US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

I know you LOVE that whole "Reagan raised taxes 11 times!!!!" mantra but it's simply one more of your progressive talking points and not backed up by the reality of who and what Reagan was...which was an overall tax cutter.

 

[Faun]

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

 

[AntonToo]

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

The clinton years were not problematic at the time. While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly. And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton. The .com bubble was a stimulus, also. And every living politician loved it. But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public. And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name. And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.

not really true on this point - Federal spending barely grew in real terms and has actually declined as a % of GDP during Clinton's term.

 

[AntonToo]

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

I know you LOVE that whole "Reagan raised taxes 11 times!!!!" mantra but it's simply one more of your progressive talking points and not backed up by the reality of who and what Reagan was...which was an overall tax cutter.

Reagan was fiscally irresponsible tax-cut and spend Republican, even he eventually recognized that the voodoo economics some of his advisers were pushing are causing a river of red ink and raised some taxes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

The clinton years were not problematic at the time. While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly. And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton. The .com bubble was a stimulus, also. And every living politician loved it. But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public. And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name. And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.

not really true on this point - Federal spending barely grew in real terms and has actually declined as a % of GDP during Clinton's term.

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

 

[Oldstyle]

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

I know you LOVE that whole "Reagan raised taxes 11 times!!!!" mantra but it's simply one more of your progressive talking points and not backed up by the reality of who and what Reagan was...which was an overall tax cutter.

Reagan was fiscally irresponsible tax-cut and spend Republican, even he eventually recognized that the voodoo economics some of his advisers were pushing are causing a river of red ink and raised some taxes.

You won't get an argument from me or from Reagan on that score, Anton. One of his biggest regrets was that he did spend so much. To label him a tax and spend politician as Georgie has is laughably inaccurate however because he was overall a rather substantial tax cutter.

 

[AntonToo]

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

Nothing wrong with not knowing things.

Problem is when you are (yes you Oldstyle) are explained same thing over and over and over and still don't get it.

 

[Faun]

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut. Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Spent more than all previous president combined. And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
You should try the truth some day. It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

 

[Faun]

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

The clinton years were not problematic at the time. While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly. And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton. The .com bubble was a stimulus, also. And every living politician loved it. But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public. And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name. And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.

not really true on this point - Federal spending barely grew in real terms and has actually declined as a % of GDP during Clinton's term.

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

After your blazingly retarded conflation of "spending" versus "debt," I'd be a tad more careful about calling others ignorant, if I were you.

Just sayin'.

 

[Oldstyle]

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

Nothing wrong with not knowing things.

Problem is when you are (yes you Oldstyle) are explained same thing over and over and over and still don't get it.

For some reason you folks on the left think repeating something that's wrong a lot of times somehow makes it less wrong. Sorry, Anton...I don't subscribe to that view.

 

[AntonToo]

For some reason you folks on the left think repeating something that's wrong a lot of times somehow makes it less wrong. Sorry, Anton...I don't subscribe to that view.

Anyone with half a thought in their head would recognize your foolish nonsense for what it is, left or right.

 

[Oldstyle]

Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

 

[Oldstyle]

Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.

No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.

The clinton years were not problematic at the time. While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly. And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton. The .com bubble was a stimulus, also. And every living politician loved it. But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public. And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name. And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.

not really true on this point - Federal spending barely grew in real terms and has actually declined as a % of GDP during Clinton's term.

The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing. It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!

After your blazingly retarded conflation of "spending" versus "debt," I'd be a tad more careful about calling others ignorant, if I were you.

Just sayin'.

Between you and me, Faun...I feel very comfortable calling Georgie ignorant since he backs that viewpoint up every time he posts his own material.

 

[Rshermr]

Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes

You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate? All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it. Is that what you're talking about?

That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.

You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover? In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little. The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs. No evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, government hindered the recovery.

Another day, another conservative making another fucking stupid argument that expansionary policies caused deepening of recession.

Andy, you say lefties do not understand economics? Tell me, what economic understanding lead you to believe that stabilization of financial sector and spending 800 billion dollars not only DIDN'T grow economy, but made it worse?

The biggest stimulus of all time was World War 2, which caused gigantic government spending, huge debt increase and oh by the way, the end of the Great Depression period and fundamental transformation of American economy.

Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true. One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending. He's written extensively on the topic. Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?

Two is better than none. But does not help much.
The Great Thomas Sowell??? Really. You forgot to mention the libertarian, koch bought and paid for, part of the lead up to Sowell.
And Oldstyle, in addition to using a juvenile name to try to insult me (as normal) forgets somehow to provide the qualifications of Thomas Sowell. Who never saw a chance to demonize democrats that he did not like and make use of. And was, and still is, a Libertarian (self admitted). Pushing an economic type that has never, ever existed in real life. And is a close friend of the Koch brothers for whom he does work whenever possible. And is, by the way, a contributing author for the Koch think tank, the Cato Institute. So, no, Sowell is not generally looked at anything other than what he is, which is a bought and paid for economist, by the far far right. Particularly by Cato and the Koch brothers
When still in college and trying to decide what to do next, I considered grad school in economics. Maybe a masters or even PHD, depending on the availability of money. I learned as most students of economics did that the way to get really rich was to get an advanced degree in economics and work for the far right. I found that an affront to my self respect, as most did. But many did take that route. And used their education to further the desires of the very, very wealthy on the far right. So went Sowell.
Wow, Oldstyle. That is three totally agenda driven references you have used. Just coincidence, I am sure, that none are impartial. At all.
t

 

[AntonToo]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts

 

[Faun]

Indeed. But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists. Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing. But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going. But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy. The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on. The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.

Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....

When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion? When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars. THAT is what I'm referring to.

I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed.

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

Did I say debt is incurred without spending? Of course I didn't, lying con tool. I even pointed out debt is the accumulation of spending in excess of revenue. You just can't stop lying though,so you pretend as though I didn't say that.

And while spending is a component of debt; it is not debt which is why you look like a complete retarded conservative when you idiotically claimed that Obama is on track to spend more than every president before him combined.

I'm trying to help you by educating you and by recommending you don't go around calling others ignorant when you're making such moronic statements like the one above; but it appears you're too stupid to catch on.

 

[Faun]

Debt is not spending? Interesting concept. How do you incur debt without spending?

deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts

He just doesn't get it.

 

[AntonToo]

Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true. One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending. He's written extensively on the topic. Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?

I've never taken an economic class in my life (at least that I recall), my degree is in mathematics.

Professor Sowell is an armchair economist and a big time right wing tool to boot. He has some respected economic work published but he is way more a politico than he ever was an economist or historian.