Now do the Dems own the economy?

[JakeStarkey]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Repeal Obamacare.

 

[1776]

Democraps have no intentions to fix the economy, the more people on welfare that means more Democrap voters.

Eventually their plan falls apart when the takers drain the makers.

 

[Sallow]

Republicans demanding job growth at the same time they demand fiscal restraint is counterproductive

We can't have a little fiscal restraint 4.5 years into a recovery?
When is a good time?

You can't serve two masters

You can't cut spending at the same time you have low employment, It leads to a stagnant recovery, which is what we got

Yes.. you can

Lower government spending does not equate to lower private employment.. you can recover without government not playing shell games with tax and borrowed monies

Well no.

Private enterprise's sole motivation is profit. That's it. If they can get rid of jobs through consolidation, automation or lower cost overseas? That's what they do. Lower taxes only incentive them to keep more money.

The government actually has a bonafide interest in keeping people employed.

 

[regent]

FDR Depression?

You should sue your High School -- they screwed you out of an education.


It's unfair for some states to unleash people this stupid on the rest of us.

FDR depression was 20% average unemployment for 7 straight years

thats not a depression! you know how low their standards are!

Unemployment was 22% when FDR took office, and by 1937 unemployment had dropped to 9%. At this point FDR was concerned the economy might turn inflationary and stopped the New Deal and unemployment rose to 12.5%. Unemployment again started declining and by FDR's death was about 1 to 2%.
"The New Deal"
Michael Hiltzik
Page 431

 

[daveman]

We haven't spent enough according to economically inept retards.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFEcyUNBjg]Biden: We Have To Spend Money To Keep From Going Bankrupt - YouTube[/ame]

Yep, that's one of them inept retards, all right.

 

[DiamondDave]

You can't serve two masters

You can't cut spending at the same time you have low employment, It leads to a stagnant recovery, which is what we got

Yes.. you can

Lower government spending does not equate to lower private employment.. you can recover without government not playing shell games with tax and borrowed monies

Well no.

Private enterprise's sole motivation is profit. That's it. If they can get rid of jobs through consolidation, automation or lower cost overseas? That's what they do. Lower taxes only incentive them to keep more money.

The government actually has a bonafide interest in keeping people employed.

And a government can not worry about cost when it can just vote to take more money

Government only has a bonafide interest in keeping power for itself when it is unchecked as it has been

And a business should only have an interest in profit and its shareholders.. it is not there to make you feel good or give handouts... and for the businesses to make money it must keep up with demand, advance to improve profit, sales, and cost.. you act like lessening unskilled labor with automation is a BAD thing??? Funny how that brings more advanced jobs. Funny how it drives costs down. Funny how it brings new things to market.... But you and your ilk think people are helpless and must be fed, clothed, housed, and bought for their votes to keep your bloated bullshit government eating like Mr. Cerosote from Monty Python's Meaning of Life

 

[daveman]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Get the big government you love out of the way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Was that an answer to your Democrats owning the economy?

You seem easily distracted and always default to blaming the Tea Party for something. The CDC says you're showing a full onset of RDeanitis

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't serve two masters

You can't cut spending at the same time you have low employment, It leads to a stagnant recovery, which is what we got

Yes.. you can

Lower government spending does not equate to lower private employment.. you can recover without government not playing shell games with tax and borrowed monies

Well no.

Private enterprise's sole motivation is profit. That's it. If they can get rid of jobs through consolidation, automation or lower cost overseas? That's what they do. Lower taxes only incentive them to keep more money.

The government actually has a bonafide interest in keeping people employed.

Yes that's why the most profitable Liberal restaurants serve yesterdays garbage at inflated prices; all the money they save on fresh, wonderful food goes straight to the bottom line!

 

[auditor0007]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said they did. Obama and Reid have full control of the economy. So the answer to "do the Dems own the economy?" is obvious.

No! They don't. They never will.

Their policies have given us the worst economy since the FDR Depression but it's Bush and Boehners fault, maybe Reagan's fault too.

Dems are against private ownership of anything even their own failed ideas

Yes, Dems want the government to own everything. I guess you just can't help being loony.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said they did. Obama and Reid have full control of the economy. So the answer to "do the Dems own the economy?" is obvious.

No! They don't. They never will.

Their policies have given us the worst economy since the FDR Depression but it's Bush and Boehners fault, maybe Reagan's fault too.

Dems are against private ownership of anything even their own failed ideas

Yes, Dems want the government to own everything. I guess you just can't help being loony.

Let me guess, you had to retake all of your ESL classes

 

[JakeStarkey]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Was that an answer to your Democrats owning the economy?

You seem easily distracted and always default to blaming the Tea Party for something. The CDC says you'reshowing a full onset of RDeanitis

I can't change the Dems, CF, except to vote against them, which I normally do.

The nation has just seen TPM futility (again). And that is all it ever can be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Get the big government you love out of the way.

If you are arguing about statism, yes, but that won't happen.

You can't change how 75% of America feels about the government.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Was that an answer to your Democrats owning the economy?

You seem easily distracted and always default to blaming the Tea Party for something. The CDC says you'reshowing a full onset of RDeanitis

I can't change the Dems, CF, except to vote against them, which I normally do.

The nation has just seen TPM futility (again). And that is all it ever can be.

Why would you ever vote against your home team?

The question wasn't "Does Starkey and his ideological twins the Progressives, hate the 'TPM'?"

You're giving the correct Progressive response, btw, probably all those years of training.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The link is for whoever wrote that Obama is the biggest spender.

BUT, to the op -

Nothing much has changed. The Rs will go right on wasting money on such stupidity as "repeal/defund" ObamaCare and you can bet they will not suddenly start working to create jobs or improve the economy.

Its only a few months until the Rs' next manufactured disaster.

 

[daveman]

all the TeaP whining and no offers on how to create jobs.

Get the big government you love out of the way.

If you are arguing about statism, yes, but that won't happen.

You can't change how 75% of America feels about the government.

I can offer them a better alternative than subjugation.

 

[The Rabbi]

FDR depression was 20% average unemployment for 7 straight years

thats not a depression! you know how low their standards are!

Unemployment was 22% when FDR took office, and by 1937 unemployment had dropped to 9%. At this point FDR was concerned the economy might turn inflationary and stopped the New Deal and unemployment rose to 12.5%. Unemployment again started declining and by FDR's death was about 1 to 2%.
"The New Deal"
Michael Hiltzik
Page 431

So after 8 years and millions of dollars spent unemployment was 9%. That doesn't sound like success to me.
And FDR's death occurred during war time when a large part of the workforce was in the military.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

The link is for whoever wrote that Obama is the biggest spender.

BUT, to the op -

Nothing much has changed. The Rs will go right on wasting money on such stupidity as "repeal/defund" ObamaCare and you can bet they will not suddenly start working to create jobs or improve the economy.

Its only a few months until the Rs' next manufactured disaster.

It's a yes or no answer, is that too many choices?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR depression was 20% average unemployment for 7 straight years

thats not a depression! you know how low their standards are!

Unemployment was 22% when FDR took office, and by 1937 unemployment had dropped to 9%. At this point FDR was concerned the economy might turn inflationary and stopped the New Deal and unemployment rose to 12.5%. Unemployment again started declining and by FDR's death was about 1 to 2%.
"The New Deal"
Michael Hiltzik
Page 431

He stopped the New Deal in 1937?

LOL

Yeah, you glossed over that whole WWII thingy, but whatever.