Teatard "plan" would cost 700,000 jobs, cut gdp growth
Neoconis_Ignoramus
was a stupid idea. But hey, they got extended tax cuts to those far
above them economically protected. So there's that, at least.
There is no bounds to the utter idiocy of the teatard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html
DogDiesel
"Neoconis_Ignoramus" <bella...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f0c835ad-ea76-41a5...@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> As if we needed further evidence that the teatard "austerity" "plan"
> was a stupid idea. But hey, they got extended tax cuts to those far
> above them economically protected. So there's that, at least.
>
You have every opportunity To jump on board and offer your own cuts
anywhere you like. But you refuse.
You could easily get America to love you if you cut all the off limits
government crap , Destroying America.
But you refuse.
You guys locked down all the cuts in areas we want to make.
Under homeland security. And patriot act.
That is 70 % of government bullshit spending.
So we will make half the cuts we want.
From the domestic economy.
Thats already been robbed for 20 years.
And you can whine you don't like it
Party of No.
You have no choice but to cut.
You can cut where you want.
Or we can cut where you don't want.
Now get off your ass and get the off limits Bull shit . back on the table.
The PHANTOM
wrote:
So tell us Perfesir. How many more jobs "created/saved" by the Obogus
regime can the taxpayers afford?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-jobs-created-and-saved-stimulus-cost
Tom Fitzpatrick
This is not about Obama. This article is about the GOP's budget plans.
Care to comment on the article instead of going after Obama?
Neoconis_Ignoramus
your own link said between 1.3 and 3.5 million jobs were created /
saved, teatard. Of course, then your link stupidly goes on to equate
the idea that these jobs "cost" somewhere between $228k and $556k to
create / save.
I love teatard economics, because it bears such little resembleance to
real economics. The teatard "cost" ignores both the multiplier effect
of increased spending due to those jobs saved / created, as well as
the simple fact that those jobs are likely to last far longer than on
year, thusly eating into their "cost", or that the increased spending
leads to new jobs which then lowers overall "cost". Teatards cannot
get past the most simplistic interpretation of facts, it's beyond
their comprehension. And sources like CNS "news", know this, and
thusly willingly feed the teatard droolers gruel disguising as facts.
Not Sure
wrote:
Look who's getting desperate :)
Neoconis_Ignoramus
Once again, Not Smart comes through with an informed response dealing
with the subject. Can't you at least try harder than that, Not Smart?
Or are you too embarassed by what the potential output may be?
The PHANTOM
wrote:
Obama is your President. It was all over the news. Try and keep up son.
Tom Fitzpatrick
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know he is the President but again, that is not the subject of this
article. It is about the GOP and their budget plans. Why can't you
comment on that instead of coming back to Obama every time? Is it
because you know that the GOP budget plan is not worth defending so
you change the subject? You obviously cannot defend this budget so you
use the a typical Republican trick by trying to change the subject
back to Obama. It ain't working dude. Go ahead and comment on the
article, unless you are too afraid.
And I am not your 'son' you idiot.
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
news:ba818067-aca1-4ded...@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I can defend it. It is a whole lot better if the government spends less
money, not more money. The less money they spend, the lower the National
Debt will be. The less money the government spends, the less taxes they
have to confiscate from the citizens of the United States. What is wrong
with that?
Day Brown
> I can defend it. It is a whole lot better if the government spends less
> money, not more money. The less money they spend, the lower the National
> Debt will be. The less money the government spends, the less taxes they
> have to confiscate from the citizens of the United States. What is wrong
> with that?
For one, Obama is president, not the house, which has the power of the
purse. Which defenders of Republicans seem to forget. The house, not
Obama, can make whatever cuts it wants whenever it wants. Then, we can
wait to see if the Senate and Obama will pass on it.
Of course, if the failure to produce effective policy results in
economic crisis and systemic collapse, well the Roman republic saw a few
examples of intractable political problems like this. What they did, was
select a man of impeccable character and endow him with the power such
that "his word shall be law". End of problem. We all know who is
responsible for what.
Oh- the name of that Roman office:"Dictator". And if you'd read Gibbon
and Machiavelli instead of displaying your ignorance here, then you'd
know aristocracies always corrupt republics. They also fund the
campaigns of demagogues pandering to ethnicity and religion and
promising what we now call 'entitlements' who later make hidden deals to
lower the taxes on the rich.
The entitlements would not be necessary, but its the corruption of the
markets, such as we've seen in the USA also, that take assets from the
middle class. Gibbon also noted how the aristocracy encouraged
immigration from tribes that lacked republican traditions then passed on
civil rights to water down the power of experienced citizens. This also,
of course, created an over supply of labor so that nobody could make a
living any more and needed the govt subsidies.
Of course, prominent partisans emerge promising to do what is needed on
all sides of the political spectrum. But as in the deficit debate, you
can see it never really works out. Then as now, no matter what color the
political party, they are all lawyers.
Machiavelli outlines how transferring the taxes from the upper to lower
classes soon bankrupts, so then, since the govt cannot tax the people
who actually have the money, it BORROWS it. Which works until some
creditor sees the tax base will no longer service the debt, refuses to
lend more, and crisis explodes over night.
At which time it is either anarchy or the aforementioned dictator. You
pick. Note, defending either the Republicans or Democrats is not an
option. They are all lawyers as well.
Jerry Okamura
"Day Brown" wrote in message
news:DfSdnbKIkMogLPDQ...@giganews.com...
Spent an awful lot of time and effort responding, but not one word about why
I am wrong.