Why haven't republicans explained their job growth strategy. Surely they had time...

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

No moron. The economy did not grow 3.2 percent with inflation adjusted. The GDP is measured in total dollars from last quarter to this quarter. "Everyone" does not know your idiotic untruth.

Furthermore, just look up GDP charts and you'll find example after f'ing example of GDP dramatically shooting up over the decades. Cos that's how GDP is consistently measured. When you do happen to come across GDP charts that measure for inflation, you'll find a chart that is more like a flat line and/or with peaks and valleys. That is never the case in your standard cherry picked GDP analysis, because it is not GDP adjusted inflation.

The fact that I consistently have to explain such a simple concept to you, makes me know that you're lying about your degree in economics. And if you do actually have a degree in economics, then that is utterly pathetic and you are disgrace to whatever school handed you that degree.

 

[Indeependent]

And building off my former counterpoints to you, billy boy. The US GDP was 293.7 billion. In 2012, it was 15,684.8 billion (15.6848 trillion). That's a 5,340 percent 'improvement' based upon your naive GDP application. Now, do you think the economy is 5,340 percent better from then to now? What would this be based upon besides your naive GDP application? So, when you come at me, saying well GDP actually went up 2 percent after Obama's 'stimulus' maybe you should know that someone who understands economics (not [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]) is not going to be impressed like some brain dead idiot like yourself and [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION].

I love rolled up numbers.
Who is this GDP going to?
Certainly not to those who produce the actual goods and services.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And building off my former counterpoints to you, billy boy. The US GDP was 293.7 billion. In 2012, it was 15,684.8 billion (15.6848 trillion). That's a 5,340 percent 'improvement' based upon your naive GDP application. Now, do you think the economy is 5,340 percent better from then to now? What would this be based upon besides your naive GDP application? So, when you come at me, saying well GDP actually went up 2 percent after Obama's 'stimulus' maybe you should know that someone who understands economics (not [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]) is not going to be impressed like some brain dead idiot like yourself and [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION].

I love rolled up numbers.
Who is this GDP going to?
Certainly not to those who produce the actual goods and services.

It sounds like you're not debating my point. Rather, you're making an entirely different very broad point.

 

[Toro]

^^^

No moron. The economy did not grow 3.2 percent with inflation adjusted. The GDP is measured in total dollars from last quarter to this quarter. "Everyone" does not know your idiotic untruth.

Furthermore, just look up GDP charts and you'll find example after f'ing example of GDP dramatically shooting up over the decades. Cos that's how GDP is consistently measured. When you do happen to come across GDP charts that measure for inflation, you'll find a chart that is more like a flat line and/or with peaks and valleys. That is never the case in your standard cherry picked GDP analysis, because it is not GDP adjusted inflation.

The fact that I consistently have to explain such a simple concept to you, makes me know that you're lying about your degree in economics. And if you do actually have a degree in economics, then that is utterly pathetic and you are disgrace to whatever school handed you that degree.

[MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

You're an idiot.

 

[Toro]

[MENTION=41066]Kimura[/MENTION] has a Master's in economics, has had several papers published, and trades bonds for a bank.
[MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] taught economics at a university and I believe has a Ph.D.

Kimura/oldfart

Would you mind perusing TheGreatGatsby's argument and tell us if you agree? Even though I just have an undergraduate's degree in economics and run an investment department while he has never taken a class in the discipline and works in the healthcare field or something, my opinion doesn't count and he knows more than I do, apparently. So I'd like the opinion of experts.

 

[Indeependent]

And building off my former counterpoints to you, billy boy. The US GDP was 293.7 billion. In 2012, it was 15,684.8 billion (15.6848 trillion). That's a 5,340 percent 'improvement' based upon your naive GDP application. Now, do you think the economy is 5,340 percent better from then to now? What would this be based upon besides your naive GDP application? So, when you come at me, saying well GDP actually went up 2 percent after Obama's 'stimulus' maybe you should know that someone who understands economics (not [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]) is not going to be impressed like some brain dead idiot like yourself and [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION].

