Well, with 100 million monkeys on the internet, I guess we've pretty much proved that the end result of this random tapping won't be a work by Shakespeare.. I still don't know why every simpleton feels they are obliged to espouse their naive assertions on the internet or youtube. Why make a fool of yourself publicly?
There are so many lies on this video, even Fox News would blush. First, there was no "second new deal." LOL. In 1937 (Krugman is right) FDR did cave to conservatives and cut government investment drastically in order to balance the budget. This led to a mini-depression until we started building up for the war. FDR didn't take office until 1933...this guy claims in was 1932. Again, the U.S did NOT always have a balanced budget!!! FDR ran deficits 33-37 and it worked!
This video is devoid of historical reality. In fact, it outright misleads people. The economy "may' have improved from 1934 to 1937? The fact is the economy rocked during this period - GDP growing at a rate that would make Reagan blush while unemployment was cut drastically. This guy also suggests that "the U.S never ran a deficit during the FDR years and this is NOT true. In 1937, FDR did cave to pressures from the right to balance the budget and looked what happened. Krugman was right.
WillMagic is way smarter than the moron economist known as Paul Krugman and respondent youkoshi who is as complete an economic illiterate as Krugman. Krugman does prove that idiots can attain high positions at the NY Times!
So your whole video is a report on Murray Rothbard's book. Unemplyment dropped to 1% during WWII. And our infrastructure was growing (while everyone else's was getting bombed). People were also investing money buying war bonds (try to get that done today)
@snakeguy76 Indeed, it is tougher to get people to buy into wacked out foreign adventures with big explosives when Americans generally have a higher regard for human life today. Any economy that requires a war to keep its people employed is imperialistic, and anethema to human decency ( a rare thing I suppose ). Wars destroy, and the only wealth obtained from it is loot, stolen either from taxpayers or other countries.
@hellsunicorn I dont think it was required to get the economy going. We couldnt avoid this war. I doubt anyone said "hey lets join this was and save the economy"
@snakeguy76 Well, via the gift of hindsight, a policy of neutrality of WW1 and total non-involvement in the Russian revolution probably would have prevented WW2 and the Cold War from occurring. The problem with liberals like FDR, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson is that they think war is a fun way to build a legacy, although Johnson seems a little less enthusiastic than the other 2. But after the fact, they always use the economic justification after the initial propaganda wears off.
@snakeguy76 It should also be noted that the reason why Sweden, the so-called bastion of successful socialism, obtained massive wealth in the early half of the 20th century by staying out of both World Wars and have a saner view of economics. If you guys want to be able to afford these wacky social experiments, you need to reign in the bankers AND knock off all the imperialism, and you don't get that with Wilson or FDR's brand of "guns and butter" economics.
I've seen more than a handful of Krugman apologetics who admit that they don't know anything about economics but they believe him because of the Nobel award. If that's not the epitome of a tool, I have no idea what is. That's really the only argument they have, in spite of empirical data disproving Keynesianism EVERY SINGLE TIME it's implemented.
Who do you expect people to believe: You (some random guy on youtube) or Paul Krugman (nobel laureate, professor at Princeton and the London School of Economics, published author)? Im just saying if I had to choose...
Whoah! FDR didn't cause the Great Depression, laissez-faire economics did. FDR **INHERITED** the mess, he didn't make it. Period. Markets don't naturally equalize, they naturally fluctuate wildly. The notion that "the market" is a friendly farmers market with meat and eggs at a fair price is absurd. It's more like a Somali gun market with bombs, human flesh and roving gangs all on the table. Seriously stop drinking the Ronald Regan kool-aid. Free markets and tax cuts hurt working people. Fuck.
The creator of this video is brilliant, and so was this video. Conservatives have the best talkers and thinkers of tomorrow. Krugman is a phony economist and a overly partisan hack. He deserves a Nobel Laureate as much as Obama deserves one.
I don't think it's a coincidence that constant inflation occurs nowadays or that recessions happen so much more frequently than before. The Fed may not be the CAUSE, but they sure as hell have had a hand in that.
And the Long Depression, it seems, was actually much less painful than general economists will tell you. Growth and production were up. Prices were falling. It really wasn't even close to the Great Depression.
Constant inflation is the result of bad central banking and monetary policy, quite simply. In those years before the Fed's monetary policies in the US, you'll notice, too, that the REALLY high-rate years were wartime years. Obviously the gov't artificially printed lots of excess money to fund the military. They even did it during the Revolutionary War.
Before the Fed and its monetary policy, we had very low average inflation. I urge you to google a GREAT Minneapolis Fed CPI-inflation chart dating from 1800 to about 2007. SEVERAL of the years between 1800 and 1915 or 16 had actual 0s, which meant NO inflation. Can you even fucking imagine nowadays having zero inflation? Now we just assume inflation is totally natural and unavoidable.
Monetary policy fails. Just let the economy fluctuate naturally, and things will stabilize on their own. There never really was a good reason for monetary policy in the first place. It's just an idiotic extension of central banking from mere regulation of banks.
I mean, if we can regulate banks' excesses with some degree of efficiency without harming the economy, great. The Fed should be tasked with that. But screwing around with the dollar? hell no
@leeroynaggins The classic Marxist answer to fixing economic problems on full display here. Why reason with people when you can just kill them and confiscate their goods. The only thing that you're missing is a wooden leg and an eye patch matey.
I wrote a response but decided to delete it because you're just a parrot. Stop hurting people by talking about things you don't really understand. Dig deeper. The Austrian school has a very poor concept of money, expose yourself to other ideas that are out there and process.
You say Keynesians think the system collapsed because the Fed didn't do something, but I'm pretty sure Krugman holds the position that monetary policy has little effect on the economy.
And just because you were taught Keynesian or monetarism econ in school, doesn't mean it is the best. Econ and other social sciences don't build on each other the way the natural sciences do.
You've completely ignored Marginal propensiy to spend and Marginal propensity to save. FDR's new deal, taxing the rich and expanding gov't spending, effectively transferred income from those who are likely to save (the very rich) to those likely to spend (the working class, newly employed by public works programs). Krugman wins.
You seem to agree with Krugman more than you realize.
WWII destoyed wealth, you say. In Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal, he takes the position that the country could adopt the same Keynsian principle of creating jobs and stimulating the economy, but instead of "building bombs to drop in the ocean" (state policy for the last 64 years, including finding wars to justify it) a huge spending program could be directed to building an electrick grid, trains systems, rebuilding infrastructure ..
I'd love to see you "explain" economics to the the economics professor at Princeton University and London School of Economics, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, Paul Krugman. I'd really REALLY love to see that. His BA from Yale, PhD from MIT, and time as a Reagan economic advisor clearly didn't teach him much. Explain to him what investment means; I'm sure he's in need of your elucidation. Maybe he can take a class from you. If he studies hard, he might get a B.
Yeah well listing credentials doesn't intellectually win arguments. I think maybe this guy probably would be nervous debating Krugman but his ideas are sound and come from writters like von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt (who wrote a book dismissing Keyen's general theory) and Rothbard who has delved more into the economics of the great depression than most. So if we want to play credentials this guy has those 4 PHDs vs Krugmans.
True, credentials aren't arguments and don't resolve disputes - but my point was rather about this kid's amazing gall. Krugman's economics are atrocious, awful, and have "no understanding." Krugman's having a Nobel is "scary."
Keynesians have no explanation for the Great Depression? Agg demand curve is a mystery (hence so is the law of supply and demand)? He's obviously read some economic HISTORY, but he's clueless about economic THEORY.
Smug and ignorant - a common and ugly combination.
These are the comments of a man who obviously doesn't know WTF he's talking about (agg demand is a mystery to you? Keynesians don't have an explanation for the Depression? the war was bad for the under-capacity economy? etc.) Let me guess - you've read a lot of books for the general public about the Austrian School, but have never once even seen the actual law of supply and demand. Am I right?
oh and one more thing, Krugman didn't win his nobel prize for his work on domestic fiscal policy, he won it for his work on new trade theory and international economics
Austrians rejected mathematical models because human behaviour is too unpredictable to plot out in mathematical models and graphs. Let's consider the computer models that predicted economic patterns over the last 10 years. Most schools of economic thoght believed they had overcome the trade cycle, and their mathematical and computer models corroborated their view. These computer models failed miserably because human behaviour is to unpredictable to chart on a mathematical graph.
Also, the reason he has a Nobel Prize in economics is that he's a brilliant economist; the reason you don't is that you're an ugly fuck who sits on youtube all day and has no friends.
You're a pompous prick. There is really no reason to think that you're little video will actaully have any effect whatsoever on the world. Why do it then? To satisfy your need to feel special in the face of the overwhelming fact that you obviously don't know shit about economics?
Friedrich Hayek won a Nobel Prize in 1976, so I'm assuming if you are a Krugmanite you must disagree with him. Does that render Hayek's views wrong?
Youtube is a medium for exchanges ande debate. This guy has every right to criticise Krugman, and there is much to criticise. Krugman is extremely knowledgable and trade geography, finance and international trade, but when he ventures into the macroeconomic sphere, he shows his limitations. He should stick to microeconomics.
@youkoshi WillMagic is way smarter than the moron economist known as Paul Krugman and respondent youkoshi who is as complete an economic illiterate as Krugman. Krugman does prove that idiots can attain high positions at the NY Times!
2. You are a pompous prick. There is no reason to think that your little comment will actually have any effect whatsoever on the world. Why do it then? To satisfy your need to feel special in the face of the overwhelming fact that you obviously don't know shit about economics, spelling, or punctuation. (I know the last two were low blows for a YouTube comments box, but I couldn't resist.)
