US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus

For those who don’t know him, Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an American economist, retired professor, social critic, political commentator, author, and lunatic. After seeing his vile, depraved weekly columns for the past four years I truly believe he belongs in an institution – which is just where he is. Since 1980, Sowell has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution, like the Heritage Foundation and countless others, is basically a welfare program for Right Wing Op-Ed writers. Wealthy donors give people like Sowell the financial freedom to rail against entitlement programs and rewrite history, particularly the Great Depression. Consequently, they are not bound by prickly things like facts or editors or journalistic ethics.

Don Millard? Really, Anton?

I don't know who Don Millard is, but what he wrote about Sowell is spot on and a really funny read.

So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on? Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!

 

[AntonToo]

So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on? Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!

You are welcome to dispute it, which you haven't.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on? Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!

You are welcome to dispute it, which you haven't.

Why would I have to dispute the ramblings of "some guy" that even YOU don't know?

 

[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.

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.

Uh, apparently you do not understand english. What is your language. And thanks again for the attack with your little Georgie immature effort at insult. So immature.
Relative to saying that Reagan raised taxes 11 times? It was the truth. His people do not deny it. He did not deny it. Only nut cases like you deny it.
Here, me boy, is an expert impartial source. Something you do not ever use:
"And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."
Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

So, no it is not a talking point. It is the truth. Something that you neither appreciate or understand. Oh, and the above proves you are lying when you say his raising taxes was "not backed up by reality". Just more lies, Oldstyle.
And really, we are so sorry that you are hearing these inconvenient truths about your hero, Reagan. But facts are facts.
Oh. And by the way, I never in my life called Reagan a tax and spend president. That would be another lie on your part. However, he did spend and borrow like a drunken sailor. Tripled the national debt. Borrowed more than all the other presidents combined. So, maybe we should call him a tax and borrow president. Eh, Oldstyle? Oh. forgot. You do not like truth.

 

[AntonToo]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

 

[Rshermr]

Interesting take on what constitutes "real world experience", Anton! Sowell grew up black in Harlem, worked at Western Union, tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers and was in the Marine Corps before going to college. Larry Summers grew up the son of two college professors at the University of Penn., went right into MIT out of high school and then on to Harvard. Christina Romer went from MIT right into a professorship at Princeton and has never worked in the Private Sector. What "real world" experience do either of them possess? I think you'd be hard pressed to find two people with LESS real world experience than Summers and Romer...whereas Thomas Sowell has quite a bit.

Uh, yes. You just proved that you love Sowell. The well known Libertarian professor. Next.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

 

[Rshermr]

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?

The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending. It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account. Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways. You can spend it. Or you can stop putting in deposits. Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way. If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit. Like every republican has for the past 50 years. You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1. Decrease spending, or 2. Increase revenues. If you decrease spending and increase revenues enough, you can create a surplus. Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high. As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982. Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%.

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it. Though I know you would rather just lie.
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)
s
Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for your stunted brain. But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more. To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending. The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.

Interesting graph, Georgie! I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate.Yes, well that would be because spending is always part of a president's budget. So, I know this is too complicated for you, but 2009 was part of the George W. budget. And you are welcome for the education. When was Obama elected again? Same as always, elected the year before he took office. And always responsible for his budget that goes for the year after he leaves. Same for all the presidents, me boy. Most know that. Again you show how little you know about economics. I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office. I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?
I made no claim about Cinton. And I see you using another insulting name for a US President. Just proving your lack of class and integrity. You just lie, and lie, and lie. And continue to prove you are stupid. thanks for that. It's always fun to have you play.

So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away? But still, Clinton raised spending. Because, again, the change in the National Debt is the total of receipts less spending. So, clinton managed to make receipts greater than spending.
Are you confused about other things? Perhaps I can help.

 

[Rshermr]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

Yup. That would be the case. Institutions always look to hire a few from the dark side.
And, Sowell was not a "Amhurst" professor, as your list recognizes. He was at amhurst for about a year as a writer, and visiting professor.

