Known turncoat pops off
Comments
-
You cherrypicked 1938 to say the New Deal was actually bad because the economy contracted that year. You’re laughably intellectually dishonest and then accuse others of lying when they point that out.SFGbob said:My response clearly states that the New Deal had been in place for 5 years in 1938 you lying sack of shit. Is every liberal a fucking liar or are all liars liberals?
-
The economy sucked until WW2
Hth -
Caused by a crisis of capitalism and only saved by a Keynesian, labor-friendly economy.RaceBannon said:The economy sucked until WW2
Hth -
Race was there!!!RaceBannon said:The economy sucked until WW2
Hth -
Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
-
This is trueSFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
-
SureHardlyClothed said:
Caused by a crisis of capitalism and only saved by a Keynesian, labor-friendly economy.RaceBannon said:The economy sucked until WW2
Hth -
Bob do you want to talk about the role the collapse of banks in that time period had on the economy?SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
-
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron. -
The stimulus also favored short term projects over longer term investments, another reason it sucked.
-
Yes, Hondo I'm dying to chase after you into the weeds while you ignore everything I actually said.2001400ex said:
Bob do you want to talk about the role the collapse of banks in that time period had on the economy?SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
-
Ah yes, the stimulus failed because it just wasn't BIG enough and "real" Socialism just hasn't been tried yet.HardlyClothed said:
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron.
The economy was out of recession in June of 2009. Given the depth of the decline the economy should have come roaring back but it didn't. Just like it didn't during the 1930s. Gosh I wonder why?
Shocking how you dodged like a Kunt every question I asked. -
I guess the jobs weren't shovel readyHardlyClothed said:The stimulus also favored short term projects over longer term investments, another reason it sucked.
Another big lie by Obama btw -
Weren't most of the "massive tax cuts" in the form of a temporary pay roll tax cut that we were told is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy because most the people getting that money will spend it immediately? Was that just another lie we were told? Now this guy is claiming the "massive tax cuts" were all just saved.RaceBannon said:
I guess the jobs weren't shovel readyHardlyClothed said:The stimulus also favored short term projects over longer term investments, another reason it sucked.
Another big lie by Obama btw
-
Wow, it’s almost as if without sufficient government investment (like the Keynesian wartime economy) getting out of a recession takes longer, which is exactly what I said in my last post. It didn’t come roaring back because the $500 billion stimilus was a joke.SFGbob said:
Ah yes, the stimulus failed because it just wasn't BIG enough and "real" Socialism just hasn't been tried yet.HardlyClothed said:
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron.
The economy was out of recession in June of 2009. Given the depth of the decline the economy should have come roaring back but it didn't. Just like it didn't during the 1930s. Gosh I wonder why?
Shocking how you dodged like a Kunt every question I asked. -
RaceBannon said:
I guess the jobs weren't shovel readyHardlyClothed said:The stimulus also favored short term projects over longer term investments, another reason it sucked.
Another big lie by Obama btw
Now you’re getting it -
They didn’t stimulate the economy because tax cuts never do. Try to follow along.SFGbob said:
Weren't most of the "massive tax cuts" in the form of a temporary pay roll tax cut that we were told is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy because most the people getting that money will spend it immediately? Was that just another lie we were told? Now this guy is claiming the "massive tax cuts" were all just saved.RaceBannon said:
I guess the jobs weren't shovel readyHardlyClothed said:The stimulus also favored short term projects over longer term investments, another reason it sucked.
Another big lie by Obama btw -
The austerity imposed by sequestration was also really stupid. Almost like I’m not defending Obama and his pro-banker economic team. How novel!
-
Here's some of the tax cuts in the Stimulus Fraud.
Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Which part of these "massive tax cuts" were saved instead of being spent? -
ARRA included $300 billion in tax cuts. Try to keep up.SFGbob said:Here's some of the tax cuts in the Stimulus Fraud.
Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Which part of these "massive tax cuts" were saved instead of being spent? -
So, until I leave a trail of bread crumbs leading you to a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I'm a liar. AND, Snopes is an unimpeachable source. Ever look into the background and funding of Snopes? If your google machine is broken try a bing machine.2001400ex said:
Ok then post up your support. Until then you are a liar. (Well even after then you are a liar too as I know you are full of shit).Blu82 said:
Hey, Rump Ranger I didn't lie, I went deeper into the subject than the deep thinkers and researchers at Snopes went. I did this before poasting and toasting (your ass).2001400ex said:
You call me stupid and dishonest. Ok. Why don't you do the same to Lil boy Blu for his Pelosi picture? The same picture you were posting in agreement with.SFGbob said:Hondo likes to call facts that make his Kunt hurt "lies."
Meanwhile Hondo that champion strawman ass fucker loves to attribute statements and claims to others that they never said and that's not a lie.
According to you, people don't need to include SS and Medicare in the federal taxes they pay now.
Hondo you're what you get when you cross someone who is really fucking stupid with someone who is unbelievable dishonest with a full blown Kunt.
As is common, you spouted off well known liberal "research" and took it as Christ's words to Paul while keeping your head in a position of cranial-rectal inversion.
If you and Little Boy Bennie weren't such entertaining dolts I would suggest you go away. As it is, with the help of CD, your poastings provide a great deal of comedy to those with an intellect beyond a that of a 5th grader.
Before you run your cum dripping mouth I suggest you do a bit of research into what I poasted. Until then you are nothing more than the boy who cried WOLF while having a dick in your ass. -
I chuckle at this because in both instances we had massive bank failures. Yet your ignorance thinks that's irrelevant.SFGbob said:
Ah yes, the stimulus failed because it just wasn't BIG enough and "real" Socialism just hasn't been tried yet.HardlyClothed said:
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron.
The economy was out of recession in June of 2009. Given the depth of the decline the economy should have come roaring back but it didn't. Just like it didn't during the 1930s. Gosh I wonder why?
Shocking how you dodged like a Kunt every question I asked. -
So, tell us why "massive bank failures" led to or prevented an economic recovery with help from the biggest slush fund in history.
(This should be good!) -
Interesting. How did we every get out of a recession prior to the 1930s when there was little if any government "investment" let alone a "sufficient" investment?HardlyClothed said:
Wow, it’s almost as if without sufficient government investment (like the Keynesian wartime economy) getting out of a recession takes longer, which is exactly what I said in my last post. It didn’t come roaring back because the $500 billion stimilus was a joke.SFGbob said:
Ah yes, the stimulus failed because it just wasn't BIG enough and "real" Socialism just hasn't been tried yet.HardlyClothed said:
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron.
The economy was out of recession in June of 2009. Given the depth of the decline the economy should have come roaring back but it didn't. Just like it didn't during the 1930s. Gosh I wonder why?
Shocking how you dodged like a Kunt every question I asked.
In 1920-21 we had a recession. Unemployment went up to nearly 12% and yet two years later it was down to 2.4% all without any "sufficient government investment."
Btw, can you name an economic down turn that we never recovered from? And yet the two recoveries that were the weakest in the last 100 plus years were both recoveries that had plenty of "government investment."
-
And there's the strawman ass fuck. I never said they were irrelevant dumbfuck. Why even bother responding? It's not as if you ever address anything other people actually said. Get Derek to start the "Hondo Fucks strawman ass board." And then you can just argue against things you wish people had said.2001400ex said:
I chuckle at this because in both instances we had massive bank failures. Yet your ignorance thinks that's irrelevant.SFGbob said:
Ah yes, the stimulus failed because it just wasn't BIG enough and "real" Socialism just hasn't been tried yet.HardlyClothed said:
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron.
The economy was out of recession in June of 2009. Given the depth of the decline the economy should have come roaring back but it didn't. Just like it didn't during the 1930s. Gosh I wonder why?