Secondly, government intervention (rationing, price controls such as ceilings/floors, stimulus bills, entitlements, etc.) is COMPLETELY void of the market forces of supply and demand (ever heard of the term TINSTAAFL?). Whenever government controls the means of production, the long-run outcome is always SHORTAGES....Thus the wants and needs of society are compromised. Wow, what a novel idea! This force is truly natural and it has been hijacked by the academic elite (Marx/Keynes/Krugman, etc).
Who gives a damn if you are a Ivy Leaguer or that you have a Nobel Prize. There were plenty of Nazi scientists from the University of Berlin. The progressive elites have totally revised any economic theory to fit their vision of utopian socialism.
I think it's fucking hilarious that paultards read ayn rand and ron paul's shitty book and think they know more about economics than noble prize winning economists, who base their assertions not on dogma, but on mathematical data, something austrians reject as "unrealistic"
austrian "economists" are to economics what intelligent design is to biology
austrian economics is a joke. This whole video is a stupid college kid quoting people who are less respected in their field than krugman, and using their words to suggest krugman is wrong.
Hey asshole, i was in britain the other day, and it sucked because it's a communist dictatorship like hayek predicted because of its welfare state of the 1950's-80's. Oh wait, it's not, and hayek was completely 100% wrong, and austrian economics is not empirically derived and should be ignored and ridiculed
Obama will be the final proof that big government, profligate spending and huge deficits will be doomed to failure. Don't be afraid of the term socialism just watch it fail. Too bad it will bankrupt the country but at least capitalism will rebound.
Or it's posible that Bush, his cronies and unregulated capitalism FUCKED THINGS UP SO BAD that Obama won't be able to fix it with "socialism" and "socialism" will ake the fall when in reality THE BUSH YEARS FUCKED our country.
Bush did fuck things up, I hate bush but in no way is he a free marketeer. He increased the size of government more than any president every. He added 70,000 pages of regulation in 2008 alone and he favors a central bank, the opposite of a free market.
So tell me SHITHEAD, what is the difference if the government puts people to work buliding bombs to drop on people, building BOMBS to "drop in the ocean" OR building TV's, computers, automobiles, trains, widgets, solar panels, WHATEVER?!
There IS NO DIFFERENCE! If you put people to WORK they have money to spend in SOCIETY, which ALSO GENERATES JOBS and get's MORE people working again.
You're so partisan it's pathetic. So am I but I'm not wrong!
Maybe the government should just give everyone the job of doing jumping jacks all day. That way there will be 100% employment and the depression will end. You have to creat wealth through production to improve your standard of living. If you expend more labor creating a thing than the laber you will gain once it is completed your only making things worse. Spending time making things that will only explode isnt helping. Thats the problem with government spending.
Who is to say that small businesses, perhaps even manufacturing, may come out of the capital that is supplied, generated and distributed by these government jobs? If money is generated and circulated in commiunities again ALL SORTS of ENDLESS KINDS of businesses could pop up.
By the way, QUIT REGURGITATING TALKING PONTS - YOU SOUND SO UNORIGINAL.
Your confusing caitol with printed money. Actual capitol could help, but krugman/obama are not talking about giving capitol, but simply printing money. If obama came out tommarro and announced that everyone pers would get 1 million dollars would the economy be fixed? Zimbabwe is provided lots of "capital" as you call it, but its just infationary paper, and thats all you and Krugmen are proposing.
Well then, I guess we'll know who the asshole is in a few years - you or Krugman. Bare in mind we have OTHER MAJOR problems coming down the pike as well.
The problem with you fucking idiots is you bitch and cry about what not to do but you don't propose ANYTHING that will WORK to keep millions of families from being unemployed, hungry and homeless.
ok if cutting taxes is "bullshit" why dont you simply advocate 100% taxation? Taxing labor discourages production. Subsidizing no preductive behaviors doesn help society any. We can cut regulations and taxes. Cuting regulations will make it easier to create new jobs. and cutting taxes increases peoples take home, but your against that I guess.
Cutting regulations will only make more Madoffs and Enrons. I get taxed and I'm still productive. When you cut taxes substantially what are you going to do about infrastructure and the many more thousands or millions of people that are employed by government and will lose their jobs?
Make NO MISTAKE, you're just ONE BIG talking point and that makes you a fool that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Saying im only using "talking points" is ad hominum. NO different from calling me a name. Its not an argument, and its not true. I've never even heard Limbaugh once. Enron like all the oil firms has a government protected oligopoliy based on reguation. Regulations tie peoples hands, and make it harder to start a business, (or do you disagree?) Wont making it easier to start a business help people get jobs?
let me get this straight, your asserting that regulations have no impact on starting a business? Is that your stance? It varies quit a bit but Licencing fees for one. Youve got to front $ before you can even start that you will never recoup.
I'm asking YOU - YOU'RE THE ONE asserting this - WHAT REGULATIONS hinder WHAT BUSINESSES?
Or is it just a regurgitated talking point and you were not told about WHY that is, you only know some asshole that you apparently respect said so so it must be true?
many times there are zoning ordanaces that dicatate how many of a certain kind of business there can be. For instance in my home town the city will only allow a set number of places to have liqure licences. If another person wants a liqure licence to start a business that employs people they cant, the regulations make it illegal.
not only do licencies raise (or prevent) entry of new business, they rais the cost of doing busness. I worked at a place that had to pay twice as much a month to maintain two dumpsters instead of 1 costing more than the wage of single worker because of regualation.
Regulations rais the cost of doing business, to say otherwise is to deny that there are fees involved and costs nessisary to conform to the regulations. If regulation rais the cost of doing business then they discorage busness, its that simple. Instead of admitting this your taking the absurd posistion that barriors to entry and increased operating costs from regulation do not discourage business.
My hole point is that regulations rais the costs doing business. You asked me to provide examples and I did (and there are literally millions more). Some are pointless and others have some grounding in common sence, but they all make starting a new business.
Say we have a buntch of people living by the ocean and they have no work. There are fish in the sea, but there is a regulation that says you cannot fish. All I am saying is that we should abolish that regulation so those people can work. That would help, (it might not fix every problem but it would help and thats all Im saying) But you think this is some kind of controversial talking point. There are MILLIONS of regulations and they are not all sensable, or do you disagree?
OK go find some REAL regulations that have NO validity to them, and are SIGNIFICANTLY hindering business. Let me know what you come up with - I'm really curious now.
ok so now they regulations have to be "real". Basically you think that all the millions of regulations are all correct, every single one. You must think this becuase if you didnt you would not be opposed to getting rid of the bad ones. Since you oppose getting rid of any regulations you de facto support all regulations. Its absured but its your stance.
In Maine they have limited regulations for logging. Result, disgusting clear cuts as far as one can see. They make lots of money.
In the Adirondacks of upstste New York they are limited to cutting 5 or 10 acre sections. They probably don't make as much money. But the place isn't fucked up for wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts. I'll take the latter. There is a REASON for most regulations.
The "reason" for most regulations is to protect the already established companies from competitons. I listed two examples of regulationst that 100% new businesses from started and you responded that I need to provide examples of regulations that "significantly" restrict business. What is more singnifiacnat than not allowing any more business to do a certain thing? Now if you please can you answere by question about raising the cost on an activity.
That is not the only reason, but it is a reason. I never said it is to create monopolies, but to reduce competition. Now please answer my earilier question. My question is not if there is a good reason for requlations or not, my question is this.
Does raising the cost of a given activity (any activity) increase or decrease the frequency of that activity?
So, you think it's OK that minimum wage is as low as it is because raising it would raise prices automatically on consumer goods? Why don't they make upper management's salaries more reasonable instead?
And back to the video -
Do you really think YOU have the answer, that you're CERTAIN that Obama's plan won't work, or at least won't have benefits?
And would your plan work FAST to ease the suffering of the unemployed and their families?
your profile says you hate republicans because they love war, but apparently so do you. Will voted for Obama because he thought McCain was insanely pro war. Obama is now excelating the war in Afghanistan, which you must love because it will help the economy. Your such a fool. If the good you consure are greater than the goods you produce no amount monitary creation will help you. YOu must produce and the government via taxation punishes production.
Why dont we all just take out our money and add a couple 0's at the end of whatever is written. Than we would all be richer. This is exactly what obama krugmen and bush before them is advocating.
Oh, and stupid schmuck, Obama is fighting the war that NEEDED TO BE FOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE - where radical Islam ACTUALLY IS (AND HAS BEEN SINCE 911) a threat to our national interests. Iraq was a treasonous unnecessary bankrupting war catipulted by lies.
I've got to think that you are a woman. No man would be that desperate to mouth off with no intelligence behind it. Check your testicles buddy, I think they fell off or you never had them.
Let me ask you something, do you just call everyone you disagree with a republican? How is Bush my asshole? How is bush free market, what did he do thats free market? If yours so smart you should be able to answere these quesitons without A. using circular reasoning B. simply calling names. I know your not interestd in actual debate. However others that might be can read this diolog and see how foolish you and your ideas are. If you think this andvances your agenda, you've my pitty.
So genius, what do we do? WHAT do we do that keeps people with families working or gives them something to live on while they don't have bootstraps to pull themselves up by? I'm all ears. I'll refrain from the mocking and ridicule until I see how credible your reply is.
look if the government gives some needy family a job, it can only do so by taking that exat amount from some other needy family (while wasting most of whats taken in the process) I know you probably think about it as taking from the rich, but the truth is that producers of goods dont pay any taxes, consumers do. A tax on Bill gates only means Windows costs more for you and me. So all your stick it to the rich is silly. Your just raising the Cost of living for the poor. Real smart.
IM not conservative, so you can stop calling me that. The rich dont pay taxes, they just pass on the costs to you and me. I wasnt defending them. Rich white people get a million times more welfare than poor people do, and Im against it. But the fact it that a tax on a company only means the company raises the price of its good or service to pay the tax, or do you dispute this?
