Why do RWs spend so much energy on demonizing democrats yet make no effort to defend republicans?

[Wyatt earp]

Do you have anything to back up your claim that "most did a lot"? Because I really do have 90 more examples from Senator Tom Coburn's report. That indicates to me that most (dare I say the overwhelming majority?) was horribly wasted.

I did earlier. It created 3 million private jobs and I can easily explain how if you'd like.

Well that's a generic statement. I'm talking about where the money was spent. I mean, in each of the examples I gave above, it created jobs. But even you admitted it wasn't helpful. Why do we need to illegally/unconstitutionally employ someone to study ants? It's just not helpful (and even if it were, it's still illegal).

You gave a bunch of examples from retarded republican. While I agree some of the funding was wasted, much of it went to good like a tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits during the Great Recession.

So what your saying is Obama stole Bush Jr plan and Bush tax cuts worked.....check.


Thanks for playing


.

Nope. The true source of the job growth was through extending unemployment benefits for the poor. This increased consumer demand that created jobs.

 

[Billy000]

You gave a bunch of examples from retarded republican. While I agree some of the funding was wasted, much of it went to good like a tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits during the Great Recession.

So what your saying is Obama stole Bush Jr plan and Bush tax cuts worked.....check.


Thanks for playing


.

Nope. The true source of the job growth was through extending unemployment benefits for the poor. This increased consumer demand that created jobs.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.... if true, then why not insist everybody stop working and go on unemployment?

How dumb are you? This happened during the Great Recession. Obviously it was appropriate to do it.

Oddly, your little rant does nothing to explain why then it wouldn't be great to just have everyone on unemployment.

This logic is so stupid. The entire point of the stimulus was to create jobs. Obviously we would still need the private market to be able to fund the revenue for doing this for a select few.

 

[Billy000]

I did earlier. It created 3 million private jobs and I can easily explain how if you'd like.

Well that's a generic statement. I'm talking about where the money was spent. I mean, in each of the examples I gave above, it created jobs. But even you admitted it wasn't helpful. Why do we need to illegally/unconstitutionally employ someone to study ants? It's just not helpful (and even if it were, it's still illegal).

You gave a bunch of examples from retarded republican. While I agree some of the funding was wasted, much of it went to good like a tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits during the Great Recession.

So what your saying is Obama stole Bush Jr plan and Bush tax cuts worked.....check.


Thanks for playing


.

Nope. The true source of the job growth was through extending unemployment benefits for the poor. This increased consumer demand that created jobs.

View attachment 75754

Your skepticism isn't needed. It's already true. Sorry.

 

[P@triot]

Do you have anything to back up your claim that "most did a lot"? Because I really do have 90 more examples from Senator Tom Coburn's report. That indicates to me that most (dare I say the overwhelming majority?) was horribly wasted.

I did earlier. It created 3 million private jobs and I can easily explain how if you'd like.

Well that's a generic statement. I'm talking about where the money was spent. I mean, in each of the examples I gave above, it created jobs. But even you admitted it wasn't helpful. Why do we need to illegally/unconstitutionally employ someone to study ants? It's just not helpful (and even if it were, it's still illegal).

You gave a bunch of examples from retarded republican. While I agree some of the funding was wasted, much of it went to good like a tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits during the Great Recession.

Now you're just being a desperate hack. A "retarded Republican"? He was a U.S. Senator tracking government spending for his constituents. Ultimately you can provide a single example of where the money was spent properly but rather than just admit that you act like a 4th grader with the "retards Republican" nonsense.

Here is an actual non partisan report on the stimulus. Way better than your republican bullshit. It breaks down what was spent and the economic boost the economy.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - Non Profit News For Nonprofit Organizations | Nonprofit Quarterly

There was nothing inaccurate about Senator Tom Coburn's report and your "nonpartisan" link even supported that.

Furthermore, where do you see anything in your link that indicates that the stimulus was a "success"? Over $1 trillion was illegally/unconstitutionally spent and the returns were paltry. We would have seen exponentially better results leaving the free market alone and simply lowering taxes and regulations.

 

[Billy000]

I did earlier. It created 3 million private jobs and I can easily explain how if you'd like.

