Unemployment

[compshmoe]

Not at all what I am saying. Could you actually respond to the argument I made instead of attempting to reframe the issue on emotional terms?

Can you look to the broader picture of economic reality or only focus on artificial class distinctions?

Are you capable of having an argument about economics or is class warfare rhetoric all you know?

It is far more cruel to have an overreaching government try and go against nature by "stimulating" the economy through "investment" thus maintaining bust far beyond. The more decent, kind thing to do is for the government to facilitate a quick economic recovery by getting out of the way.

The market naturally corrects itself and there is no way for government to speed up that process. Attempts to speed up a recovery only prolong the recession.

Again, are you actually able to logically defend the premises that your argument is based on or can you only take them for granted and posture in an attempt to avoid any critical examination of those premises?

All I have been seeing is the latter...

You can't have economics without "class distiction" involved, specially when the cards are stacked against the ones that actually HAVE to spend it.
If what you mean by "stimulating" the economy through "investment" is another way of saying bailing GM out of the hole so the thousands of workers and the many many factories and bussiness that depend on GM don't go under, therefore keeping money flowing instead remaining stagnant, that's a HELL yes . BUT if you mean "stimulating" the economy through "tax breaks for the wealthy" because eventually everyone else gets the crumbs then the answer is HELL no. Is that a more direct way to answer?

 

[compshmoe]

No it was a dodge that relied on misdirection. You simply responded with "what policies didn't fail" then cherry picked a chart that didn't in any way confront the question I raised.

That chart doesn't account for a lot of the realities I alluded to in the earlier post; specifically, what governmental branch sets fiscal policy? In fact, the chart you cite conveniently ignores that fact.

There are other certain political realities that played a huge factor as well and make your comparison utterly worthless. Specifically, 9/11 and the profound economic impact it had.

Essentially, your argument assumes that the only variables involved were different president's in the oval office and, therefore, any difference in numbers is due to the policies of the two men. That is an absurd assumption that ignores a whole host of other variables and realities that played HUGE factors in any differences in numbers.

It is a cheap way to avoid any specifics.

Specifically, WHAT Bush policies failed and (more importantly) why? What is the standard of judgment used to determine whether those policies failed?

Class warfare rhetoric does not answer that question. And self-serving, one sided standards are a cop-out as well.

WTF??? did your chart show up in mongolian ? WHAT bush policies failed: ALL..... What is the standard of judgment used to determine whether those policies failed? TODAY........Why did they fail? BUSH.....ummm McFly?????
OK I pass, you won, I won't resort to cave drawings or stick figures to answer your question cause i have a feeling they wouldn't work either.

 

[shagdrum]

You can't have economics without "class distinction" involved, specially when the cards are stacked against the ones that actually HAVE to spend it.

That says it all right there. You are an economic illiterate.

Outside of Marxism, NO school of economic thought is based in class distinctions nor are class distinctions vital to economic thought.

Class distinctions are an ARTIFICIAL creation that serve specific ideological ends. Nothing more. They do not reflect reality which is why there has to be elaborate rationalizations for them and one sided "analyses" that operationally assume them in order to prove them.

 

[shagdrum]

WTF??? did your chart show up in mongolian ? WHAT bush policies failed: ALL..... What is the standard of judgment used to determine whether those policies failed? TODAY........Why did they fail? BUSH.....ummm McFly?????

This is the problem.

No rational discussion can be had with this kind of petulant, incoherent, short sighted ignorance. The fact that it is backed up with a misplaced sense of moral superiority only magnifies the problem.

 

[compshmoe]

this is the problem.

No rational discussion can be had with this kind of petulant, incoherent, short sighted ignorance. The fact that it is backed up with a misplaced sense of moral superiority only magnifies the problem.

:n

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

:n

Its like talking to a brick wall, dude. Don't dispair, its NOT you, believe me.

 

[04SCTLS]

Its like talking to a brick wall, dude. Don't dispair, its NOT you, believe me.

Shag can be funny...

Democrats pushed the banks to give mortgages to people with inadequate equity and income but Republicans allowed the banks to bundle these toxic mortgages as highly profitable AAA+ Securities(selling the same debt over and over) by saying a few magic words.
This took 20 years to build.
The whole economic crash of overbidding the value of real estate into the future at the end of Bush's presidency was started before he became president.
One reason these pension funds are down is because they were based on rosy 8% returns of an indefinately expanding economy and had purchased some of the said turdish "AAA+ Securities"
Bush's decision to invade Iraq was dusted off Pax Americana plans drawn up by Cheney and Rumsfeld neoconservatives after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90's and 9/11 provided a convenient excuse to implement them.
Bush's failed mediocre response to Katrina was a major embarassment and lack of leadership he never recovered from.
Because religion helped him quit drinking he said God was guiding his decisions and used that to get religious voters to put faith before reason and vote for him.
On the other hand nobody is talking about repealing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class who are the ones recieving the benefits from the tax money rich people do pay(for everything) already.
Rich people don't need the government benefits the middle class has grown to enjoy and expect.
Bush also authorized the Stuxnet cyberweapon which has been a big setback to the Iranian nuclear program by surruptitiously spinning Siemens uranium extracting centrifuges too fast while telling the operators everything is fine and causing them to become severely damaged and crash.

Due to the economic downturn businesses learned how to do more with less workers and aren't going to now pad their workforce to featherbed workers.
Workers are hired because they make you money, usually as much as you are paying them or more.
This is how it works.
When economic demand is there business will hire workers to meet the orders.

 

[cammerfe]

Progressive whinging

From johnny and beezee---"Don't try to confuse me with facts, I feel much better when I can gritch and be petulant and point fingers!! mad

KS