I'm saying it doesn't have to. You make the same fucking stupid excuse for why the conservatives say they can't afford to pay their workers a living wage while some jerkoff at the top get's payed an OBSCENE amount of money. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR SOMETHING THERE IS NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR.
Where did I even mention corporate pay or worker compensation? I asked you a simple question about the ease of starting (and running for that matter) a business when you increas the amount of regulation. I would like you to answere please.
No, I want YOU to answer - apparently you are against taxing rich people so you must ALSO be FOR the rich getting richer while they make excuses for why they can't pay workers more - the same "we'll have to put the costs onto our customers BULL SHIT. What do you think of the Employee Free Choice Act?
No, you just making assumption that conform to your world view. Did I not say I though rich people get millons times more welfare than poor people? did you miss that part? About regulation it varies a great deal. Some industries are super heavily regualted. For instance it is illegal to build a oil refinery and has been since the 70's. This is a regulation that benifits the rich oil companies that already have oil refineries because it prevents competitons.
So, you DON'T have a problem with the rich not being taxed, but you HAVE a problem with them earning too much money, or getting "welfare"? And doesn't corporate welfare equate to not paying taxes?
Perhaps we don't have oil refineries because nobody wants one in their neighborhood.
my point was that the mentality of sticking to the rich is foolish (not becaus I love the rich) but becuase taxes on the rich are paid by the poor. We dont have oil refineries because the EPA created a regulation that said there cant be anymore. I know quite a few people in Detroit who would love an oil refinery to open there, but that can never happen, because of regulation.
Another brilliant retort! And so well reasoned. Did you attend Cornell School of Agriculture with Keith Olberman. If you really think the government is the answer to all your problems than you are admitting that there are alot smarter people in government than yourself. Have you ever dealt with a government beaureaucrat? The private sector will always perform more efficiently.
How can the government pay $1 for the employment of one worker without taking away $1 away from another worker?
Some people (the young, old, people between jobs) will always be voluntarily unemployed, so ideas like "full employment" are silly. It is definatly true that some people want to work but cannot and this is because of minimum wage. Think about it like this, if the minum wage was raised to $100,000 almost everyone would lose their jobs, a $7 minimun wage differs only in degree.
Your ignoring the fact that since you have taken that 1$ away from the rich person (to pay an unemployed person) that rich person has $1 less to spend on another worker either one of his emploees or someone he does business with. There is no net change in employment. Why stop at $10, why not raise it to $15,$20,$50 an hour? You seem sure there is nothing bad that can happen from a minum wage so why dont you want to keep raising it? at what point does it become "extreme" in your opinion?
Is it your stance that all "rich" people are assholes, or would you propose legislation that distiniguishes between Asshole rich and non asshole rich? The wealth of the rich is already being used to employ millions of people, indeed there is nothing a rich person can do with their money that doesnt give employment. Even if they just put it all in a bank that still gives work to the banks tellers, janitors, bankers, creditors, lenders and technichions. Are all those people assholes to?
So you have a fat rich person with a nice house who just eats at nice resterants, and sails around in their yatch. Ok so you think all the people who build and maintain his house, work at the resterant, and sells yatch equipment and gas should go without a job because the rich person is some asshole? And what about raising minimun wage even higher? Why do you only want it to be $10? Why not raise it further?
There are people with SO MUCH MONEY that it would have ZZEERROO affect on his house maintainers, restaurant staff, yacht salesmen, gas stations or WHATEVER other bull shit you want to throw at me. These are GLUTTONOUS people that have more than they will ever need. And no matter what some STUPID conservative pundit tells you, they WON'T take it out on anyone.
Minimum wage - you're an extreme asshole and I won't debate you about that.
wow 29$ your rich compared to me. But Im asking you why you dont want to raise the minum wage higher than 10$? What proplem is there to rasing it higher? Why is that such a hard question?
Yeah asshole? Then explain the high unemployment AND under-employment numbers. I'm sure these people don't give a flying fuck where the money is coming from if they are just able to earn an honest days pay for an honest days work. Assholes like you listen to Limpballs and would rather these people and their families starved and lived on the streets before they got jobs with taxpayer / government money. You're a moron.
way to be unable to answer even one question. Your right IM not rich, and Im not an apolgist I think many rich people get alot more government subsidy than poor people do, and I'm agaist that. I work hard for what little money I make and I dont want to see my earning power evaporate because people like you want to destroy the buying power of the money I earn with inflation to give people jobs. Why do you only want a 10$ wage?
All the material weatlh of the rich represents jobs for other people. Im not conservative nor do I listen to conservative pundits, and why you like to pretend this is silly. The rich's money (no matter how it is used) is giving people jobs. If its in stocks its helping the employies of the company, if its in a bank its giving work to the employees of the bank, and helping people who get loans from the bank. Please give an example of a rich person expending money that doesnt benifit another.
Dumbass, I work for a commuter railroad that goes in and out of NYC. My salary DOESN'T come from rich people - it comes from subsidies from tax and revenue they bring in from customers. There are NO rich people involved as far as I know.
BUT there ARE VERY well paid management employees, and THOSE people's salaries ought to be curbed before mine is, or before my job is cut out entirely.
I didnt say it came from rich person I said you were rich, because compared to me you are. You post how bad unemployment is, but you dont want your job cut. Basically you must think that only really profitable companies should be in business, since you say here that companies cutting it close should just die. I suppose GM should just die to, and your commuter line to since it clearly reliese on subsidies and not profit.
If he is buying stuff he is giving people jobs, even if they are not his employies. My original point was that taking $1 from a rich person for the unemployed is simply taking $1 away from whoever the rich person would have spent it on, so no new work is done. Its even worse than that because a person who was being productive lost a dollar to a person who was not. Not a smart economic formula.
Uneployment is caused by the minum wage. If the government dictates wages above what is profitable than those jobs will simply be lost, it happend to me. I had a job at a resterant and the state raised the minum wage which made the resterant operate at a loss, so 40 poor people lost their jobs (dont you feel good about that?) Earning power is less because the goverment destroys earning power with inflation to pay people not to work, or work in unprofitable jobs, like GM.
Good, if the shitty company was cutting it so close they should have just closed up shop.
Small business owners are going to have to figure out how to pay workers a fair wage and if they can't make it then they SHOULD go under and go work for somebody else.
If you want to work for some greedy asshole that will cut you out entirely before he trims his own bloated salary then you're a sucker and a fool.
Don't worry little fella the feds can take care of you. I know life is so hard, we'll be happy to take care of you, you dickless brain dead communist. (hey that was pretty good, I'm practicing your total lack of intelligent commentary - getting pretty good at it too.)
I must have missed the post where you answered any of my questions? If companies pay their employees as much as possible they will not be profitable, which according to you means they should go out of business anyway. Thats prettty blasay for someone who supposadly cares so much abount unemployment. Obviously your job is not profitable, because if it were it would not need Government subsidy. Please continue posting to show the ideocy of your ideas.
That's FALSE asshole - there are quite a few people in the upper echelon of Walmart who are OBSCENELY rich and if their pay got cut to raise their workers salaries they would STILL be obscenely rich.
And this applies to MANY companies and corporations.
So all the people who those rich spend money on should loose their jobs? Or did you think of a way the rich can use their money that doenst give someone work? If companies give all of their profits in pay increasaes to their employees than they are no longer profitable, and by your reasoning they should "just close shop" Your not even responding to what I ask, you spouting stupid anectodes.
Question for you shithead - what do you think stimulates the economy more, a larger, stronger middle and working class, OR a handful of rich people? Answer that asshole. Or / then shut the fuck up.
How does the government giving trillions to wall street lead to a larger stronger middle class? Competition will cause a more even spread of wealth, which is why the rich and powerfull promote as powerfull a regulatory government as possible, to prevent such egalitarian competition, and to give the rich billions (now trillions) from the working class in the name of the common good. And you lap it up like a puppy. Now answer my questions.
Again you dont answer questions. You mean the Wall street bailout that Obama Bush McCain all loved and pushed for? How is the new "stimulus" going to help the middle class? I wouldnt say this is a discussion really, Im making points and asking quesitons you just calling names and making a fool of yourself and your ideas. Congratulations!
No moron, you're the pinhead that believes that this country needs to have obscenely wealthy people more than we need a strong middle and working class. Considering that I cannot have a serious discussion with you either. You're a trickle down moron.
Im sorry how is the government printing money not trickle down? I guess I should not be suprised that a person that thinks name calling constitutes argumentation would also be unable to defend his posistion. How will the "stimulus" help the middle class????? Do you know, or dont you?
It's not trickle down, moron, because it goes directly to make jobs in various fields. The trickle down you fucking idiots believe in relies on enough money trickling down from the rich - and it doesn't work - it excludes far too many people.
Im sorry where did I say I believed in trickle down? How is the government giving money to big banks, and big corporations (which is what the new "stimulus) is doing not trickle down? Maybe you havent looked it over but they are handing out money in batches of Millions or billions. Do you think they are giving millions to the middle class people or to companies. Even the "infratructure" is accomplished by giving $ to corporations to do the work. How is this different from trickle down.
You must have trouple reading becuase I distinguished between the two within the first two lines. Are you under the impression that they are just sending checks to middle class people, because if you look at the bill thats not it at all. Its moeny for banks, and for companies. They arent writting checks to the middle class, no matter how many times they say "main street" in the press. I asked how its not tricle down,and you responded that its not the banker bailout. Thats not what I asked.
Look, it's obvious that you are pro-wealthy despite probably being just a meager peasant yourself - you like the trickle down - as in getting pissed on by rich people. I'm going round and round with you and not getting anywhere, as I usually do with wingnuts like yourself.
