ADVERTISEMENT

Cohen's phone was tapped - at least 1 White House call picked up

Who was the special council appointed for Benghazi, Solyndra, etc? Answer = none. Thanks to Eric Holder. Keep holding your breath.
giphy.gif

At least Hillary had the balls to answer questions under oath on national television. Dont hold your breath waiting for Trump to do the same.
 
Last edited:
At least Hillary had the balls to answer questions under oath on national television. Dont hold your breath waiting for Trump to do the same.
Hillary lied under oath also and was never charged.
Your the one holding their breath for this idiotic partisan witch hunt based on false and made up crap. Keep holing it until you pass out.
 
Well, it's down nonetheless.

And to think, that was done without fluffing numbers with a bunch of bogus public sector jobs in the first year of presidency:

JQL5VH456U6LXCX2KMTJ4LWRZM.jpg


Unemployment rate change within the first year of presidency below. And for everyone who likes to comment that Barry was given a pile of crap from Bush - here's one instance where that would have benefited him. Walking into near 10% unemployment and still failing to improve upon that is a monumental failure compared to coming in ~5% unemployment and still lowering that number.

HEWJDPKKKA6OLNNG5UAW4O6WDQ.jpg


Source of these charts: The Washington Poast. Can only imagine how much it stung to print these. I'll give them credit for not trying to spin the crap out of it for once though.

1. When the economy is in the tank the Govt is suppose to hire more people, it's how you turn things around. When the economy improves you cut back.

2. So BO gets handed an economy going in the wrong direction and is dinged for not turning it around faster and DT gets handed an economy that;s heading in the right direction and gets cred for not wreaking it in the first year?

Kinda like comparing Matt Doherty's first year at UNC with Roy's first year. After he went 19-11, did you actually think that Roy was a worse coach than Doh?

CC
 
Yes, it's exactly like that. Perfect analogy. :rolleyes:
Actually, it is a good analogy for comparing the difference between inheriting a well-oiled machine and total wreckage. And Chuck is also correct that if the private sector is performing poorly, it's up to the public sector to get the economy going again.
 
Last edited:
Says who?

The people who actually study economics, as opposed to the conservative types who love misappropriating a few basic theories while pretending they know what they’re talking about.

Public sector hiring is extremely effective at stimulating a stagnant economy. I’m sorry that your ideological slant has led you to believe otherwise, but it’s been proven repeatedly. More people working means more people spending.
 
The people who actually study economics, as opposed to the conservative types who love misappropriating a few basic theories while pretending they know what they’re talking about.

Public sector hiring is extremely effective at stimulating a stagnant economy. I’m sorry that your ideological slant has led you to believe otherwise, but it’s been proven repeatedly. More people working means more people spending.
so you had to watch "Grapes of Wrath" propiganda film in achool also?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
Wow, 100% consensus across all economists? Never thought I'd see the day.

If an economist argued that public sector hiring doesn’t stimulate spending in the economy then they would be openly mocked. How would giving more people jobs, and therefore more money to spend not stimulate the economy? That increased consumer spending then leads to greater private sector employment like we saw during the Obama administration.
 
If an economist argued that public sector hiring doesn’t stimulate spending in the economy then they would be openly mocked. How would giving more people jobs, and therefore more money to spend not stimulate the economy? That increased consumer spending then leads to greater private sector employment like we saw during the Obama administration.

I thought GSD was objecting to the idea that the govt. is supposed to hire people to stimulate the economy vs. whether or not it would work. That's why I wanted to hear what he thought the govt should or should not do.

CC
 
What the hell is "propiganda," Einstein?
Grapes of Wrath is a liberal propaganda flick shown is school for years by liberal NEA teachers that asserts that anything the government runs is better that capitalism. thanks for the compliment.
 
Grapes of Wrath is a liberal propaganda flick shown is school for years by liberal NEA teachers that asserts that anything the government runs is better that capitalism. thanks for the compliment.
Are you talking about the film with Henry Fonda, based on Steinbeck's book?

ETA: Do you ever proofread your posts? Or, is that how you really talk?
 
Grapes of Wrath is a liberal propaganda flick shown is school for years by liberal NEA teachers that asserts that anything the government runs is better that capitalism.
What film would you recommend teachers show in their classroom instead, Risky Business?
 
I have read the book at least 3 times and I must have missed the Communist theme. In fact, I just reread it for the first time in 25 years about 2 months ago. It was just the plight of a family from Oklahoma going to California during the Depression. The movie was a little too slow to hold my attention. I never knew The Grapes of Wrath was so threatening to people.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT