9.8% Unemployment

Onceler said:
That really bothers you, doesn't it?

That people would actually hold Bush accountable for an economic crash that occurred after he was in office for almost 2 terms?

What is it w/ you & Bush?
Click to expand...

And yet it appears that you're not willing to hold Obama accountable for anything.

What is it w/you & Obama?
 
Onceler said:
That really bothers you, doesn't it?

That people would actually hold Bush accountable for an economic crash that occurred after he was in office for almost 2 terms?

What is it w/ you & Bush?
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet it appears that you're not willing to hold Obama accountable for anything.

What is it w/you & Obama?
Click to expand...

lol.....USF pwns onceler....i don't even have to reply to such drivel

poor onceler :(
 
Yurt said:
lol.....USF pwns onceler....i don't even have to reply to such drivel

poor onceler :(
Click to expand...

Really? You consider that ridiculous generalization from one of the board's most insane posters a "pwning"?

I've criticized Obama MUCH more than I have praised him. You guys just don't know how to do anything save for project your own extreme hackification.
 
Onceler said:
Really? You consider that ridiculous generalization from one of the board's most insane posters a "pwning"?

I've criticized Obama MUCH more than I have praised him. You guys just don't know how to do anything save for project your own extreme hackification.
Click to expand...

:lol:

now that is truly funny!
 
I'm just left wondering what the righties think Obama should do. I mean, I think Obama's economic policy, or lack thereof, is unconscionable, but I think my prescription is a little different than what right-wing types would propose. Trouble is, I have no idea what they would propose. So what do you want Obama to do and why do you think it will improve matters?


Edit: Other than tax cut panacea bullshit. That's always the answer to every problem.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
It's also true.

You generally only read what you want to read. I argue with lefties on here much more than righties.

Like I said, you tend to project a lot.....
Click to expand...

onceler....seriously.....that is so far from the truth....i can't tell if you're joking or if you actually believe that

i doubt any person on this board would support your statement...i mean really....i'm actually laughing while typing my response
 
Yurt said:
onceler....seriously.....that is so far from the truth....i can't tell if you're joking or if you actually believe that

i doubt any person on this board would support your statement...i mean really....i'm actually laughing while typing my response
Click to expand...

That's your best?

It's not surprising at all to me that you don't see that. You cherrypick only want you want to from my posts; you only see what you want to see, which is pretty much straight-up projection.

You know what projection is, right? You're a blind hack, so you think everyone else must be, as well.
 
Onceler said:
That's your best?

It's not surprising at all to me that you don't see that. You cherrypick only want you want to from my posts; you only see what you want to see, which is pretty much straight-up projection.

You know what projection is, right? You're a blind hack, so you think everyone else must be, as well.
Click to expand...

onceler....you and i don't get along....but really....if that was your best defense...why bother...

it is real simple....when i ask you for links to back your claims up and you know you have them...you provide them...and i thank you for them....its the numerous claims you make and will not back up that give you a hack name....

and it is an absolute lie that you come down on the dems more than the pubs.....why you even thought that lie would pass muster is beyond me....

seriously, its just weird
 
Yurt said:
it is real simple....when i ask you for links to back your claims up and you know you have them...you provide them...and i thank you for them....
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Hilarious. You did that once, and only when you were so thoroughly embarassed & humiliated that even YOU had no choice.

The rest of the time, you deny, distract & backpeddle furiously, hoping to move the goalposts enough where your idiotic claims make sense. Or, you just discredit the link.

You have a very strange self-image...
 
evince said:
Jude Wanniski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the U.S. Republican Party.[6][7]

The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.

This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).

The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief, but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused in an effort to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus.
Click to expand...

well now we can add the Grinch Theory.....if during a mid term election a party runs on the idea of reducing spending they can in fact take control of the House of Representatives.......
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm just left wondering what the righties think Obama should do. I mean, I think Obama's economic policy, or lack thereof, is unconscionable, but I think my prescription is a little different than what right-wing types would propose. Trouble is, I have no idea what they would propose. So what do you want Obama to do and why do you think it will improve matters?


Edit: Other than tax cut panacea bullshit. That's always the answer to every problem.
Click to expand...
And it doesn't work for anyone but them!
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm just left wondering what the righties think Obama should do. I mean, I think Obama's economic policy, or lack thereof, is unconscionable, but I think my prescription is a little different than what right-wing types would propose. Trouble is, I have no idea what they would propose. So what do you want Obama to do and why do you think it will improve matters?


Edit: Other than tax cut panacea bullshit. That's always the answer to every problem.
Click to expand...

He needed more tax cuts in the stimulus. Had he done that we would not be in the situation.

My issue with the stimulus was how the money was spent. I know we've talked a lot about infrastructure but I believe that would have been a great place to start. It would have created jobs while at the same time creating a long term benefit with either up graded safety and use of existing crumbling infrastructure or tangible new projects.

I was reading yesterday about California, after having just recently passing a budget, having to find $6 billion more (either in cuts or increases revenue) to continue to balance the budget for next year. So a lot of the stimulus money was sent to the states to help balance their budgets the year before hence the new political term 'jobs saved' was introduced. I'm sure the idea was the economy would improve and that increased revenues to the state the following year(s) would keep those jobs long term. Instead what we got was it helped push the problem back a year. So not to say people losing their jobs is a good thing but it basically just pushed the problem back a year. That does no real long term benefit and isn't even really doing any short term benefit. Obama's mistake here in my opinion was delegating to much of the writing of the stimulus to Congress.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm just left wondering what the righties think Obama should do. I mean, I think Obama's economic policy, or lack thereof, is unconscionable, but I think my prescription is a little different than what right-wing types would propose. Trouble is, I have no idea what they would propose. So what do you want Obama to do and why do you think it will improve matters?


Edit: Other than tax cut panacea bullshit. That's always the answer to every problem.
Click to expand...

you'll simply call it tax cut panacea bullshit, but what he should have done instead of spending a trillion dollars protecting public employment was use the tax code to do two things....

one, a tax holiday bringing all untaxed assets into the country that corporations earned overseas and have left there to avoid taxation...

two, tax free zones for any company creating new American jobs.....
 
cawacko said:
He needed more tax cuts in the stimulus. Had he done that we would not be in the situation.

My issue with the stimulus was how the money was spent. I know we've talked a lot about infrastructure but I believe that would have been a great place to start. It would have created jobs while at the same time creating a long term benefit with either up graded safety and use of existing crumbling infrastructure or tangible new projects.

I was reading yesterday about California, after having just recently passing a budget, having to find $6 billion more (either in cuts or increases revenue) to continue to balance the budget for next year. So a lot of the stimulus money was sent to the states to help balance their budgets the year before hence the new political term 'jobs saved' was introduced. I'm sure the idea was the economy would improve and that increased revenues to the state the following year(s) would keep those jobs long term. Instead what we got was it helped push the problem back a year. So not to say people losing their jobs is a good thing but it basically just pushed the problem back a year. That does no real long term benefit and isn't even really doing any short term benefit. Obama's mistake here in my opinion was delegating to much of the writing of the stimulus to Congress.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to argue with you about what should or should not have been in the stimulus, though I disagree with you. My question is what you want him to do now, not what you wanted him to do two years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top