I love rolled up numbers.
Who is this GDP going to?
Certainly not to those who produce the actual goods and services.

It sounds like you're not debating my point. Rather, you're making an entirely different very broad point.

My point is that ANYONE, Liberal, Democrat, Republican or Conservative, who conjures up GDP as proof of anything across our broad economic spectrum is basically using a Smoke & Mirrors statistic.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I love rolled up numbers.
Who is this GDP going to?
Certainly not to those who produce the actual goods and services.

It sounds like you're not debating my point. Rather, you're making an entirely different very broad point.

My point is that ANYONE, Liberal, Democrat, Republican or Conservative, who conjures up GDP as proof of anything across our broad economic spectrum is basically using a Smoke & Mirrors statistic.

Ah....Well that's pretty much my point. I'm not saying that GDP is not a valid stat; for it is. But it is not at all proof of an improved economy. GDP is almost always going up; and the economy isn't. Sadly, people like [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] are too naive to come to such a simple realization.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

No moron. The economy did not grow 3.2 percent with inflation adjusted. The GDP is measured in total dollars from last quarter to this quarter. "Everyone" does not know your idiotic untruth.

Furthermore, just look up GDP charts and you'll find example after f'ing example of GDP dramatically shooting up over the decades. Cos that's how GDP is consistently measured. When you do happen to come across GDP charts that measure for inflation, you'll find a chart that is more like a flat line and/or with peaks and valleys. That is never the case in your standard cherry picked GDP analysis, because it is not GDP adjusted inflation.

The fact that I consistently have to explain such a simple concept to you, makes me know that you're lying about your degree in economics. And if you do actually have a degree in economics, then that is utterly pathetic and you are disgrace to whatever school handed you that degree.

[MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

You're an idiot.

Nice rebuttal, asswipe. Seeing as how you could not possibly refute those points, I guess that's all you got.

 

[Toro]

^^^

No moron. The economy did not grow 3.2 percent with inflation adjusted. The GDP is measured in total dollars from last quarter to this quarter. "Everyone" does not know your idiotic untruth.

Furthermore, just look up GDP charts and you'll find example after f'ing example of GDP dramatically shooting up over the decades. Cos that's how GDP is consistently measured. When you do happen to come across GDP charts that measure for inflation, you'll find a chart that is more like a flat line and/or with peaks and valleys. That is never the case in your standard cherry picked GDP analysis, because it is not GDP adjusted inflation.

The fact that I consistently have to explain such a simple concept to you, makes me know that you're lying about your degree in economics. And if you do actually have a degree in economics, then that is utterly pathetic and you are disgrace to whatever school handed you that degree.

[MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

You're an idiot.

Nice rebuttal, asswipe. Seeing as how you could not possibly refute those points, I guess that's all you got.

[MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

I gave you a rebuttal, moron.

You're just too uneducated to understand it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The House has passed 40 bills to help job growth.
Sen. Harry Reid has been sitting on all of them and won't allow any votes.

LOL, do you have an original thought or are you simply seeking 'thanks' from the rest of the echo chamber?

 

[Agit8r]

If I went and looked, would the amount of money oil companies received in subsidies under Bush be more or less than the amount spent on food stamps?

The difference though is that food stamps prop up retail employment

 

[bendog]

The gop is left in the uneviable (but honest) position of suggesting longterm unemployed may be unemployable unless they physically can work in a lower paying service job. In which case, in a mixed/free market economy, their option is to seek a disabilty rating and/or take early soc sec.

The gop's jobs message is tar sands, certainity in how much it'll cost to pay future employees, and start up biz, and a stable debt.

They don't do so well when it comes to educating workers and making sure all workers have healthcare and a stable soc sec and medicare future.

