(06-05-2011 12:50 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Yep the unemployment is going back up. Do you have any clue as to why? Could it be that the stimulus money to keep teachers employed is running out and teachers are getting cut by the hundreds-even thousands. Look it up. Look up New Jersey. Look up virtually any other state. When you have a wholesale lauoff of government workers and there are no jobs available in the private sector, the unemployment is bound to rise.

How much money of the stimulus was dedicated to keeping teachers employed? And you are proving my point. This one time infusion of dollars did not stimulate the economy in any way. Had it stimulated the economy, when those funds were gone, the economy would have picked up and the dollars to pay those teachers would be realized. See that's where you fall off the rails robert. You truly believe the government can drive an economy and grow it. As you have so clearly stated above, though accidentally, it can't.

Quote:Which is why your idea of wholesale cutting of government will actually drag the country into a depression.

Kindly point out to me where I have proposed that as an idea. And you are wrong, cutting government won't put us into depression. Cutting taxes, making it easier for small businesses to grow and trimming government debt will improve the economy. More government spending means more inflation because we have to print or borrow to do it. Are you aware of what inflation does to an economy? Obviously not.

Quote:When you cut(which will have to happen to cut the deficit), you do it slowly not all at once-unless your aim is to destroy the economy to make the President look like he is doing a bad job(which I personally believe is part of why all these teachers are being let go. It is an attempt to drag the country down so Republicans will be elected).

The stupidity of this is mind boggling. You realize that dems control 2/3 of this government right? You really believe the republicans in the House have so much power than can do that?

Geez, black helicopters are everywhere huh?

(06-05-2011 12:56 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  He lives in the REAL world.

The real world? Economic policies you moonbats have supported have destroyed this economy. Now it looks like Obama's advisers are finally wising up to what we've been saying for 4 f'n years:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/...-recovery/

So, who are the fools here? Idiots like you that think his policies are what this nation needs, when clearly they're harming the economy? I'd say hell yes.

THe article doesn't say that. Not sure where you are getting this idea from.

WTF? Did you not read it?

(06-05-2011 12:56 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  He lives in the REAL world.

The real world? Economic policies you moonbats have supported have destroyed this economy. Now it looks like Obama's advisers are finally wising up to what we've been saying for 4 f'n years:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/...-recovery/

So, who are the fools here? Idiots like you that think his policies are what this nation needs, when clearly they're harming the economy? I'd say hell yes.

THe article doesn't say that. Not sure where you are getting this idea from.

You don't have to look further than the first damn paragraph:

Quote:The Obama administration has shifted from the "rescue phase" to encouraging private sector development to push the economy off the slow burner, one of President Obama's key economic advisers said Sunday, arguing that the latest reports of a faltering economy are not a trend in the making.

(06-05-2011 12:50 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:38 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 09:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 08:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Debt "Can" be a good thing or for a better term a "manageable" thing. I always bought the argument that you can run up debt if the debt increases your income or increases your wealth. I know the blowhards like to trumpet the stimulus failed. I remember when this type of argument was reversed and the reason you can't say it failed is because we wouldn't know the alternative. Things have stabilized. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. The stock market has recovered. Anyone with a hint of honesty in their bones would admit that.

I can't stand the fact that some of you would rather build a bridge in Fallujah than Peoria. Call me crazy.

What world do you inhabit Mach?

Fantasy land. Where the stimulus worked, he can actually coach football and you and I are both on ignore.

Note the stupidity in how he tries to defend the stimulus. Things have stabilized, ergo the stimulus must be why. Problem is the stimulus wasn't sold on stabilizing the economy. It was sold on growing it. It was sold on unemployment wouldn't go over 8% if it was passed.

He then tries to argue the economy has stabilized. Really? Unemployment rising, inflation rising, housing prices continuing to drop is not stabilization. Stabilization would mean things weren't getting worse, and they are.

Dipsh!ts like mach will go to any lengths to defend Obama because they simply can't accept when they are wrong. And when it's shown to be an incontrovertable fact that they are, they have to lie and obfuscate to try and hide it. Obviously he is completely void of any of that "hint of honesty in the bones," since in light of the facts he continues to ignore reality and defend what is indefensible.

It's great entertainment.