Well that's a generic statement. I'm talking about where the money was spent. I mean, in each of the examples I gave above, it created jobs. But even you admitted it wasn't helpful. Why do we need to illegally/unconstitutionally employ someone to study ants? It's just not helpful (and even if it were, it's still illegal).

You gave a bunch of examples from retarded republican. While I agree some of the funding was wasted, much of it went to good like a tax cut for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits during the Great Recession.

Now you're just being a desperate hack. A "retarded Republican"? He was a U.S. Senator tracking government spending for his constituents. Ultimately you can provide a single example of where the money was spent properly but rather than just admit that you act like a 4th grader with the "retards Republican" nonsense.

Here is an actual non partisan report on the stimulus. Way better than your republican bullshit. It breaks down what was spent and the economic boost the economy.

Was the Obama Stimulus a Success or a Failure? - Non Profit News For Nonprofit Organizations | Nonprofit Quarterly

There was nothing inaccurate about Senator Tom Coburn's report and your "nonpartisan" link even supported that.

Furthermore, where do you see anything in your link that indicates that the stimulus was a "success"? Over $1 trillion was illegally/unconstitutionally spent and the returns were paltry. We would have seen exponentially better results leaving the free market alone and simply lowering taxes and regulations.

Are you kidding me? It boosted GDP by 2% and created 3 million private jobs. I don't give a shit if you think it was unconstitutional.

Lowering taxes? Give me a break. Bush's tax cuts were huge and job growth under him was pathetic and the Great Recession started anyway. How do you explain that?

Also, regulations have proven to do little to job loss. The BLS statistics prove that.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No, I won't tell you what he should have done to close the wealth gap. Not until you tell me why the wealth gap has grown under his presidency, like I asked you to in my first post.

Because there was no government intervention on the market it to keep it from widening. Now you tell me what he should have done.

"Because there was no government interventions on the market to keep it from widening". ok, if that's your answer, then I will say.....he should,have intervened to keep,it from widening. (I can't believe I am having this conversation with you, I know better.)

Ok now you have to explain how he would have done it if he tried.

He couldn't do it, he has the wrong policies and political agenda. He is a socialist at heart, and doesn't comprehend capitalism.

Ok what policies would work to fix that problem then? Be specific.

See what you assclowns aren't getting is that the wealth gap has been widening for DECADES before Obama.

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

 

[Billy000]

Because there was no government intervention on the market it to keep it from widening. Now you tell me what he should have done.

"Because there was no government interventions on the market to keep it from widening". ok, if that's your answer, then I will say.....he should,have intervened to keep,it from widening. (I can't believe I am having this conversation with you, I know better.)

Ok now you have to explain how he would have done it if he tried.

He couldn't do it, he has the wrong policies and political agenda. He is a socialist at heart, and doesn't comprehend capitalism.

Ok what policies would work to fix that problem then? Be specific.

See what you assclowns aren't getting is that the wealth gap has been widening for DECADES before Obama.

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

 

[Staidhup]

Common sense doesn't require explanation only nonsense.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

"Because there was no government interventions on the market to keep it from widening". ok, if that's your answer, then I will say.....he should,have intervened to keep,it from widening. (I can't believe I am having this conversation with you, I know better.)

Ok now you have to explain how he would have done it if he tried.

He couldn't do it, he has the wrong policies and political agenda. He is a socialist at heart, and doesn't comprehend capitalism.

Ok what policies would work to fix that problem then? Be specific.

See what you assclowns aren't getting is that the wealth gap has been widening for DECADES before Obama.

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

In other words, you didn't understand my previous post. I should know better than to engage with you.

 

[P@triot]

How dumb are you? This happened during the Great Recession. Obviously it was appropriate to do it.

First of all - as bad as the Obama economy was (and still is), lets not go all hyperbole referring to it as "the Great Recession" when the Jimmy Carter economy was considerably worse. I love how in 2008 liberals tried to downplay everything and blame Bush and now that things are better, they try to make it sound catastrophic so they can make it sound like Obama did something amazing job improving things.

The fact is, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid destroyed the world economy. The American people turned over tons of states, counties, cities, and the House to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms. That started to turn things for the better as conservative policy as always does.