 

[peach174]

The gop is left in the uneviable (but honest) position of suggesting longterm unemployed may be unemployable unless they physically can work in a lower paying service job. In which case, in a mixed/free market economy, their option is to seek a disabilty rating and/or take early soc sec.

The gop's jobs message is tar sands, certainity in how much it'll cost to pay future employees, and start up biz, and a stable debt.

They don't do so well when it comes to educating workers and making sure all workers have healthcare and a stable soc sec and medicare future.

The left did not like their stable long term plans for sec, sec and Medicare, which would have made it secure for the future.
The left did not like it because it took the control out the government and gave it to the people.

 

[bendog]

The gop is left in the uneviable (but honest) position of suggesting longterm unemployed may be unemployable unless they physically can work in a lower paying service job. In which case, in a mixed/free market economy, their option is to seek a disabilty rating and/or take early soc sec.

The gop's jobs message is tar sands, certainity in how much it'll cost to pay future employees, and start up biz, and a stable debt.

They don't do so well when it comes to educating workers and making sure all workers have healthcare and a stable soc sec and medicare future.

The left did not like their stable long term plans for sec, sec and Medicare, which would have made it secure for the future.
The left did not like it because it took the control out the government and gave it to the people.

Well, the thread was about the gop. As for the dems, I don't think they accept the fact that we are going to have long term unemployed who can't get jobs. Their fate is left to the safety net and family resources. I don't see Mitt and Paul as having a rational response to medicare and ss, and that view was shared by a majority. The dems also do not appreciate the necessity for certainity in workers' costs.

BUT, BOTH PARTIES, and the country, continue to be burndened with deleveraging credit. It's gonna take at least a decade of middling growth. As W said, the econ got drunk and now it's got a hangover.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

[MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

You're an idiot.

Nice rebuttal, asswipe. Seeing as how you could not possibly refute those points, I guess that's all you got.

[MENTION=36327]TheGreatGatsby[/MENTION]

I gave you a rebuttal, moron.

You're just too uneducated to understand it.

Okay, 'moron.' Did I say you didn't give a rebuttal? Geez, your power of comprehension is low.

 

[Staidhup]

Such a wasted thread, apparently there are those that don't read. The GOP has put forth proposal after proposal with out success. The left views the energy boom as an environmental declaration of war. The pipeline, Construction of LNG export facilities, repatriation of post tax income from abroad, expansion of trade schools, shit the freaking list goes on but yet those that listen and can not hear, or read and simply do not understand have but one agenda and history has proven it will fail. So back in the hole goes your pathetic ideological head. One fact remains, this administration has redefined incompetence. Good luck with your hope and change game.

 

[Papageorgio]

I wonder why the Democrats don't explain why they want to keep losing jobs?

 

[Toro]

[MENTION=41066]Kimura[/MENTION] has a Master's in economics, has had several papers published, and trades bonds for a bank.
[MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] taught economics at a university and I believe has a Ph.D.

Kimura/oldfart

Would you mind perusing TheGreatGatsby's argument and tell us if you agree? Even though I just have an undergraduate's degree in economics and run an investment department while he has never taken a class in the discipline and works in the healthcare field or something, my opinion doesn't count and he knows more than I do, apparently. So I'd like the opinion of experts.

In retrospect, I'm embarrassed to have called Kimura and oldfart to this thread.

They are smart enough to know gasbag's argument is so ridiculous, it doesn't warrant a response.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^
Yea, I noticed that now you don't have a (direct) rebuttal. It's funny how you get called out for your utter stupidity and throw out your insults---like a five year old.

 

[rdean]

...to lay out their plan in their SOTU response. Wouldn't that have been a good time?

Hmm maybe it's because they don't have one? Perhaps I missed it, Any repub want to fill me in?

They are still trying to explain:

Why we went into Iraq.

Why the Bush Tax cuts didn't work.

Why their party is 90% white.

Why their deregulation ruined the economy.

They have a lot of 'splainin' to do.