading votes for handouts.

Moron.

Democrats want higher employment because it means more tax revenue.

Exactly, a growing economy, not growing tax rates, generate higher tax receipts.

Thanks!

It's only higher tax rates on the very rich.


FAIL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Right keeps trying to sell this fantasy that big cuts in government spending will cause some sort of boom in jobs creation.

That's not how austerity works. If austerity worked that way, BOTH parties would be cutting spending like mad.

The grim reality is that austerity would cost thousands, perhaps millions of jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is either naive, ignorant, or lying.

Oh yes, and Clinton left Bush a surplus and FDR brought us out of the Great Depression and ATM machines are killing jobs and there are 58 states and Obama has a 13 yo daughter and Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman and asthmatics need breathalysers.

If you have evidence that an austerity program involving massive cuts in government spending will CREATE jobs, by all means post it.

When you start canceling or not creating new government contracts to private business because of cutting government spending, and those business start laying people off,

show us where those people will get new jobs. Show us where not only those people, but the other people who would have to get jobs to produce net positive job creation, show us where and how that happens.

And be specific.

If you think spending and borrowing like the Greek government leads to job creation, please show us where and how that happens.
And be specific.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yeah, didn't see any proof there. Try again?
Obama's people promised the stimulus, if passed, would keep unemployment from rising above 8%.
Did it pass? Is unemployment above 8%?
Maybe if we spend $1.5 trillion more than we bring in, that will create some jobs?

That's not what you asked. You asked:

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Maddow just proved that it did.

No, Madcow opined that it did.

No, she proved it.

Show exactly what part is her opinion.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh yes, and Clinton left Bush a surplus and FDR brought us out of the Great Depression and ATM machines are killing jobs and there are 58 states and Obama has a 13 yo daughter and Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman and asthmatics need breathalysers.

If you have evidence that an austerity program involving massive cuts in government spending will CREATE jobs, by all means post it.

When you start canceling or not creating new government contracts to private business because of cutting government spending, and those business start laying people off,

show us where those people will get new jobs. Show us where not only those people, but the other people who would have to get jobs to produce net positive job creation, show us where and how that happens.

And be specific.

If you think spending and borrowing like the Greek government leads to job creation, please show us where and how that happens.
And be specific.

What does the Greek government have to do with it?

Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here ya go:


YouTube - ‪Rachel Maddows Factually Shows GOP hypocrisy - Vote against stimulus and policy they support‬‏

Yeah, didn't see any proof there. Try again?
Obama's people promised the stimulus, if passed, would keep unemployment from rising above 8%.
Did it pass? Is unemployment above 8%?
Maybe if we spend $1.5 trillion more than we bring in, that will create some jobs?

That's not what you asked. You asked:

I'm still looking for proof that Obama's increased spending led to higher employment.....

Maddow just proved that it did.

She proved that higher spending (it's much higher) led to higher employment (it's much lower)?
I must have missed that. Perhaps you could type out her quote which you think proves your point? Thanks.