 

[Billy000]

Ok now you have to explain how he would have done it if he tried.

He couldn't do it, he has the wrong policies and political agenda. He is a socialist at heart, and doesn't comprehend capitalism.

Ok what policies would work to fix that problem then? Be specific.

See what you assclowns aren't getting is that the wealth gap has been widening for DECADES before Obama.

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

In other words, you didn't understand my previous post. I should know better than to engage with you.

See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless.

 

[Billy000]

How dumb are you? This happened during the Great Recession. Obviously it was appropriate to do it.

First of all - as bad as the Obama economy was (and still is), lets not go all hyperbole referring to it as "the Great Recession" when the Jimmy Carter economy was considerably worse. I love how in 2008 liberals tried to downplay everything and blame Bush and now that things are better, they try to make it sound catastrophic so they can make it sound like Obama did something amazing job improving things.

The fact is, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid destroyed the world economy. The American people turned over tons of states, counties, cities, and the House to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms. That started to turn things for the better as conservative policy as always does.

Um no this was the worst recession. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. You need to accept that.

 

[P@triot]

Are you kidding me? It boosted GDP by 2% and created 3 million private jobs. I don't give a shit if you think it was unconstitutional.

Perfectly summarizing why the U.S. is in so much trouble. First of all - I don't think it was. I know it was. The federal government was delegated 18 specific powers in the U.S. Constitution. Economic stimulus, social safety nets, etc. were not one of them.

And again, we got a pitiful paltry return on over $1 trillion spent when all we had to do was drastically reduce taxes and regulations. The truth is - you're not interested in reality. You drastically prefer you liberal comfort food ideology.

 

[P@triot]

How dumb are you? This happened during the Great Recession. Obviously it was appropriate to do it.

First of all - as bad as the Obama economy was (and still is), lets not go all hyperbole referring to it as "the Great Recession" when the Jimmy Carter economy was considerably worse. I love how in 2008 liberals tried to downplay everything and blame Bush and now that things are better, they try to make it sound catastrophic so they can make it sound like Obama did something amazing job improving things.

The fact is, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid destroyed the world economy. The American people turned over tons of states, counties, cities, and the House to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms. That started to turn things for the better as conservative policy as always does.

Um no this was the worst recession. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. You need to accept that.

I accept it just fine. Still nothing compared to the Jimmy Carter economy. Did you ever ONCE have to wait in line for gas only to find your station had run out? People couldn't even get gasoline during the Jimmy Carter economy. They would wait in line for hours and once a station finally got some it would run out by the time it was their turn at the pump. Interests rates were an outrageous 22%. Getting a loan for $100,000 home meant paying an astounding $661,000 over the life of a standard 30 year mortgage. Ever see that in 2008? On top of it all, unemployment hit 7.9% under Carter.

Sorry chief - I think it's safe to say you weren't around in the Carter years and you clearly don't study history. Things were awful under Obama (third worst economy in U.S. history). They were worse under Jimmy Carter.

 

[P@triot]

Things were awful under Obama (third worst economy in U.S. history). They were worse under Jimmy Carter.

The really scary part is that we had Ronald Reagan to bail us out in 1980. We don't have that savior this time. Donald Trump will make things slightly better most likely (if elected) but he's no Ronald Reagan. If Hilldabeast gets in, nothing will change.

 

[Billy000]

How dumb are you? This happened during the Great Recession. Obviously it was appropriate to do it.

First of all - as bad as the Obama economy was (and still is), lets not go all hyperbole referring to it as "the Great Recession" when the Jimmy Carter economy was considerably worse. I love how in 2008 liberals tried to downplay everything and blame Bush and now that things are better, they try to make it sound catastrophic so they can make it sound like Obama did something amazing job improving things.

The fact is, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid destroyed the world economy. The American people turned over tons of states, counties, cities, and the House to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms. That started to turn things for the better as conservative policy as always does.

Um no this was the worst recession. We lost 8 million jobs in 9 months. You need to accept that.