Everyone read his posts and my posts - they are my last - I'm not banging my head against this guy anymore. Have a nice day.
Wait so how does the "stimulus" help the middle class? You have never explained why it does. I know Obama says its to help the middle class, but he said that about the Banker Bailout which you reconize as foolish so whats the differenec? Calling me an asshole, or saying that Im for "tricle down economics" are not actually answeres. Repeatedly calling names is not the same as explaining your posistion, though it is insightfull onto the content of your character, or lack there of.
Google Red State Socialism and the Politics of the Stimulus - it's at Crooks and Liars dott comm. Turns out red states get WWAAYY more money back from the Federal government in programs than they pay in taxes, and these red state ASSHOLES are against socialism! Turns out wealthier blue states vote Democrat AND pay more taxes which end up in red states. Ain't that some shit?
Im sorry I understand your understanding of political philosophy is limited to your view and Evil Republicans, but again I am not a republican, I am against the republicans. I know they are socialist, but you love socialism, so why not love the republicans? Yes the Republicans are hypocrits, but thats not what Im asking you. How does the stimulus (supported by the Democrats (mostly)) help the middle class? Thats my question, well one of many anyway?
Im asking you what parts of it help the middle class grow and how they help do it. If your so in favor of it you should be able to explain why you think it will work, but be carefull it might sound like trickle down economics. ;)
Um, shithead, trickle down is YOU favoring rich assholes and not wanting them taxed because you think out of their generosity they are going to create all sorts of jobs for enough people in this country - they DON'T.
Don't worry though, I'm sure when jobs are created from the stimulus package the Democrats won't let you assholes forget that you were against it.
Rather than running your mouth, wait and see. Revisit this in 2 years - it's not gonna happen overnight.
So the government can improve the economy by printing money? They havent raised taxes to pay for the "stimulus" so they are just going to print print print. You know if they inflate the dollar the rich will be able to afford the higher prices, but the poor wont. The "stimulus" is trickle down, big government spending. Also name one thing the rich use there money for that doesnt give people jobs?
"Hoard" money, you mean like put in a bank, or in stocks? Obama said the Bush banker bailout was absolutly nessisary, was he wrong or right? What provisions call for shovel ready jobs, remeber talking points in press releases are not actually in the bill. And how is spending billions for big contrsruction firms not trickle down? And the tax increases they are talking about dont even approach the spending their planning, but inflation doesnt hurt anyone does it?
For a while there I thought you might start answering my questions. Oh well I guess its more than I could expect from a person with such silly ideas. I think its funny how convinced you are that the new "stimulus" is good and is going to work, but you dont even know why or how, just that it will. That kind of faith could make a chrisitian blush.
Yeah, but shithead, we both know that you don't have any better ideas - and we both can probably agree on ONE thing - we have a faltering economy. So if you can't come up with any better ideas - how 'bout just shutting the fuck up and praying to God that it works. Or you could be the NEXT victim and loose your shopping cart collecting job.
we agree that the economy is bad. However that doest mean just try anything. If you actually thought that then you would support a Republican plan, that sounds more like a "just buy into this bull" line of reasoning. I do have something better. Stop punishing production with taxes and regulation. Both of these things make it harder for people to work and provide for themselfs. However you think taxes and regulations have no effect. Destroying the money with inflation is not an anwer.
Let me ask you something (that I asked you a long time ago but you never answered). Does rasing a tax on something encourage that activity or discrouaget that activity? Do you think a higher tax on something (anything) makes it more or less common?If they raised taxes to 99% do you think it would have an effect on unemployment or not? How about only 80%, 50%, 25%?Also the less money they take in taxes the more people have for themselfs, right, or do you object to people keeping what they earn?
I would want to let poor people keep more of their paychecks but according to you this makes me an "asshole". You on the other hand want to continue taking poor peoples money and even take more(via inflation) to spend on a "stimulus" that you have no idea if it will even work. Your just hoping that maybe there is some chance it might happen. Your such a nice guy. Lets destroy the purchasing power of peoples money (including poor people) on the outside change some good might happen.
I cannot explain who the "stimulus" will help anyone, in fact you admitted you have know idea how or even if it will work, yet you support hurting the poor and middle class based on your faith something good might happen. Wow.
a) You don't give a FLYING FUCK about poor people - so quit pretending you do. (To people that don't believe me, read his previous posts)
b) Poor people pay VERY little income taxes and then they get it ALL back AND THEN SOME on their tax returns. Ever heard of Earned Income Credit?
You don't give a shit about giving the poor back their money - you're just paying them lip service so that you can try and justify getting the rich back all of their money.
Im sorry if you think income taxes are the only kind. Do we need every tax we collect? Do you think the government needs to spend a trillion every year giving money to other nations for their militaries, or for the two wars we're in? Dont you think the government could cut some spending, or do they need to spend every last one of the TRILLIONS they spend? Is every dollar they take NECISSARY? If your answer is yes your a moron, if no then you agree with me to some extent.
Your the one who wants to destroy the value of poor peoples money to pay for a hair brained sceam. You've admitted you have no idea if it will work, or even how it could, but no matter your willing to risk poor peoples livelyhood because you wont think critically. Let me ask you, who can afford the comming inflation better the rich or the poor. I know you wont answer so I'll do it for you, the rich.
You have said yourself that I am poor, yet you say im against the poor. What you really mean as I oppose your ideas, and rather than offer anything substansial you say I hate the poor. The poor pay all kinds of taxes above and beyond income tax, or did you not know that? Why do you think its bad for poor people to pay lower taxes? It must be beause you hate the poor, or maybe you just want their money so the government can give your lazy ass a check.
Well, with 100 million monkeys on the internet, I guess we've pretty much proved that the end result of this random tapping won't be a work by Shakespeare.. I still don't know why every simpleton feels they are obliged to espouse their naive assertions on the internet or youtube. Why make a fool of yourself publicly?
schatz87 3 days ago
I love the responses from butthurt keynesians. All they can really do is make cheap ad hominem attacks/appeals to authority.
And for that, you deserve a thumbs up ;)
KingLeon1daz 7 months ago
And you have credentials to make arbitrary statements about Krugman? You can't even complete a sentence without using the word "like" 15 times.
dsruggles 9 months ago
So, Krugman is an economic novice then? What are your credentials? Also, Krugman is correct!
genxtargetmarket 1 year ago
@genxtargetmarket Krugman has been wrong about everything, and he gets WRONGER every day.
pretorious700 1 year ago
@pretorious700 Support your strong statement with strong fact, please.
genxtargetmarket 1 year ago
There are so many lies on this video, even Fox News would blush. First, there was no "second new deal." LOL. In 1937 (Krugman is right) FDR did cave to conservatives and cut government investment drastically in order to balance the budget. This led to a mini-depression until we started building up for the war. FDR didn't take office until 1933...this guy claims in was 1932. Again, the U.S did NOT always have a balanced budget!!! FDR ran deficits 33-37 and it worked!
michmike15 1 year ago
This video is devoid of historical reality. In fact, it outright misleads people. The economy "may' have improved from 1934 to 1937? The fact is the economy rocked during this period - GDP growing at a rate that would make Reagan blush while unemployment was cut drastically. This guy also suggests that "the U.S never ran a deficit during the FDR years and this is NOT true. In 1937, FDR did cave to pressures from the right to balance the budget and looked what happened. Krugman was right.
michmike15 1 year ago 2
WillMagic is way smarter than the moron economist known as Paul Krugman and respondent youkoshi who is as complete an economic illiterate as Krugman. Krugman does prove that idiots can attain high positions at the NY Times!
bobby33x 1 year ago
So your whole video is a report on Murray Rothbard's book. Unemplyment dropped to 1% during WWII. And our infrastructure was growing (while everyone else's was getting bombed). People were also investing money buying war bonds (try to get that done today)
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Indeed, it is tougher to get people to buy into wacked out foreign adventures with big explosives when Americans generally have a higher regard for human life today. Any economy that requires a war to keep its people employed is imperialistic, and anethema to human decency ( a rare thing I suppose ). Wars destroy, and the only wealth obtained from it is loot, stolen either from taxpayers or other countries.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
@hellsunicorn I dont think it was required to get the economy going. We couldnt avoid this war. I doubt anyone said "hey lets join this was and save the economy"
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Well, via the gift of hindsight, a policy of neutrality of WW1 and total non-involvement in the Russian revolution probably would have prevented WW2 and the Cold War from occurring. The problem with liberals like FDR, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson is that they think war is a fun way to build a legacy, although Johnson seems a little less enthusiastic than the other 2. But after the fact, they always use the economic justification after the initial propaganda wears off.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 It should also be noted that the reason why Sweden, the so-called bastion of successful socialism, obtained massive wealth in the early half of the 20th century by staying out of both World Wars and have a saner view of economics. If you guys want to be able to afford these wacky social experiments, you need to reign in the bankers AND knock off all the imperialism, and you don't get that with Wilson or FDR's brand of "guns and butter" economics.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
I've seen more than a handful of Krugman apologetics who admit that they don't know anything about economics but they believe him because of the Nobel award. If that's not the epitome of a tool, I have no idea what is. That's really the only argument they have, in spite of empirical data disproving Keynesianism EVERY SINGLE TIME it's implemented.
nuclearcollision 1 year ago
Who do you expect people to believe: You (some random guy on youtube) or Paul Krugman (nobel laureate, professor at Princeton and the London School of Economics, published author)? Im just saying if I had to choose...
rj47l 1 year ago
Whoah! FDR didn't cause the Great Depression, laissez-faire economics did. FDR **INHERITED** the mess, he didn't make it. Period. Markets don't naturally equalize, they naturally fluctuate wildly. The notion that "the market" is a friendly farmers market with meat and eggs at a fair price is absurd. It's more like a Somali gun market with bombs, human flesh and roving gangs all on the table. Seriously stop drinking the Ronald Regan kool-aid. Free markets and tax cuts hurt working people. Fuck.
ih8grep 1 year ago
The creator of this video is brilliant, and so was this video. Conservatives have the best talkers and thinkers of tomorrow. Krugman is a phony economist and a overly partisan hack. He deserves a Nobel Laureate as much as Obama deserves one.