 

[Rshermr]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

Yup. They do that. To provide theother view from the dark side. And laugh at them.

 

[Rshermr]

So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on? Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!

You are welcome to dispute it, which you haven't.

Why would I have to dispute the ramblings of "some guy" that even YOU don't know?

Well, i doubt you are correct about that. You never are, you know.

But Sowell is the crown jewel of your sick mind. A guy who professes that he is a libertarian. A fucking LIBERTARIAN. Pushing the theories of an economic system that has never, ever worked. In hundreds of years, with hundreds of countries, not a single one ever had a Libertarian economy that did not crash in it's infancy. Hell, as bad an idea as communism was, it has had longer runs than Libertrianism. And you are backing Sowell, who says he is a Libetarian. Makes both of you look stupid. But it is you that is stupid. Sowell is RICH. Thanks to the Koch brothers and a few other far right nut cases.

 

[Rshermr]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

so, you support the hack. Tell us all how you believe a person who believes in Libertarianism is a serious economist. To me that is less serious than someone who believes in Big Foot. Sorry, didn't intend to make fun of you.

 

[AntonToo]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

lol YES, wing hacks are known to work just fine in these institutions, there is no ideological test for those positions and he was there LONG time ago. But for the past 35 years his job was that of a professional hack for right-wing organization.

It is CRAZY to suggest that he is some sort of objective or even semi-objective source, he is no less than a right-wing zealot who is so far gone he compared Obama to Hitler, calls him a fascist and a socialist and considers Palin to be intelligent.

You couldn't find a hackier hack if you TRIED.

 

[Andylusion]

OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President? Did you want to have THAT discussion?

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.

Actually that's not even true. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.

First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure. But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas?

We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison. Neither indicates a rebound of the economy.

Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes. But not because the economy rebounded. Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending. Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.

But does that mean anything has improved? No. The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public. Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen? No.

In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined. Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.

Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.

As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true. Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it. The question there is, was it needed, and did it help? I would say no to both.

First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.

Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly. Banks grow with existing economic growth.

If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter. Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing. There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".

Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing. I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing. No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".

You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.

Japan is living proof of this. Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation. The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail". They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over. And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.

Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered. They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.

And this isn't the only example. Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail. Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well. Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.

 

[AntonToo]

Actually that's not even true. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.

First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure.
Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes.

But does that mean anything has improved? No.

YES, OF COURSE IT DOES. Those are the very statistics DEFINE good economy. They are what separates recessions from growth periods.

When you have a job, you have means to sustain your own and your family's needs - of course that's a good thing, especially considering how poor the safety net programs were at that time.

Further, this effort has radically changed manufacture industries in US like auto and flight as well as make for giant leaps in computational sciences and application. And when soldiers were coming back GI Bill expanded access to education so they can have a follow up career.

 

[Rshermr]

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank! I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.

Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.

Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year." Wiki And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA." Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor? Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?

lol YES, wing hacks are known to work just fine in these institutions, there is no ideological test for those positions and he was there LONG time ago. But for the past 35 years his job was that of a professional hack for right-wing organization.

It is CRAZY to suggest that he is some sort of objective or even semi-objective source, he is no less than a right-wing zealot who is so far gone he compared Obama to Hitler, calls him a fascist and a socialist and considers Palin to be intelligent.

You couldn't find a hackier hack if you TRIED.

It is always interesting when someone calls obama a fascist, and a socialist. SDumbest thing ever. You really can not be both. The two are polar opposites. Proving Sowell to be a hack, assuming he never says anything else.

 

[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.

Actually that's not even true. Yes, it was. Millions were hired. That is, me boy, the biggest stimulus of this century. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
Another stupid statement, but lets look at your stupidity for a moment. Then we will bury you.

First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure. But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas? Before the war, until 1941, the rate had dropped from 25% under the hoover regime, to 9.6% under FDR. Now, you may be interested to know that the drop in the ue rate, of 16%, from 1933 to 1941 ( 8 years) was the fastest decline in the ue rate ever. Then, the war. By 1942 the ue rate had dropped to 4,7% So, as you have been told, the ue rate dropped because of the efforts of FDR and ended with the giant stimulus of the war. When every single person in the US who wanted a job had a jot. Dipshit.
And, though you are probably too stupid to see it, you have been buried.