Shocking how you dodged like a Kunt every question I asked. -
Not all recessions are created equal. Are you really that stupid? The great depression and great recession were both kicked off with massive bank failures. I've spoonfed that to you twice now.SFGbob said:
Interesting. How did we every get out of a recession prior to the 1930s when there was little if any government "investment" let alone a "sufficient" investment?HardlyClothed said:
Wow, it’s almost as if without sufficient government investment (like the Keynesian wartime economy) getting out of a recession takes longer, which is exactly what I said in my last post. It didn’t come roaring back because the $500 billion stimilus was a joke.SFGbob said:
Ah yes, the stimulus failed because it just wasn't BIG enough and "real" Socialism just hasn't been tried yet.HardlyClothed said:
Economic lightweight. The stimulus failed because it was not nearly big enough. Needed to be $2 trillion or more but investment bankers Larry Summers and Timmy Geithner kneecapped it by capping it at $500 billion. It also included massive tax cuts that were saved instead of spent, just like always. And the foreclosure crisis that wiped out the net worth of millions of middle and lower class families.SFGbob said:Why was the economy so shitty five years into the New Deal? Unemployment remained in double digits until 1941, eight years after the New policies had started. The New Deal actually retarded economic growth and crippled a strong and sustained economic recovery. Just like with Obama's recovery, all of the government spending and all of the new regulations hurt economic growth and lead to an anemic recovery.
It wasn’t regulations moron.
The economy was out of recession in June of 2009. Given the depth of the decline the economy should have come roaring back but it didn't. Just like it didn't during the 1930s. Gosh I wonder why?
Shocking how you dodged like a Kunt every question I asked.
In 1920-21 we had a recession. Unemployment went up to nearly 12% and yet two years later it was down to 2.4% all without any "sufficient government investment."
Btw, can you name an economic down turn that we never recovered from? And yet the two recoveries that were the weakest in the last 100 plus years were both recoveries that had plenty of "government investment." -
Blu82 said:
So, tell us why "massive bank failures" led to or prevented an economic recovery with help from the biggest slush fund in history.
(This should be good!)
Don't you think people losing money, tight lending practices, and a distrust in the banking system dissuades people from spending? -
Great, doesn't refute a fucking word I said. You claimed that most of them were saved and not spent. Now lets try again with the question you dodged. Which of these "massive tax cuts" in the ARRA were saved and not spent?HardlyClothed said:
ARRA included $300 billion in tax cuts. Try to keep up.SFGbob said:Here's some of the tax cuts in the Stimulus Fraud.
Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Which part of these "massive tax cuts" were saved instead of being spent? -
You claimed they didn't because the money was saved and not spent.HardlyClothed said:
They didn’t stimulate the economy because tax cuts never do. Try to follow along.SFGbob said:
Weren't most of the "massive tax cuts" in the form of a temporary pay roll tax cut that we were told is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy because most the people getting that money will spend it immediately? Was that just another lie we were told? Now this guy is claiming the "massive tax cuts" were all just saved.RaceBannon said:
I guess the jobs weren't shovel readyHardlyClothed said:The stimulus also favored short term projects over longer term investments, another reason it sucked.
Another big lie by Obama btw -
Ah yes the "austerity."HardlyClothed said:The austerity imposed by sequestration was also really stupid. Almost like I’m not defending Obama and his pro-banker economic team. How novel!
Federal Spending in 2007 - $2.729 trillion
Federal Spending in 2008 - $2.902 trillion
Federal Spending in 2009 - Obama's first year in office - $3.518 trillion
Federal Spending in 2010 - $3.456 trillion
Federal Spending in 2011 - $3.603 trillion
Federal Spending in 2011 -$3.537 trillion
Federal Spending in 2013 - the first year of the "austerity" - $3.45 trillion
Federal Spending in 2014 - $3.506 trillion.
Feel the austerity!!!! Obama spent as much in 2013 or more in 2014 after sequestration and the supposed "austerity." Also note that Obama budgets all contain a nearly a $700 - $800 billion increase from Bush's reckless spending. The 2009 Budget contains what were supposedly "one time" costs from TARP and Obama's Stimulus fraud but as you can see, the budget barely dipped in 2010 and these "one time" expenditures were now baked into the budgetary pie. But Obama's recovery sucked, we're told because we just didn't "invest" enough.