KinglyNumbaOne 1 year ago
I don't think it's a coincidence that constant inflation occurs nowadays or that recessions happen so much more frequently than before. The Fed may not be the CAUSE, but they sure as hell have had a hand in that.
And the Long Depression, it seems, was actually much less painful than general economists will tell you. Growth and production were up. Prices were falling. It really wasn't even close to the Great Depression.
whoo689 1 year ago
Constant inflation is the result of bad central banking and monetary policy, quite simply. In those years before the Fed's monetary policies in the US, you'll notice, too, that the REALLY high-rate years were wartime years. Obviously the gov't artificially printed lots of excess money to fund the military. They even did it during the Revolutionary War.
whoo689 1 year ago
Before the Fed and its monetary policy, we had very low average inflation. I urge you to google a GREAT Minneapolis Fed CPI-inflation chart dating from 1800 to about 2007. SEVERAL of the years between 1800 and 1915 or 16 had actual 0s, which meant NO inflation. Can you even fucking imagine nowadays having zero inflation? Now we just assume inflation is totally natural and unavoidable.
whoo689 1 year ago
Monetary policy fails. Just let the economy fluctuate naturally, and things will stabilize on their own. There never really was a good reason for monetary policy in the first place. It's just an idiotic extension of central banking from mere regulation of banks.
I mean, if we can regulate banks' excesses with some degree of efficiency without harming the economy, great. The Fed should be tasked with that. But screwing around with the dollar? hell no
whoo689 1 year ago
You're talking economic theory, but it's really class theory...
once enough people are in dire straights, the investor class will be slaughtered in the streets...
leeroynaggins 2 years ago
@leeroynaggins The classic Marxist answer to fixing economic problems on full display here. Why reason with people when you can just kill them and confiscate their goods. The only thing that you're missing is a wooden leg and an eye patch matey.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
I wrote a response but decided to delete it because you're just a parrot. Stop hurting people by talking about things you don't really understand. Dig deeper. The Austrian school has a very poor concept of money, expose yourself to other ideas that are out there and process.
sparc5 2 years ago
maybe you should read minsky for an explanation of business cycle.
jshfrdm 2 years ago
Throughout the 1930's (excluding 1930 itself) the U.S. government was running a deficit...
leviticus311 2 years ago
You say Keynesians think the system collapsed because the Fed didn't do something, but I'm pretty sure Krugman holds the position that monetary policy has little effect on the economy.
leviticus311 2 years ago
@leviticus311 Yes, Krugman does believe that monetary policy is unimportant, and he is dead wrong.
hellsunicorn 1 year ago
And just because you were taught Keynesian or monetarism econ in school, doesn't mean it is the best. Econ and other social sciences don't build on each other the way the natural sciences do.
00dfm00 2 years ago
All Keynesians do is focus on the now without even attempting to understand the long term effects and who they hurt by redirecting resources.
Keynes fail.
00dfm00 2 years ago
You've completely ignored Marginal propensiy to spend and Marginal propensity to save. FDR's new deal, taxing the rich and expanding gov't spending, effectively transferred income from those who are likely to save (the very rich) to those likely to spend (the working class, newly employed by public works programs). Krugman wins.
ScottieMac1985 2 years ago
You seem to agree with Krugman more than you realize.
WWII destoyed wealth, you say. In Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal, he takes the position that the country could adopt the same Keynsian principle of creating jobs and stimulating the economy, but instead of "building bombs to drop in the ocean" (state policy for the last 64 years, including finding wars to justify it) a huge spending program could be directed to building an electrick grid, trains systems, rebuilding infrastructure ..
mwoldin 2 years ago
I'd love to see you "explain" economics to the the economics professor at Princeton University and London School of Economics, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, Paul Krugman. I'd really REALLY love to see that. His BA from Yale, PhD from MIT, and time as a Reagan economic advisor clearly didn't teach him much. Explain to him what investment means; I'm sure he's in need of your elucidation. Maybe he can take a class from you. If he studies hard, he might get a B.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Yeah well listing credentials doesn't intellectually win arguments. I think maybe this guy probably would be nervous debating Krugman but his ideas are sound and come from writters like von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt (who wrote a book dismissing Keyen's general theory) and Rothbard who has delved more into the economics of the great depression than most. So if we want to play credentials this guy has those 4 PHDs vs Krugmans.
Mattes50A05 2 years ago
True, credentials aren't arguments and don't resolve disputes - but my point was rather about this kid's amazing gall. Krugman's economics are atrocious, awful, and have "no understanding." Krugman's having a Nobel is "scary."
Keynesians have no explanation for the Great Depression? Agg demand curve is a mystery (hence so is the law of supply and demand)? He's obviously read some economic HISTORY, but he's clueless about economic THEORY.
Smug and ignorant - a common and ugly combination.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
These are the comments of a man who obviously doesn't know WTF he's talking about (agg demand is a mystery to you? Keynesians don't have an explanation for the Depression? the war was bad for the under-capacity economy? etc.) Let me guess - you've read a lot of books for the general public about the Austrian School, but have never once even seen the actual law of supply and demand. Am I right?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
oh and one more thing, Krugman didn't win his nobel prize for his work on domestic fiscal policy, he won it for his work on new trade theory and international economics
migkillertwo 2 years ago
you should have articulated Bastiat's "broken window fallacy"
aside from the lack of that point, your video was AWESOME.
MISES/HAYEK FTW!
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Austrians rejected mathematical models because human behaviour is too unpredictable to plot out in mathematical models and graphs. Let's consider the computer models that predicted economic patterns over the last 10 years. Most schools of economic thoght believed they had overcome the trade cycle, and their mathematical and computer models corroborated their view. These computer models failed miserably because human behaviour is to unpredictable to chart on a mathematical graph.
Mickmars90 2 years ago
Mickmars90, I don't know which is harder to model accurately: the economy, or the environment.
machalot 2 years ago
It's pronounced "Crewgmen".
Also, the reason he has a Nobel Prize in economics is that he's a brilliant economist; the reason you don't is that you're an ugly fuck who sits on youtube all day and has no friends.
You're a pompous prick. There is really no reason to think that you're little video will actaully have any effect whatsoever on the world. Why do it then? To satisfy your need to feel special in the face of the overwhelming fact that you obviously don't know shit about economics?
youkoshi 2 years ago
"There is really no reason to think that you're little video will actaully have any effect whatsoever on the world."
Oh, but it did. It pissed you off :P
WillMagic101 2 years ago 4
Friedrich Hayek won a Nobel Prize in 1976, so I'm assuming if you are a Krugmanite you must disagree with him. Does that render Hayek's views wrong?
Youtube is a medium for exchanges ande debate. This guy has every right to criticise Krugman, and there is much to criticise. Krugman is extremely knowledgable and trade geography, finance and international trade, but when he ventures into the macroeconomic sphere, he shows his limitations. He should stick to microeconomics.
Mickmars90 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@youkoshi WillMagic is way smarter than the moron economist known as Paul Krugman and respondent youkoshi who is as complete an economic illiterate as Krugman. Krugman does prove that idiots can attain high positions at the NY Times!
bobby33x 1 year ago
@youkoshi
1. No one cares how you pronounce Krugman.
2. You are a pompous prick. There is no reason to think that your little comment will actually have any effect whatsoever on the world. Why do it then? To satisfy your need to feel special in the face of the overwhelming fact that you obviously don't know shit about economics, spelling, or punctuation. (I know the last two were low blows for a YouTube comments box, but I couldn't resist.)
3. Read a book.
havishamcarmody 11 months ago
Secondly, government intervention (rationing, price controls such as ceilings/floors, stimulus bills, entitlements, etc.) is COMPLETELY void of the market forces of supply and demand (ever heard of the term TINSTAAFL?). Whenever government controls the means of production, the long-run outcome is always SHORTAGES....Thus the wants and needs of society are compromised. Wow, what a novel idea! This force is truly natural and it has been hijacked by the academic elite (Marx/Keynes/Krugman, etc).
gotigers54 2 years ago
Where is your Nobel Prize? Do you teach at Princeton, I think not.
domaine63 2 years ago
Who gives a damn if you are a Ivy Leaguer or that you have a Nobel Prize. There were plenty of Nazi scientists from the University of Berlin. The progressive elites have totally revised any economic theory to fit their vision of utopian socialism.
gotigers54 2 years ago
I think it's fucking hilarious that paultards read ayn rand and ron paul's shitty book and think they know more about economics than noble prize winning economists, who base their assertions not on dogma, but on mathematical data, something austrians reject as "unrealistic"
austrian "economists" are to economics what intelligent design is to biology
idigl7220 2 years ago
austrian economics is a joke. This whole video is a stupid college kid quoting people who are less respected in their field than krugman, and using their words to suggest krugman is wrong.
Hey asshole, i was in britain the other day, and it sucked because it's a communist dictatorship like hayek predicted because of its welfare state of the 1950's-80's. Oh wait, it's not, and hayek was completely 100% wrong, and austrian economics is not empirically derived and should be ignored and ridiculed
idigl7220 2 years ago
Wow you should study dummy...
jorgemacafura 2 years ago
Why would this lame video settle a 65 year old argument?
jazzarone 2 years ago
Why should anyone think that this lame video would settle a
65 year old argument? Where's your Nobel?
jazzarone 2 years ago
That's a non-argument man!
