Republicans are clueless when it comes to fixing the economy

[The Rabbi]

Republicans are NOT supposed to know how to manage an economy; their function is to prevent politicians from managing the economy.

Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

Prove it. What are you waiting for?

Damn and did I call it or what?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Congress and the White House consider a $150 billion stimulus package that includes tax rebates and tax incentives for business, a report released Tuesday suggests that other methods would do a better job of infusing money into the flagging economy and doing it fast.

The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

About.com: http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

I already showed how the idea of a "multiplier" is wrong. I showed how government spending only comes at the expense of more productive uses. I showed how all of this crap comes from one shithead pseudo-economist at Moody's. And of course I showed how despire the highest level of spending on UE and food stamps we have the worst economy in post war history.
If that doesn't persuade you Billy then nothing will. You are literally unteachable.

Nothing you said here is proof the graph is wrong.

Everything I wrote is proof the graph is wrong. You are literally unteachable, Billy.

 

[Billy000]

Damn and did I call it or what?

About.com: http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

I already showed how the idea of a "multiplier" is wrong. I showed how government spending only comes at the expense of more productive uses. I showed how all of this crap comes from one shithead pseudo-economist at Moody's. And of course I showed how despire the highest level of spending on UE and food stamps we have the worst economy in post war history.
If that doesn't persuade you Billy then nothing will. You are literally unteachable.

Nothing you said here is proof the graph is wrong.

Everything I wrote is proof the graph is wrong. You are literally unteachable, Billy.

Dude you have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. Accept you lost the argument.

 

[Indeependent]

Republicans are NOT supposed to know how to manage an economy; their function is to prevent politicians from managing the economy.

Link?

Does the phrase "Free Market" sound familiar?
A party that espouses the "Free Market" CANNOT also state that it intends to MANAGE the economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Moody did. Just because you have no understanding of economics, it doesn't mean other people don't.

Just because some goof at Moody's pulled some numbers out of his ass doesn't mean it's anything other than ridiculous.

Yet you can't prove its bullshit.

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

 

[Billy000]

Just because some goof at Moody's pulled some numbers out of his ass doesn't mean it's anything other than ridiculous.

Yet you can't prove its bullshit.

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

LOL this is prove you have no idea how this works. What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth. That is what makes it a gain. Tax cuts on the other hand are a loss in dollars.

 

[Indeependent]

Just because some goof at Moody's pulled some numbers out of his ass doesn't mean it's anything other than ridiculous.

Yet you can't prove its bullshit.

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

 

[Billy000]

Yet you can't prove its bullshit.

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

 

[Indeependent]

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

And businesses can take out more loans and grow their businesses.
Hmmm...Sounds like Fractional Reserve Lending.

 

[Billy000]

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

And businesses can take out more loans and grow their businesses.
Hmmm...Sounds like Fractional Reserve Lending.

That is less effective because the extra stimulus is spent on investment rather than economic demand. Stimulating demand is the most effective way to stimulate growth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing you said here is proof the graph is wrong.

Everything I wrote is proof the graph is wrong. You are literally unteachable, Billy.

Dude you have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. Accept you lost the argument.

I thoroughly refuted and debunked the graph, showing its ultimate source. If you are too blindly partisan to undestand that, then that is your problem. But dont think you won anything, except Meatball Poster of the Day.

 

[Indeependent]

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

And businesses can take out more loans and grow their businesses.
Hmmm...Sounds like Fractional Reserve Lending.

That is less effective because the extra stimulus is spent on investment rather than economic demand. Stimulating demand is the most effective way to stimulate growth.

Yep, we all saw how handing money over to our Financial Institutions worked out so well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

There has been no economic growth. The multiplier effect is zero.
Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Roughly Zero | Mercatus

 

[The Rabbi]

And businesses can take out more loans and grow their businesses.
Hmmm...Sounds like Fractional Reserve Lending.

That is less effective because the extra stimulus is spent on investment rather than economic demand. Stimulating demand is the most effective way to stimulate growth.

Yep, we all saw how handing money over to our Financial Institutions worked out so well.

It did work out well. The U.S. received a windfall from the banks that borrowed money. Where have you been?

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

How about you try? Go ahead. Humor me. Why am I wrong?

The problem is they think all government is bad and the other side thinks it can only do good. There's no reasonable middle ground like we once had.

Government is the only solution. Tax cutting is a function of government legislation. That is what makes the right so brain dead.

Spoken like a true Communist there.

 

[Billy000]

There's probably some type of Fractional Spending effect that occurs.
Just like the clown like notion that Institutional Fractional Reserves allow a $1.00 to equal something like a gazillion dollars in the real world.

It works because when poor people receive money they spend it immediately on basic necessities like food clothing and shelter. That is what makes the economic growth so effective.

There has been no economic growth. The multiplier effect is zero.
Why the Fiscal Multiplier is Roughly Zero | Mercatus

Lol do you even read the crap you post? This article says nothing about the economic stimulators I cited. I know you are desperate and will do anything to win an argument which includes random Googling, but this is pathetic.

 

[Indeependent]

That is less effective because the extra stimulus is spent on investment rather than economic demand. Stimulating demand is the most effective way to stimulate growth.

Yep, we all saw how handing money over to our Financial Institutions worked out so well.

It did work out well. The U.S. received a windfall from the banks that borrowed money. Where have you been?

Obama spent most of 2009 and a good deal of 2010 trying to get banks to make loans.
Do you ever read anything other than your palm?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet you can't prove its bullshit.

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

LOL this is prove you have no idea how this works. What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth. That is what makes it a gain. Tax cuts on the other hand are a loss in dollars.

What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth.

And I'm saying you can't prove it.
If the "extra dollar" in spending creates that GDP, the "dollar less" spending, because you taxed it away from someone, would likewise cost that same amount of GDP.
Even more, because government is so damn inefficient.

 

[Billy000]

Prove that $1 taxed away from a productive member of our economy and given to someone unemployed produces $1.64 in GDP.

And then subtract out the GDP lost because government took the money out of the taxpayer's wallet in the first place. With all the lost efficiency that comes with government.
Try to use facts, not feelings. Thanks!!!

LOL this is prove you have no idea how this works. What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth. That is what makes it a gain. Tax cuts on the other hand are a loss in dollars.

What this graph is saying is that every government dollar spent on UE and food stamps creates 1.71 in economic growth.

And I'm saying you can't prove it.
If the "extra dollar" in spending creates that GDP, the "dollar less" spending, because you taxed it away from someone, would likewise cost that same amount of GDP.
Even more, because government is so damn inefficient.

That is why it is so important the wealthy be taxed the most. The middle class spending is what creates the most demand.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Here is proof extending unemployment insurance stimulates economic growth and thus creates jobs. The heart of Obama's stimulus package. Proof that just because something seems counter intuitive, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Government can and does create jobs.

Good lord this stupid fucking graph in two posts from you now. Click this link I'm not typing this out again.

This graph provided by Moody proves what is the most effective economic stimulator - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum