Republican Admits His Party Intentionally Blocking Jobs

??? "paying out unemployment benefits" does nothing to ensure the "full employment of resources" or achieving "full employment". In fact is a hinderance to it.

 

Why do you believe that?

 

ding ding ding ^

 

that's a very good question, and it's not just small government republicans. its essentially most americans. there is a fear that has been stirred up that if drugs were legal, the whole country would look like the filth occupying wall street. but that is obviously not the case.

 

I dont think anyone is calling it a republican congress just a grid locked one, it is half and half.

 

<<< MOD EDIT: DELETED QUOTE REMOVED >>>

" which you and I just quoted above."

You really need to seek professional help. I QUOTED exactly what I posted. You paraphrased what I said. My quote is accurate. Your paraphrase is imbecilic. AND wrong.
Now I'm done trying to help a rock-head that cannot read, so for others I'll restate, Liberal policies by both parties at all levels of government have increased our national debt from $288 billion to $15 TRILLION in 51 years.

That alone should reveal the complete stupidity of liberal programs. Yet they want to WASTE more.

And thank you for pointing out, probably incorrectly, that:

"$288 billion dollars in 1944 is equals to 3.5 trillion in 2010 dollars."

That, FYI, is an exact quote, not a paraphrase. WHO brought up 1944?? I was talking about 1960, Oh sorry, I forgot, you can't read!

And thanx for pointing out that liberal policies, in addition to amassing huge debt, have also devalued the dollar by 92% in half a century.
Your claim would be more accurate if you said it now takes $3.5 TRILLION to buy what $288 billion would have bought years ago, due to the insane fiscal policies of the loony left.

 

From one perspective, the evil Drug Empire won that "War" with the repeal of Prohibition. It is even in black and white, in our own supreme law of the land, as the Twenty-First Amendment to our federal Constitution.

Shouldn't we expect better fiscal forms of responsibility, from our elected representatives?

 

umm, my quote was copy and pasted exactly as you wrote it, you fail again troll.

and the 1944 was a misfire by me as i saw your WW2 reference.

and no, its not more accurate to say that " it now takes $3.5 TRILLION to buy what $288 billion would have bought years ago, "

the inflation calculator i used gave a different number for that. i think it was in the 5 trillion range, im not sure.

and LOL @ all those thank yous, i never said i even agreed with your idiotic logic.

 

I'm pleased when one of your mental acuity isn't capable of agreeing with me.

 

but you understand that if i dont agree with your logic then that also means the numbers I posted dont help your cause

 

And you think that massive deficits, massive debt do not affect the economy? Where do you think the $16.5 trillion is going to come from; the tooth fairy?

Job creation has everything to do with National Debt and deficits is the Federal Government is massively competing with private capital in the markets.

The reason the home mortgage market imploded is because too many people with too much easy credit got in over their heads and when the sheisse hit the fan they had so little in it they could walk away.

Easy credit and artificially low interest rates created the mess we are in today; nothing more complicated than this.

Is there a point here? You think it was because of Clinton the economy was good? REALLY? Can you post something credible, factual and substantive to support this or is this another “because you say so.”

Giving Clinton credit for the economy he inherited is like claiming Obama was qualified to be President; it makes people laugh hysterically.

And you think Reagan was the cause of this? REALLY? Can you post something credible, factual and substantive to support this or is this another “because you say so.”

Giving Reagan credit for the massive deficits passed by a Democrat controlled congress is like claiming Obama was qualified to be President; it makes people laugh hysterically.

I have NO idea what you are trying to say here; nor do I even care.

They most certainly do because you, me, millions of working Americans and generations after us will be paying it all back with INTEREST.

I am quite certain the irony of your insults escape you. Carry on; it is apparent you are too young and clueless to even comprehend the first thing about economics. You naively still think that Governments and Presidents can make them better.

I expect that the next laughable nonsense you are going to spew here is that the current massive debt and deficits were all Bush's fault.

Carry on.

 

Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Why should the Government even be in the business of paying out unemployment benefits?

This is nothing more than fabricated nonsense that is espoused by feel-good Liberals whose ideology leads to mediocrity and failure.

Please show me where in the Constitution it is the responsibility of Government to ensure full employment? Who in their right minds can even think they can guarantee full employment? Unless of course you live in China or the former USSR or perhaps Cuba; how did that work for them?

Why do you believe that Government can create a market friendly economic stimulus in perpetuity? You are aware that the ONLY way Government can provide anything is by first taking it from those who produce goods, services and income right?

This sentence makes ZERO sense; but let me attempt to parse it. First off, this notion that “our” wars are a result of “our” actions can only be expressed in a vacuum of facts and reality.

Secondly, poverty is a Governmental claim in order to perpetuate the idiot claim that Government can do something to prevent it. Many people we might consider poor are completely happy that way and don’t want any arrogant self-opinionated well-meaning clueless Liberal to intrude into their lives and tell them they should become a willing dependent on a faceless bureaucracy because it makes the arrogant petulant liberals feel good about themselves.

And what would that be?

 

LaHood. LAHOOD!! He WORKS FOR THE LEFT!!

 

dude, dont be stupid.

do you actually pay on the debt, did your taxes go up, did China repossess your house because the country owed money, did you make an interest payment to the countries we owe ?

the answer to all these is No, so it doesnt affect your everyday life. you are making a fool out of yourself by trying to day they do with no evidence to even some what back up your claims.

and LOL @ the "because you say so " line, your entire argument has been because you said so. you havent posted a single shred of proof to back up any of your claims.

 

" Giving Reagan credit for the massive deficits passed by a Democrat controlled congress "


the 97th congress was a republican senate, dem House

98th was republican senate, Dem House

99th was Republican senate, Dem House

the 100 senate, which was actually had the LOWEST deficit to GDP of the Reagan presidency congresses was the only one that was democratically controlled

this would have taken you 10 seconds to look up, but instead, you decided to post misinformation and lies.

I would take the time to destroy everything else you said, but its not even worth it, you have proved your stupidity.

by the way, even if you had been right, they were still Reagans fiscal policies to spend during a recession, so why would you blame Congress, Oh thats right, you dont know why, you just liek to blame dems for everything.

 

They mistakenly believed the same thing in Amsterdam. What was once a beautiful clean city is now a filthy cesspool of condoms, graffiti and trash.

 

Yeah....anybody who required proof for this is a moron. Of course Republicans would play politics with the economy. They're trying to win in 2012, and that's less likely to happen if the economy is recovering (which it is).

 

There you go again, playing dumb. When taxes go up to pay for all this debt and these deficits, it will most definitely be coming from your and my pockets.

Your naive notions about economics suggests the same lack of comprehension this President has when he claims he just wants to raise the taxes of big business; do you really think businesses pay the taxes; or can you begin to comprehend that they will raise the costs to you and I to help pay for them, or perhaps lay off a few hundred workers.

Do you think there is no cost when they raise the taxes of the rich? Do you think that Government after it raises all those taxes will actually pay down the debt and stop running up deficits? Or do you think they will just (*)(*)(*)(*) it away on another feel-good idiot Liberal idea that will do nothing more than create a few hundred thousand more dependents?

You run around this forum claiming everyone else is ignorant; perhaps it is time to take a good long look in your own mirror?

Carry on; I won't waste any more bandwidth on someone so obviously clueless as you are with facts, reality and economics.

 

LMFAO ROTF


" When taxes go ", hmmmmm, im sorry, WHEN is not the word we are looking for, your life is not being affected right now is it, NO.

when you say," my taxes are going up Jan 1, 2016" or what ever, then you will be making a point, till then you continue to prove yourself wrong.

im not even going to go into the rest of the stupidity, if you believe you will be affected one day, Then fine, but today, at this very moment, you arent being affected. are you to stupid or to prideful to admit you are wrong.

or are you going to change your argument to " I meant in the future we could be affected" ?

 

OH and dont act like you didnt read the other post about you being completely wrong on congressional control during the Reagan administration.