We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison. Wow, you are stupid. Did you know that prisoners are not considered part of the ue numbers. They are not considered. And you should know that it is illegal to ship people off to war, unless there is a war and they actually join the armed forces. Neither indicates a rebound of the economy. One represents an illegal activity on the part of the US, so it will probably never happen, dipshit. The second is also illegal, but if they are in jail, they will not affect the ue rate. Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?
Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes. But not because the economy rebounded. Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending. Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.

But does that mean anything has improved? No. The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public. Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen? No.
Sorry,, dipshit. People have to make helmets and camos and tanks, me boy. And they get paid for making those things, me boy. And yes, that makes them better off. And, they buy things. Which help other humans, dipshit. So, yes, they are helped. Greatly. Sorry you are so stupid. It must hurt.


In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined. Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.

Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.

As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true. Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it. The question there is, was it needed, and did it help? I would say no to both. Uh, you just made a sentence that was totally stupid. Congratulations. We can all spend time wondering why you are so stupid, though.

First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.
And another really stupid statement. I would suggest you get proof of your statement but there is no proof of anything that stupid. Thanks for proving you are a congenital idiot. Check on you wording, however. "would done" makes no sense at all. Maybe a remedial english class would help you, idiot.

Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly. Banks grow with existing economic growth.
I would suggest a remedial economics class to help you with this sentence. But I do not believe there is any school that would let you in. You are way to stupid.

If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter. Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing. There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".
Jesus. Please stop. You are too stupid to make sentences. Perhaps if you shoot yourself.


Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing. I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing. No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".
Damn, you are stupid.

You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.

Japan is living proof of this. Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation. The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail". They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over. And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.

Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered. They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.

And this isn't the only example. Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail. Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well. Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.
No, they have not. that is simply the statement of a really stupid con. In this case, YOU.

Really, you must be in terrible pain. I have never read anything as stupid as this post. And, I have read some reall stupid ones. If there is a contest for stupidest post, I am confident you will win.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Actually that's not even true. Yes, it was. Millions were hired. That is, me boy, the biggest stimulus of this century. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
Another stupid statement, but lets look at your stupidity for a moment. Then we will bury you.

First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure. But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas? Before the war, until 1941, the rate had dropped from 25% under the hoover regime, to 9.6% under FDR. Now, you may be interested to know that the drop in the ue rate, of 16%, from 1933 to 1941 ( 8 years) was the fastest decline in the ue rate ever. Then, the war. By 1942 the ue rate had dropped to 4,7% So, as you have been told, the ue rate dropped because of the efforts of FDR and ended with the giant stimulus of the war. When every single person in the US who wanted a job had a jot. Dipshit.
And, though you are probably too stupid to see it, you have been buried.

We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison. Wow, you are stupid. Did you know that prisoners are not considered part of the ue numbers. They are not considered. And you should know that it is illegal to ship people off to war, unless there is a war and they actually join the armed forces. Neither indicates a rebound of the economy. One represents an illegal activity on the part of the US, so it will probably never happen, dipshit. The second is also illegal, but if they are in jail, they will not affect the ue rate. Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?
Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes. But not because the economy rebounded. Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending. Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.

But does that mean anything has improved? No. The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public. Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen? No.
Sorry,, dipshit. People have to make helmets and camos and tanks, me boy. And they get paid for making those things, me boy. And yes, that makes them better off. And, they buy things. Which help other humans, dipshit. So, yes, they are helped. Greatly. Sorry you are so stupid. It must hurt.


In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined. Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.

Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.

As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true. Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it. The question there is, was it needed, and did it help? I would say no to both. Uh, you just made a sentence that was totally stupid. Congratulations. We can all spend time wondering why you are so stupid, though.