Invirtuo 2 years ago
u guys need to settle down
wsuENCE 2 years ago
Obama will be the final proof that big government, profligate spending and huge deficits will be doomed to failure. Don't be afraid of the term socialism just watch it fail. Too bad it will bankrupt the country but at least capitalism will rebound.
chesterviolet 2 years ago
Or it's posible that Bush, his cronies and unregulated capitalism FUCKED THINGS UP SO BAD that Obama won't be able to fix it with "socialism" and "socialism" will ake the fall when in reality THE BUSH YEARS FUCKED our country.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Bush did fuck things up, I hate bush but in no way is he a free marketeer. He increased the size of government more than any president every. He added 70,000 pages of regulation in 2008 alone and he favors a central bank, the opposite of a free market.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
He's YOUR asshole - Democrats are nothing like him.
twochordcool 2 years ago
So tell me SHITHEAD, what is the difference if the government puts people to work buliding bombs to drop on people, building BOMBS to "drop in the ocean" OR building TV's, computers, automobiles, trains, widgets, solar panels, WHATEVER?!
There IS NO DIFFERENCE! If you put people to WORK they have money to spend in SOCIETY, which ALSO GENERATES JOBS and get's MORE people working again.
You're so partisan it's pathetic. So am I but I'm not wrong!
twochordcool 2 years ago
Maybe the government should just give everyone the job of doing jumping jacks all day. That way there will be 100% employment and the depression will end. You have to creat wealth through production to improve your standard of living. If you expend more labor creating a thing than the laber you will gain once it is completed your only making things worse. Spending time making things that will only explode isnt helping. Thats the problem with government spending.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Who is to say that small businesses, perhaps even manufacturing, may come out of the capital that is supplied, generated and distributed by these government jobs? If money is generated and circulated in commiunities again ALL SORTS of ENDLESS KINDS of businesses could pop up.
By the way, QUIT REGURGITATING TALKING PONTS - YOU SOUND SO UNORIGINAL.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Your confusing caitol with printed money. Actual capitol could help, but krugman/obama are not talking about giving capitol, but simply printing money. If obama came out tommarro and announced that everyone pers would get 1 million dollars would the economy be fixed? Zimbabwe is provided lots of "capital" as you call it, but its just infationary paper, and thats all you and Krugmen are proposing.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Well then, I guess we'll know who the asshole is in a few years - you or Krugman. Bare in mind we have OTHER MAJOR problems coming down the pike as well.
The problem with you fucking idiots is you bitch and cry about what not to do but you don't propose ANYTHING that will WORK to keep millions of families from being unemployed, hungry and homeless.
And SPARE ME the tax cut BULLSHIT.
twochordcool 2 years ago
ok if cutting taxes is "bullshit" why dont you simply advocate 100% taxation? Taxing labor discourages production. Subsidizing no preductive behaviors doesn help society any. We can cut regulations and taxes. Cuting regulations will make it easier to create new jobs. and cutting taxes increases peoples take home, but your against that I guess.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Cutting regulations will only make more Madoffs and Enrons. I get taxed and I'm still productive. When you cut taxes substantially what are you going to do about infrastructure and the many more thousands or millions of people that are employed by government and will lose their jobs?
Make NO MISTAKE, you're just ONE BIG talking point and that makes you a fool that doesn't know what he is talking about.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Saying im only using "talking points" is ad hominum. NO different from calling me a name. Its not an argument, and its not true. I've never even heard Limbaugh once. Enron like all the oil firms has a government protected oligopoliy based on reguation. Regulations tie peoples hands, and make it harder to start a business, (or do you disagree?) Wont making it easier to start a business help people get jobs?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
OK pal, break it down, step by step, EXACTLY how your remove regulations and taxation plan would help WHILE NOT HURTING OTHER AREAS. I'M LISTENING.
Ad Hominem or not you're a TALKING POINT.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Ok I asked you some questions to illistrate this, that you havent addressed. So lets do this one at a time.
Is it easier to start a business with less regulation or more?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
What regulations hinder creating which particular business?
twochordcool 2 years ago
let me get this straight, your asserting that regulations have no impact on starting a business? Is that your stance? It varies quit a bit but Licencing fees for one. Youve got to front $ before you can even start that you will never recoup.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I'm asking YOU - YOU'RE THE ONE asserting this - WHAT REGULATIONS hinder WHAT BUSINESSES?
Or is it just a regurgitated talking point and you were not told about WHY that is, you only know some asshole that you apparently respect said so so it must be true?
twochordcool 2 years ago
many times there are zoning ordanaces that dicatate how many of a certain kind of business there can be. For instance in my home town the city will only allow a set number of places to have liqure licences. If another person wants a liqure licence to start a business that employs people they cant, the regulations make it illegal.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
not only do licencies raise (or prevent) entry of new business, they rais the cost of doing busness. I worked at a place that had to pay twice as much a month to maintain two dumpsters instead of 1 costing more than the wage of single worker because of regualation.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Regulations rais the cost of doing business, to say otherwise is to deny that there are fees involved and costs nessisary to conform to the regulations. If regulation rais the cost of doing business then they discorage busness, its that simple. Instead of admitting this your taking the absurd posistion that barriors to entry and increased operating costs from regulation do not discourage business.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
So my friend, are those regulations pointless or is there some validity of some sort to each one of them that you may be unaware of?
twochordcool 2 years ago
My hole point is that regulations rais the costs doing business. You asked me to provide examples and I did (and there are literally millions more). Some are pointless and others have some grounding in common sence, but they all make starting a new business.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Say we have a buntch of people living by the ocean and they have no work. There are fish in the sea, but there is a regulation that says you cannot fish. All I am saying is that we should abolish that regulation so those people can work. That would help, (it might not fix every problem but it would help and thats all Im saying) But you think this is some kind of controversial talking point. There are MILLIONS of regulations and they are not all sensable, or do you disagree?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
OK go find some REAL regulations that have NO validity to them, and are SIGNIFICANTLY hindering business. Let me know what you come up with - I'm really curious now.
twochordcool 2 years ago
ok so now they regulations have to be "real". Basically you think that all the millions of regulations are all correct, every single one. You must think this becuase if you didnt you would not be opposed to getting rid of the bad ones. Since you oppose getting rid of any regulations you de facto support all regulations. Its absured but its your stance.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
What is the purpose of a regulation?
In Maine they have limited regulations for logging. Result, disgusting clear cuts as far as one can see. They make lots of money.
In the Adirondacks of upstste New York they are limited to cutting 5 or 10 acre sections. They probably don't make as much money. But the place isn't fucked up for wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts. I'll take the latter. There is a REASON for most regulations.
twochordcool 2 years ago
The "reason" for most regulations is to protect the already established companies from competitons. I listed two examples of regulationst that 100% new businesses from started and you responded that I need to provide examples of regulations that "significantly" restrict business. What is more singnifiacnat than not allowing any more business to do a certain thing? Now if you please can you answere by question about raising the cost on an activity.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
The reason for most regulations is to protect already established companies from competition?
So now regulations are there to help set up monopolies in this country?
I think you have a little more to learn until you decide to have an opinion about something.
twochordcool 2 years ago
That is not the only reason, but it is a reason. I never said it is to create monopolies, but to reduce competition. Now please answer my earilier question. My question is not if there is a good reason for requlations or not, my question is this.
Does raising the cost of a given activity (any activity) increase or decrease the frequency of that activity?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
So, you think it's OK that minimum wage is as low as it is because raising it would raise prices automatically on consumer goods? Why don't they make upper management's salaries more reasonable instead?
And back to the video -
Do you really think YOU have the answer, that you're CERTAIN that Obama's plan won't work, or at least won't have benefits?
And would your plan work FAST to ease the suffering of the unemployed and their families?
Because if not, how about S'ing TFU?
twochordcool 2 years ago
Does raising the cost of a given activity (any activity) increase or decrease the frequency of that activity?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Let me ask you this. Does raising the cost of an activity (any activity) reduce or increase the frequency of that activity?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
your profile says you hate republicans because they love war, but apparently so do you. Will voted for Obama because he thought McCain was insanely pro war. Obama is now excelating the war in Afghanistan, which you must love because it will help the economy. Your such a fool. If the good you consure are greater than the goods you produce no amount monitary creation will help you. YOu must produce and the government via taxation punishes production.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
WHATEVER Lush Limpdick kool-aide ejaculation swallower.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Why dont we all just take out our money and add a couple 0's at the end of whatever is written. Than we would all be richer. This is exactly what obama krugmen and bush before them is advocating.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
SOLUTION ASSHOLE?
twochordcool 2 years ago
Oh, and stupid schmuck, Obama is fighting the war that NEEDED TO BE FOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE - where radical Islam ACTUALLY IS (AND HAS BEEN SINCE 911) a threat to our national interests. Iraq was a treasonous unnecessary bankrupting war catipulted by lies.
Got that asshole?
twochordcool 2 years ago
I've got to think that you are a woman. No man would be that desperate to mouth off with no intelligence behind it. Check your testicles buddy, I think they fell off or you never had them.
chesterviolet 2 years ago
And you just talk stupid retarded nonsense - move on you little juvenile.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Let me ask you something, do you just call everyone you disagree with a republican? How is Bush my asshole? How is bush free market, what did he do thats free market? If yours so smart you should be able to answere these quesitons without A. using circular reasoning B. simply calling names. I know your not interestd in actual debate. However others that might be can read this diolog and see how foolish you and your ideas are. If you think this andvances your agenda, you've my pitty.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
So genius, what do we do? WHAT do we do that keeps people with families working or gives them something to live on while they don't have bootstraps to pull themselves up by? I'm all ears. I'll refrain from the mocking and ridicule until I see how credible your reply is.
twochordcool 2 years ago
look if the government gives some needy family a job, it can only do so by taking that exat amount from some other needy family (while wasting most of whats taken in the process) I know you probably think about it as taking from the rich, but the truth is that producers of goods dont pay any taxes, consumers do. A tax on Bill gates only means Windows costs more for you and me. So all your stick it to the rich is silly. Your just raising the Cost of living for the poor. Real smart.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU HEAR SUCH NONSENSE?
God you are fucking stupid.
Do you realize how WEALTHY Bill Gates is?
WHO SAID he would raise the price of windows?
You know Bill Gates is TOTALLY FOR the estate tax, right?
You CAN stick it to the rich. AND you should. The fucking middle class HAS been paying more than it's fair share of taxes for FAR TOO LONG.
The middle class has also been SHRINKING under "conservatives".
Why do you love slavery so much?
twochordcool 2 years ago
IM not conservative, so you can stop calling me that. The rich dont pay taxes, they just pass on the costs to you and me. I wasnt defending them. Rich white people get a million times more welfare than poor people do, and Im against it. But the fact it that a tax on a company only means the company raises the price of its good or service to pay the tax, or do you dispute this?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I'm saying it doesn't have to. You make the same fucking stupid excuse for why the conservatives say they can't afford to pay their workers a living wage while some jerkoff at the top get's payed an OBSCENE amount of money. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR SOMETHING THERE IS NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Where did I even mention corporate pay or worker compensation? I asked you a simple question about the ease of starting (and running for that matter) a business when you increas the amount of regulation. I would like you to answere please.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
No, I want YOU to answer - apparently you are against taxing rich people so you must ALSO be FOR the rich getting richer while they make excuses for why they can't pay workers more - the same "we'll have to put the costs onto our customers BULL SHIT. What do you think of the Employee Free Choice Act?
twochordcool 2 years ago
No, you just making assumption that conform to your world view. Did I not say I though rich people get millons times more welfare than poor people? did you miss that part? About regulation it varies a great deal. Some industries are super heavily regualted. For instance it is illegal to build a oil refinery and has been since the 70's. This is a regulation that benifits the rich oil companies that already have oil refineries because it prevents competitons.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
So, you DON'T have a problem with the rich not being taxed, but you HAVE a problem with them earning too much money, or getting "welfare"? And doesn't corporate welfare equate to not paying taxes?
Perhaps we don't have oil refineries because nobody wants one in their neighborhood.
twochordcool 2 years ago
my point was that the mentality of sticking to the rich is foolish (not becaus I love the rich) but becuase taxes on the rich are paid by the poor. We dont have oil refineries because the EPA created a regulation that said there cant be anymore. I know quite a few people in Detroit who would love an oil refinery to open there, but that can never happen, because of regulation.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Another brilliant retort! And so well reasoned. Did you attend Cornell School of Agriculture with Keith Olberman. If you really think the government is the answer to all your problems than you are admitting that there are alot smarter people in government than yourself. Have you ever dealt with a government beaureaucrat? The private sector will always perform more efficiently.
chesterviolet 2 years ago
Alrighty asshole then YOU employ the unemployed. Do it NOW.
twochordcool 2 years ago
How can the government pay $1 for the employment of one worker without taking away $1 away from another worker?
Some people (the young, old, people between jobs) will always be voluntarily unemployed, so ideas like "full employment" are silly. It is definatly true that some people want to work but cannot and this is because of minimum wage. Think about it like this, if the minum wage was raised to $100,000 almost everyone would lose their jobs, a $7 minimun wage differs only in degree.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Well then take the $1 away from some super rich asshole.
And nobody says you have to raise minimum wage to 100K. Why do people like you have to be so extreme? Minimum wage can be $10 an hour though.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Your ignoring the fact that since you have taken that 1$ away from the rich person (to pay an unemployed person) that rich person has $1 less to spend on another worker either one of his emploees or someone he does business with. There is no net change in employment. Why stop at $10, why not raise it to $15,$20,$50 an hour? You seem sure there is nothing bad that can happen from a minum wage so why dont you want to keep raising it? at what point does it become "extreme" in your opinion?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Is it your stance that all "rich" people are assholes, or would you propose legislation that distiniguishes between Asshole rich and non asshole rich? The wealth of the rich is already being used to employ millions of people, indeed there is nothing a rich person can do with their money that doesnt give employment. Even if they just put it all in a bank that still gives work to the banks tellers, janitors, bankers, creditors, lenders and technichions. Are all those people assholes to?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Comment removed
twochordcool 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Extreme is paying somebody $6 an hour asshole.
And I'm talking about the rich assholes that do little for anybody.
You ASS-U-ME that ALL rich people employ many many people - I'm certain there are PLENTY of rich people that do little for anyone else but themselves.
And if they employ X number of people they can get certain tax breaks and if they don't they can't - IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
Why are you such a rich person apologist anyway, considering you're probably just getting by?
twochordcool 2 years ago
So you have a fat rich person with a nice house who just eats at nice resterants, and sails around in their yatch. Ok so you think all the people who build and maintain his house, work at the resterant, and sells yatch equipment and gas should go without a job because the rich person is some asshole? And what about raising minimun wage even higher? Why do you only want it to be $10? Why not raise it further?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Shithead.
There are people with SO MUCH MONEY that it would have ZZEERROO affect on his house maintainers, restaurant staff, yacht salesmen, gas stations or WHATEVER other bull shit you want to throw at me. These are GLUTTONOUS people that have more than they will ever need. And no matter what some STUPID conservative pundit tells you, they WON'T take it out on anyone.
Minimum wage - you're an extreme asshole and I won't debate you about that.
twochordcool 2 years ago
wow 29$ your rich compared to me. But Im asking you why you dont want to raise the minum wage higher than 10$? What proplem is there to rasing it higher? Why is that such a hard question?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Yeah asshole? Then explain the high unemployment AND under-employment numbers. I'm sure these people don't give a flying fuck where the money is coming from if they are just able to earn an honest days pay for an honest days work. Assholes like you listen to Limpballs and would rather these people and their families starved and lived on the streets before they got jobs with taxpayer / government money. You're a moron.
twochordcool 2 years ago
way to be unable to answer even one question. Your right IM not rich, and Im not an apolgist I think many rich people get alot more government subsidy than poor people do, and I'm agaist that. I work hard for what little money I make and I dont want to see my earning power evaporate because people like you want to destroy the buying power of the money I earn with inflation to give people jobs. Why do you only want a 10$ wage?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
No overly taxed boss is taking your job away you paranoid asshat.
And I don't want a $10 wage. Why would I when I have a $29 wage?
twochordcool 2 years ago
All the material weatlh of the rich represents jobs for other people. Im not conservative nor do I listen to conservative pundits, and why you like to pretend this is silly. The rich's money (no matter how it is used) is giving people jobs. If its in stocks its helping the employies of the company, if its in a bank its giving work to the employees of the bank, and helping people who get loans from the bank. Please give an example of a rich person expending money that doesnt benifit another.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Dumbass, I work for a commuter railroad that goes in and out of NYC. My salary DOESN'T come from rich people - it comes from subsidies from tax and revenue they bring in from customers. There are NO rich people involved as far as I know.
BUT there ARE VERY well paid management employees, and THOSE people's salaries ought to be curbed before mine is, or before my job is cut out entirely.
twochordcool 2 years ago
I didnt say it came from rich person I said you were rich, because compared to me you are. You post how bad unemployment is, but you dont want your job cut. Basically you must think that only really profitable companies should be in business, since you say here that companies cutting it close should just die. I suppose GM should just die to, and your commuter line to since it clearly reliese on subsidies and not profit.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
A rich person that is SO rich that they can only buy, do and eat so much - and that isn't even a drop in the bucket. How's that for an answer?
twochordcool 2 years ago
If he is buying stuff he is giving people jobs, even if they are not his employies. My original point was that taking $1 from a rich person for the unemployed is simply taking $1 away from whoever the rich person would have spent it on, so no new work is done. Its even worse than that because a person who was being productive lost a dollar to a person who was not. Not a smart economic formula.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Uneployment is caused by the minum wage. If the government dictates wages above what is profitable than those jobs will simply be lost, it happend to me. I had a job at a resterant and the state raised the minum wage which made the resterant operate at a loss, so 40 poor people lost their jobs (dont you feel good about that?) Earning power is less because the goverment destroys earning power with inflation to pay people not to work, or work in unprofitable jobs, like GM.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Good, if the shitty company was cutting it so close they should have just closed up shop.
Small business owners are going to have to figure out how to pay workers a fair wage and if they can't make it then they SHOULD go under and go work for somebody else.
If you want to work for some greedy asshole that will cut you out entirely before he trims his own bloated salary then you're a sucker and a fool.
twochordcool 2 years ago
And again why not raise the minum wage? Why stop at $10, especially when you make 3 times that off the govenment?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Don't worry little fella the feds can take care of you. I know life is so hard, we'll be happy to take care of you, you dickless brain dead communist. (hey that was pretty good, I'm practicing your total lack of intelligent commentary - getting pretty good at it too.)
chesterviolet 2 years ago
You must of missed the post where I told the last asshole that I make $29 an hour.
twochordcool 2 years ago
I must have missed the post where you answered any of my questions? If companies pay their employees as much as possible they will not be profitable, which according to you means they should go out of business anyway. Thats prettty blasay for someone who supposadly cares so much abount unemployment. Obviously your job is not profitable, because if it were it would not need Government subsidy. Please continue posting to show the ideocy of your ideas.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
That's FALSE asshole - there are quite a few people in the upper echelon of Walmart who are OBSCENELY rich and if their pay got cut to raise their workers salaries they would STILL be obscenely rich.