I accept it just fine. Still nothing compared to the Jimmy Carter economy. Did you ever ONCE have to wait in line for gas only to find your station had run out? People couldn't even get gasoline during the Jimmy Carter economy. They would wait in line for hours and once a station finally got some it would run out by the time it was their turn at the pump. Interests rates were an outrageous 22%. Getting a loan for $100,000 home meant paying an astounding $661,000 over the life of a standard 30 year mortgage. Ever see that in 2008? On top of it all, unemployment hit 7.9% under Carter.

Sorry chief - I think it's safe to say you weren't around in the Carter years and you clearly don't study history. Things were awful under Obama (third worst economy in U.S. history). They were worse under Jimmy Carter.

Actually no. The big fuck up Bush recession ended 6 months into Obama's presidency. Keep in mind that recession still started despite his ridiculous tax cuts. Job growth altogether was pathetic under Bush. According to the CBO, the stimulus created 3 million private jobs. From there, we have had NON STOP job growth. The longest streak for any president in history. Suck on that.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

He couldn't do it, he has the wrong policies and political agenda. He is a socialist at heart, and doesn't comprehend capitalism.

Ok what policies would work to fix that problem then? Be specific.

See what you assclowns aren't getting is that the wealth gap has been widening for DECADES before Obama.

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

In other words, you didn't understand my previous post. I should know better than to engage with you.

See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless.

Billy000, you are 100% wrong, but keep trying. Here is a graph of wealth gap since 1913. Clearly, it doesn't always go up. Have you ever used a search engine?

 

[Billy000]

Ok what policies would work to fix that problem then? Be specific.

See what you assclowns aren't getting is that the wealth gap has been widening for DECADES before Obama.

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

In other words, you didn't understand my previous post. I should know better than to engage with you.

See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless.

Billy000, you are 100% wrong, but keep trying. Here is a graph of wealth gap since 1913. Clearly, it doesn't always go up. Have you ever used a search engine?

Lol I never said it had been widening for that long. I said it has been widening for a few decades and will continue to widen.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I have a much different view than you, specifically in regards to the economy. Economies fluctuates, they are extremely complex, and therefore difficult to manage. It's not simple, that's why people get PHDs in economics.

I would prefer the federal government not get involved with "fixing" the economy. Most of the people in Washington are lawyers with very little understanding of the economy; especially how certain stimuli, events, policies, etc. will affect the economy. They have chosen to empower the Federal Reserve as the central bank to "control" inflation and unemployment thru monetary policy.

Since the Federal Reserve gets its power from the Federal Government they behave in a manner suitable to the government. Barack Obama has been president during the worst recovery since the Great Depression, poor job growth, low growth, shrinking middle class, widening wealth gap, etc.

The policies of the Federal Reserve IMO have not allowed the economy to recovery, because the politicians insist they institute policies which will "force growth". Economies do not grow in a perfect upward slope at 3 or 4% a year or whatever the politicians insist on. So when you engage in Quantative Easing to create growth you get malinvestment, bubbles, wealth disparity, all the crap you see today.

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

In other words, you didn't understand my previous post. I should know better than to engage with you.

See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless.

Billy000, you are 100% wrong, but keep trying. Here is a graph of wealth gap since 1913. Clearly, it doesn't always go up. Have you ever used a search engine?

Lol I never said it had been widening for that long. I said it has been widening for a few decades and will continue to widen.

My apology, I was referring to this post-

"See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless."

Didn't see where you qualified as only a few decades.

 

[Billy000]

Lol oh really? So what was the point of connecting Obama with the wealth gap? You still haven't explained that.

In other words, you didn't understand my previous post. I should know better than to engage with you.

See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless.

Billy000, you are 100% wrong, but keep trying. Here is a graph of wealth gap since 1913. Clearly, it doesn't always go up. Have you ever used a search engine?

Lol I never said it had been widening for that long. I said it has been widening for a few decades and will continue to widen.

My apology, I was referring to this post-

"See this logic isn't hard to figure out. It doesn't matter who is president. The income gap will widen regardless."

Didn't see where you qualified as only a few decades.

The obvious point is that it is on a trajectory that started decades ago and is not stopping unless drastic measures are taken. We are only having this conversation because you wanted to blame Obama for the widening that occurred during his adminstration. Did you notice how I didn't blame this on Bush? That's what being objective looks like.