First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.
And another really stupid statement. I would suggest you get proof of your statement but there is no proof of anything that stupid. Thanks for proving you are a congenital idiot. Check on you wording, however. "would done" makes no sense at all. Maybe a remedial english class would help you, idiot.

Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly. Banks grow with existing economic growth.
I would suggest a remedial economics class to help you with this sentence. But I do not believe there is any school that would let you in. You are way to stupid.

If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter. Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing. There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".
Jesus. Please stop. You are too stupid to make sentences. Perhaps if you shoot yourself.


Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing. I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing. No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".
Damn, you are stupid.

You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.

Japan is living proof of this. Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation. The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail". They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over. And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.

Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered. They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.

And this isn't the only example. Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail. Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well. Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.
No, they have not. that is simply the statement of a really stupid con. In this case, YOU.

Really, you must be in terrible pain. I have never read anything as stupid as this post. And, I have read some reall stupid ones. If there is a contest for stupidest post, I am confident you will win.

I don't know how you read his rants/manifestos and decide to answer them. Bless you.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

Actually that's not even true. Yes, it was. Millions were hired. That is, me boy, the biggest stimulus of this century. The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all. There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
Another stupid statement, but lets look at your stupidity for a moment. Then we will bury you.

First, they claim that unemployment went down. Did it go down? Sure. But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas? Before the war, until 1941, the rate had dropped from 25% under the hoover regime, to 9.6% under FDR. Now, you may be interested to know that the drop in the ue rate, of 16%, from 1933 to 1941 ( 8 years) was the fastest decline in the ue rate ever. Then, the war. By 1942 the ue rate had dropped to 4,7% So, as you have been told, the ue rate dropped because of the efforts of FDR and ended with the giant stimulus of the war. When every single person in the US who wanted a job had a jot. Dipshit.
And, though you are probably too stupid to see it, you have been buried.

We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison. Wow, you are stupid. Did you know that prisoners are not considered part of the ue numbers. They are not considered. And you should know that it is illegal to ship people off to war, unless there is a war and they actually join the armed forces. Neither indicates a rebound of the economy. One represents an illegal activity on the part of the US, so it will probably never happen, dipshit. The second is also illegal, but if they are in jail, they will not affect the ue rate. Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?
Second, they use the increase in GDP. Did GDP increase? Yes. But not because the economy rebounded. Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending. Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.

But does that mean anything has improved? No. The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public. Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen? No.
Sorry,, dipshit. People have to make helmets and camos and tanks, me boy. And they get paid for making those things, me boy. And yes, that makes them better off. And, they buy things. Which help other humans, dipshit. So, yes, they are helped. Greatly. Sorry you are so stupid. It must hurt.


In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined. Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.

Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.

As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true. Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it. The question there is, was it needed, and did it help? I would say no to both. Uh, you just made a sentence that was totally stupid. Congratulations. We can all spend time wondering why you are so stupid, though.

First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.
And another really stupid statement. I would suggest you get proof of your statement but there is no proof of anything that stupid. Thanks for proving you are a congenital idiot. Check on you wording, however. "would done" makes no sense at all. Maybe a remedial english class would help you, idiot.

Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly. Banks grow with existing economic growth.
I would suggest a remedial economics class to help you with this sentence. But I do not believe there is any school that would let you in. You are way to stupid.

If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter. Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing. There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".
Jesus. Please stop. You are too stupid to make sentences. Perhaps if you shoot yourself.


Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing. I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing. No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".
Damn, you are stupid.

You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.

Japan is living proof of this. Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation. The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail". They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over. And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.

Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered. They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.

And this isn't the only example. Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail. Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well. Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.
No, they have not. that is simply the statement of a really stupid con. In this case, YOU.

Really, you must be in terrible pain. I have never read anything as stupid as this post. And, I have read some reall stupid ones. If there is a contest for stupidest post, I am confident you will win.

I don't know how you read his rants/manifestos and decide to answer them. Bless you.

Well, sometimes us old retired guys simply have more time than smarts. The guy is a total waste of space. Just thought he should be clobbered.