Posted on 01/29/2009 7:57:16 AM PST by Clinton's a liar
Talking points, for sure. It’s completely unacceptable from someone in a leadership position!
“There you go. Like many who have no idea about economics, you contradict without back-up. Com one tr6 give me some content. Or do you even know what economics are?”
LOL, contradict without back-up? You mean like this?
TROLL ALERT!!!
Nancy gets reelected by something like 80% of the vote. It is, after all, San Francisco.
Our hope to get rid of her is to elect Repub congressmen to the house, putting Repubs in as majority party. Bye bye Nancy.
Hmmm, post 302. OK, LATE TROLL ALERT!!!
Don’t forget garlic, and decapitation :)
She can panic all she wants: it will endear her more to those dumb CA constituents.
My FRiend, how am I supposed to argue with someone who simply said I was wrong without telling me why?
Alas, trying to argue economics with those who trust their “gut” on this topic is like having an conversation with a fish.
Realstically you proved two things with your commentary:
1. You seem to have some clue about economics which makes you clearly stand out from 99% of people posting here
2. You actually agree with me most of the time
3. You see the Depression, it causes and its lengthening through a skewed lens of partisianship (as opposed to historical fact where there was an attempt to balance the budget in the mid-30s) but otherwise have a pretty good grasp on reality.
I like you thought processes.
It is like saying “you want to talk about extremely spicy - have you ever eaten haggis?” Both of them are references to food, but have absolutely nothing to do with one another. So either you don't know what “spicy” means or you don't know what haggis is.
I saw plenty of arguments offered in later posts. What got me, was that you seemed to immediately assume the other poster did not know what he was talking about. You complained about him not offering anything to back up his position, and then did exactly the same thing.
From my college ECON classes (quite a while back), I remember the prof making anyone taking any position back it up in depth. He also made sure everyone took a position.
I can see your point, but I tend to give the benefit of a doubt. Maybe someone is just initially doing a casual post, and is not in front of my old ECON prof. :)
* Jobs in their own communities — What?? Republican’s don’t want temporary prevailing wage construction jobs in their districts that are full of laid off white-collar workers?
Hey Nancy! How about we don’t get into the business of picking the winners and losers, cut taxes across the board and repeal the capital gains tax so we can stimulate the private sector as a whole and we can all go back to work.
* Tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers — How in the world can we give tax relief to people who don’t pay any taxes? If welfare stimulated the economy, we never would have had the recessions we had since we became a welfare state. How about tax cuts for 95% of all tax PAYERS as a happy compromise?
* Long overdue investments that will transform and grow their economies to compete globally — What planet is this woman on if she thinks education is the only key to competition when public policy has just as much to do with the bottom line? It’s the overall cost of employing someone here vs. somewhere else. It’s that simple, and there’s nothing in this bill that addresses that.
* Critical services in their own communities, such as police officers, teachers, and health care — These *might* need some temporary help, but these should not be one of the the primary factors of a stimulus package which they currently are, because it isn’t stimulative.
* 2.6 million American jobs were lost in 2008 alone. — How much did this have to do with the federal reserve not living up to its legislated goals like: preventing asset bubbles, controlling inflation, keeping the value of the dollar stable, and regulating financial institutions leverage. And who is responsible to make sure the Fed is doing what its supposed to?? It wasn’t Bush. And... who just confirmed the chairman of the NY Fed as the Treasury Sec.?
* The national debt has almost doubled in the last eight years; the debt borrowed from foreign countries has tripled. — This is the exact reason we can’t spend this much on a package of nothing but government programs that don’t function, much less do it and call it economic stimulus.
* The Clinton Administration left a record budget surplus. President Bush turned it into the worst deficit in American history. — One would think the Speaker of the House knows who holds the power of the purse. The Clinton Administration was backed by a Republican congress that started on a journey of spending cuts that Democrats fought every step of the way. She can’t fool me. I remember what 1995-96 was like.
* We face an economic recession unrivaled since the Great Depression, as a result of years of failure to invest in our own global competitiveness... — Ok so what has she been doing all these years in the House to bring down the cost of employing people here vs. somewhere else? Anything at all? I suppose wealth redistibution and organized labor got in the way of that.
...failures to bring common sense to Wall Street and our housing market... — I suppose she thinks the Community Reinvestment Act and EOL ratings helped make sense of the housing market and Wall Street. Those aren’t Republican issues, dear.
...and tax policies that favored massive corporations and most affluent individuals. — I could only imagine how bad the economy would have been the last eight years if the people who create jobs in such nonsensical regulatory regimes as ours had to give it all to Uncle Same instead.
This is not the first time the Republicans in the House have unanimously voted against a needed economic package. The last time, in 1993, when Democrats voted for tough action to clean up after Republican economic mess, not a single Republican voted for the legislation that produced record surpluses and a balanced budget. — It’s interesting how the Republican Congress got to work undoing all of the “stimulus” after they took over in 1994, and after they had not had any real congressional (spending or policy)power for 30 years. So who’s economic mess was being cleaned up in 1993? Maybe it was from the tax hike in 1990 that congressional Deomcrats fought for.
Once again this week, as another Democratic President and Democratic Congress worked to address historic deficits and recession brought on by Republican mismanagement of the economy — Only Democrats would address ‘historic deficits’ by making them larger in one month than Republicans did in 12 years. Republicans didn’t get into trouble by acting like Republicans, they did it by acting like Democrat-lites, and the Democrats are proving that they can out Democrat Republicans any day of the week, in their sleep even.
not a single Republican voted for the legislation. Thank God!
This is a meaningless statement. All but one could be Keynesian economists and the statement would be accurate. It's one of those unprovable remarks used to gin popular support without having to prove anything.
I read on another thread this morning that Kyl and others are hinting at a possible filibuster in the Senate. They weren't sure of the votes yet, so this may be posturing. Also, it would only take few RINOs to side with the democrats to break the filibuster and bring the bill to cloture.
DELUSIONAL
No, just meaningless.
Two economists, one Keynesian, one not, may support some form of government intervention and they'd fulfill this statement. It's a meaningless remark that carries no logical weight.
Way to go, “Nine Percent” Nancy!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30473
I posted MY COMMENT there a few minutes ago!
Ping! Ping! Ping!
No, you stupid b!tch,
Record surplusses and a balanced budget occurred starting in 1995, after the Republicans took over.
Size of the debt (as a percentage of GDP)
Size of the annual deficit/surplus (as a percentage of GDP)
Get it straight.
This is going to be a fun time for those of us who enjoy Schadenfreude, even as we are assaulted by the rush toward socialism.
Here's another bowl for someone who wants it:
If Republicans are in an untenable position, Nancy should be celebrating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.