And this applies to MANY companies and corporations.
twochordcool 2 years ago
So all the people who those rich spend money on should loose their jobs? Or did you think of a way the rich can use their money that doenst give someone work? If companies give all of their profits in pay increasaes to their employees than they are no longer profitable, and by your reasoning they should "just close shop" Your not even responding to what I ask, you spouting stupid anectodes.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Question for you shithead - what do you think stimulates the economy more, a larger, stronger middle and working class, OR a handful of rich people? Answer that asshole. Or / then shut the fuck up.
twochordcool 2 years ago
How does the government giving trillions to wall street lead to a larger stronger middle class? Competition will cause a more even spread of wealth, which is why the rich and powerfull promote as powerfull a regulatory government as possible, to prevent such egalitarian competition, and to give the rich billions (now trillions) from the working class in the name of the common good. And you lap it up like a puppy. Now answer my questions.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
This discussion is about the economic stimulus, shit for brains, not the Wall Street bailout.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Again you dont answer questions. You mean the Wall street bailout that Obama Bush McCain all loved and pushed for? How is the new "stimulus" going to help the middle class? I wouldnt say this is a discussion really, Im making points and asking quesitons you just calling names and making a fool of yourself and your ideas. Congratulations!
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
No moron, you're the pinhead that believes that this country needs to have obscenely wealthy people more than we need a strong middle and working class. Considering that I cannot have a serious discussion with you either. You're a trickle down moron.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Im sorry how is the government printing money not trickle down? I guess I should not be suprised that a person that thinks name calling constitutes argumentation would also be unable to defend his posistion. How will the "stimulus" help the middle class????? Do you know, or dont you?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Comment removed
twochordcool 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not trickle down, moron, because it goes directly to make jobs in various fields. The trickle down you fucking idiots believe in relies on enough money trickling down from the rich - and it doesn't work - it excludes far too many people.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Im sorry where did I say I believed in trickle down? How is the government giving money to big banks, and big corporations (which is what the new "stimulus) is doing not trickle down? Maybe you havent looked it over but they are handing out money in batches of Millions or billions. Do you think they are giving millions to the middle class people or to companies. Even the "infratructure" is accomplished by giving $ to corporations to do the work. How is this different from trickle down.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
You know, moron, that the bank bailout and the economic stimulus are 2 separate things right?
twochordcool 2 years ago
You must have trouple reading becuase I distinguished between the two within the first two lines. Are you under the impression that they are just sending checks to middle class people, because if you look at the bill thats not it at all. Its moeny for banks, and for companies. They arent writting checks to the middle class, no matter how many times they say "main street" in the press. I asked how its not tricle down,and you responded that its not the banker bailout. Thats not what I asked.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Look, it's obvious that you are pro-wealthy despite probably being just a meager peasant yourself - you like the trickle down - as in getting pissed on by rich people. I'm going round and round with you and not getting anywhere, as I usually do with wingnuts like yourself.
Everyone read his posts and my posts - they are my last - I'm not banging my head against this guy anymore. Have a nice day.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Wait so how does the "stimulus" help the middle class? You have never explained why it does. I know Obama says its to help the middle class, but he said that about the Banker Bailout which you reconize as foolish so whats the differenec? Calling me an asshole, or saying that Im for "tricle down economics" are not actually answeres. Repeatedly calling names is not the same as explaining your posistion, though it is insightfull onto the content of your character, or lack there of.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Google Red State Socialism and the Politics of the Stimulus - it's at Crooks and Liars dott comm. Turns out red states get WWAAYY more money back from the Federal government in programs than they pay in taxes, and these red state ASSHOLES are against socialism! Turns out wealthier blue states vote Democrat AND pay more taxes which end up in red states. Ain't that some shit?
Again, how about a cup of some SHUT THE FUCK UP?
twochordcool 2 years ago
Im sorry I understand your understanding of political philosophy is limited to your view and Evil Republicans, but again I am not a republican, I am against the republicans. I know they are socialist, but you love socialism, so why not love the republicans? Yes the Republicans are hypocrits, but thats not what Im asking you. How does the stimulus (supported by the Democrats (mostly)) help the middle class? Thats my question, well one of many anyway?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
You're not a Republican? You must be one of those crazy libertarians. As crazy as Republicans only different.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Im sorry was that an attemp to explain how Obama's stimulus helps the middle class?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
So, my little moronic friend, this stimulus bill that they just signed weeks ago, you expected that to take affect already?
twochordcool 2 years ago
Im asking you what parts of it help the middle class grow and how they help do it. If your so in favor of it you should be able to explain why you think it will work, but be carefull it might sound like trickle down economics. ;)
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Um, shithead, trickle down is YOU favoring rich assholes and not wanting them taxed because you think out of their generosity they are going to create all sorts of jobs for enough people in this country - they DON'T.
Don't worry though, I'm sure when jobs are created from the stimulus package the Democrats won't let you assholes forget that you were against it.
Rather than running your mouth, wait and see. Revisit this in 2 years - it's not gonna happen overnight.
twochordcool 2 years ago
So the government can improve the economy by printing money? They havent raised taxes to pay for the "stimulus" so they are just going to print print print. You know if they inflate the dollar the rich will be able to afford the higher prices, but the poor wont. The "stimulus" is trickle down, big government spending. Also name one thing the rich use there money for that doesnt give people jobs?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Comment removed
twochordcool 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama WILL raise taxes on rich people, remember?
The stimulus IS NOT trickle down pinhead - it's direct - for "shovel ready" jobs.
And you can surely see how rich people probably hoard A LOT of their money, which isn't doing anything for anybody.
I'm done with you - you're just a moron regurgitating right wing talking points.
twochordcool 2 years ago
"Hoard" money, you mean like put in a bank, or in stocks? Obama said the Bush banker bailout was absolutly nessisary, was he wrong or right? What provisions call for shovel ready jobs, remeber talking points in press releases are not actually in the bill. And how is spending billions for big contrsruction firms not trickle down? And the tax increases they are talking about dont even approach the spending their planning, but inflation doesnt hurt anyone does it?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
That would be "necessary".
Nice playing with you - you can find somebody else to fling poo at now.
twochordcool 2 years ago
For a while there I thought you might start answering my questions. Oh well I guess its more than I could expect from a person with such silly ideas. I think its funny how convinced you are that the new "stimulus" is good and is going to work, but you dont even know why or how, just that it will. That kind of faith could make a chrisitian blush.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Comment removed
twochordcool 2 years ago
Yeah, but shithead, we both know that you don't have any better ideas - and we both can probably agree on ONE thing - we have a faltering economy. So if you can't come up with any better ideas - how 'bout just shutting the fuck up and praying to God that it works. Or you could be the NEXT victim and loose your shopping cart collecting job.
twochordcool 2 years ago
we agree that the economy is bad. However that doest mean just try anything. If you actually thought that then you would support a Republican plan, that sounds more like a "just buy into this bull" line of reasoning. I do have something better. Stop punishing production with taxes and regulation. Both of these things make it harder for people to work and provide for themselfs. However you think taxes and regulations have no effect. Destroying the money with inflation is not an anwer.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Taxes and regulation are NECESSARY you ASSHOLE.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Let me ask you something (that I asked you a long time ago but you never answered). Does rasing a tax on something encourage that activity or discrouaget that activity? Do you think a higher tax on something (anything) makes it more or less common?If they raised taxes to 99% do you think it would have an effect on unemployment or not? How about only 80%, 50%, 25%?Also the less money they take in taxes the more people have for themselfs, right, or do you object to people keeping what they earn?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
And I'm not going to tell you again, pinhead, taxes are NECESSARY and who but the rich should pay MOST of them?
twochordcool 2 years ago
I would want to let poor people keep more of their paychecks but according to you this makes me an "asshole". You on the other hand want to continue taking poor peoples money and even take more(via inflation) to spend on a "stimulus" that you have no idea if it will even work. Your just hoping that maybe there is some chance it might happen. Your such a nice guy. Lets destroy the purchasing power of peoples money (including poor people) on the outside change some good might happen.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I cannot explain who the "stimulus" will help anyone, in fact you admitted you have know idea how or even if it will work, yet you support hurting the poor and middle class based on your faith something good might happen. Wow.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
a) You don't give a FLYING FUCK about poor people - so quit pretending you do. (To people that don't believe me, read his previous posts)
b) Poor people pay VERY little income taxes and then they get it ALL back AND THEN SOME on their tax returns. Ever heard of Earned Income Credit?
You don't give a shit about giving the poor back their money - you're just paying them lip service so that you can try and justify getting the rich back all of their money.
twochordcool 2 years ago
Im sorry if you think income taxes are the only kind. Do we need every tax we collect? Do you think the government needs to spend a trillion every year giving money to other nations for their militaries, or for the two wars we're in? Dont you think the government could cut some spending, or do they need to spend every last one of the TRILLIONS they spend? Is every dollar they take NECISSARY? If your answer is yes your a moron, if no then you agree with me to some extent.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Your the one who wants to destroy the value of poor peoples money to pay for a hair brained sceam. You've admitted you have no idea if it will work, or even how it could, but no matter your willing to risk poor peoples livelyhood because you wont think critically. Let me ask you, who can afford the comming inflation better the rich or the poor. I know you wont answer so I'll do it for you, the rich.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
You have said yourself that I am poor, yet you say im against the poor. What you really mean as I oppose your ideas, and rather than offer anything substansial you say I hate the poor. The poor pay all kinds of taxes above and beyond income tax, or did you not know that? Why do you think its bad for poor people to pay lower taxes? It must be beause you hate the poor, or maybe you just want their money so the government can give your lazy ass a check.
lengthyounarther