 

Do you have a reading disorder? Are you attempting to suggest that the Democratic controlled House under Tip O'Neil never declared every one of Reagan's budgets DOA? Are you also attempting to claim that Reagan never negotiated tax increases with the Democrats in the HOUSE with the promise of spending cuts that never materialized? Are you going to continue to pretend that you actually have a clue of what you are talking about?

Reagan’s first year had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate. 1982 – 1987 he had a Republican Senate and in 1987 – 1989 the Democrats were again in control of the House and the Senate. You might want to read up on some history during that time so you can get a clue. Do the same for the Clinton years. Giving Presidents credit for economic cycles is about as inane as the current butt clowns claiming they “saved” 5 million jobs.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

I stated CONGRESS; Presidents cannot pass legislation or spending bills. It was a DEMOCRAT House and NOTHING got passed without DEMOCRATS being on board; much like today with a REPUBLICAN House and a Democrat Senate. Only the members of CONGRESS can tax and spend and only the members of CONGRESS can pass laws. The President can only offer up his budget and recommendations and negotiate agreement with his agenda. The only CONGRESS to have a surplus in the last sixty years has been by REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

There has never been any data to support the false claim that tax increases result in balanced budgets or lowering deficits. Every increase in taxes we have ever had led to higher spending; the last CONGRESS to actually get the books in order did not do so as a result of tax increase, but as a result of spending cuts and budgets and a booming technology sector.

Good lord dude; you are laughably uninformed and yet feign to have a clue.

Run along now and troll some other thread with your blatant nonsense.

Let's try this again; Presidents and Government in general can do NOTHING to increase employment or reduce poverty. They can, however, get out of the way and follow their constitutional authority and allow individuals, States and markets to engage in lawful commerce and ensure our laws and private property rights are adhered to.

That's it; any notion or laughable claim that Government can "stimulate" or spend us into economic bliss should have been discredited by the current butt clowns who have spent us into a $15 trillion hole and $1.5 trillion deficit.

If you do not believe that this massive accumulation of debt and deficits and the corresponding interest payments affect you economically, then you are ignorant beyond anything I or the others here who have attempted to educate you can do for you.

Perhaps you could take those ten seconds to engage your brain before you enter into future clueless rants?

 

You would be wrong; but this is par for Liberals who were stupid enough to elect an inexperienced moron like Obama to the Presidency.

The only ones playing politics with the economy are the idiots on the Democrat side of the aisle and the butt clown who is their leader; Obama. They are attempting to blame Republicans for the massive failure their program has been which has spent us into a $15 trillion pile of debt and a record $1.5 trillion deficit.

If anything, the Republicans actually want to pass a budget, something the idiots on the Democrat side failed to do even with huge majorities, and actually prevent the Government from financial collapse, something the Democrats don't give a crap about because they have the mathematical capacity of a two year old.

So please spare us your blatant ignorance of the facts and spamming this thread with the idiot talking points of the left.

 

Promoting and providing for the general welfare can be considered a general power that covers that concept.

Why do we have corporate welfare that even pays bonuses, if what you claim is true? Have you actually read the mission statement of the Fed, which is a mostly autonomous organ of the executive branch of our federal government regarding full employment?

You may want to read up on command economies which Require a work ethic instead of individual liberty to solve that problem. You may have noticed how some persons who also claim to believe in a divine Commune of Heaven also seem to insist on a (Iron Age) work ethic in the US.

 

Did you miss the concept regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will and unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws regarding that legal doctrine in American law?

Some forms of economic stimulus can be considered investments if they generate a positive return on that outlay.

 

Would we even need our any of our wars on abstractions, if no individual person could claim to be in official poverty due to an income that could be applied for on the same at will basis as employment relationships?

I guess I didn't provide enough background information because I though you had been paying attention to our previous arguments.

Would we need to have a War on the abstraction of poverty, if no person could claim to be in official poverty? If not, then would we need that expense of government trying to ensure that form of full employment of resources in that "market"?