Yep the unemployment is going back up. Do you have any clue as to why? Could it be that the stimulus money to keep teachers employed is running out and teachers are getting cut by the hundreds-even thousands. Look it up. Look up New Jersey. Look up virtually any other state. When you have a wholesale lauoff of government workers and there are no jobs available in the private sector, the unemployment is bound to rise. Which is why your idea of wholesale cutting of government will actually drag the country into a depression. When you cut(which will have to happen to cut the deficit), you do it slowly not all at once-unless your aim is to destroy the economy to make the President look like he is doing a bad job(which I personally believe is part of why all these teachers are being let go. It is an attempt to drag the country down so Republicans will be elected).

Your delusional rants are entertaining. Protecting gov't jobs are important but fck the private sector. Gov't workers better get used to the idea that it's a huge sh!t sandwich and their bite is waiting for them. There are 4 million people without jobs today than when Obama took office. Sh!t sandwich. Bite. His trillion dollar debacle failed. Shovel ready. Try something you are used to ........swallowing.

(06-05-2011 01:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:50 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 12:38 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 09:05 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 08:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Debt "Can" be a good thing or for a better term a "manageable" thing. I always bought the argument that you can run up debt if the debt increases your income or increases your wealth. I know the blowhards like to trumpet the stimulus failed. I remember when this type of argument was reversed and the reason you can't say it failed is because we wouldn't know the alternative. Things have stabilized. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. The stock market has recovered. Anyone with a hint of honesty in their bones would admit that.

I can't stand the fact that some of you would rather build a bridge in Fallujah than Peoria. Call me crazy.

What world do you inhabit Mach?

Fantasy land. Where the stimulus worked, he can actually coach football and you and I are both on ignore.

Note the stupidity in how he tries to defend the stimulus. Things have stabilized, ergo the stimulus must be why. Problem is the stimulus wasn't sold on stabilizing the economy. It was sold on growing it. It was sold on unemployment wouldn't go over 8% if it was passed.

He then tries to argue the economy has stabilized. Really? Unemployment rising, inflation rising, housing prices continuing to drop is not stabilization. Stabilization would mean things weren't getting worse, and they are.

Dipsh!ts like mach will go to any lengths to defend Obama because they simply can't accept when they are wrong. And when it's shown to be an incontrovertable fact that they are, they have to lie and obfuscate to try and hide it. Obviously he is completely void of any of that "hint of honesty in the bones," since in light of the facts he continues to ignore reality and defend what is indefensible.

It's great entertainment.

Yep the unemployment is going back up. Do you have any clue as to why? Could it be that the stimulus money to keep teachers employed is running out and teachers are getting cut by the hundreds-even thousands. Look it up. Look up New Jersey. Look up virtually any other state. When you have a wholesale lauoff of government workers and there are no jobs available in the private sector, the unemployment is bound to rise. Which is why your idea of wholesale cutting of government will actually drag the country into a depression. When you cut(which will have to happen to cut the deficit), you do it slowly not all at once-unless your aim is to destroy the economy to make the President look like he is doing a bad job(which I personally believe is part of why all these teachers are being let go. It is an attempt to drag the country down so Republicans will be elected).

Your delusional rants are entertaining. Protecting gov't jobs are important but fck the private sector. Gov't workers better get used to the idea that it's a huge sh!t sandwich and their bite is waiting for them. There are 4 million people without jobs today than when Obama took office. Sh!t sandwich. Bite. His trillion dollar debacle failed. Shovel ready. Try something you are used to ........swallowing.

Where did I say this?

On my iphone and it's hard to quote, but this is responding to Robert's #79.

That's exactly the problem with the "stimulus"--or one of them anyway. None of the "3 million jobs" that were createdorsaved is sustainable without massive infusions of federal money, and we can't run multi-trillion deficits indefinitely. Sooner or later we run out of somebody else's money. When we do, all those jobs we createdorsaved suddenly get uncreatedorunsaved.

If that money had been left in the private sector to be invested, maybe we would have created some real, sustainable jobs. We are not getting out of this until that happens. And that's not looking like happening any time soon.

(06-05-2011 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On my iphone and it's hard to quote, but this is responding to Robert's #79.

That's exactly the problem with the "stimulus"--or one of them anyway. None of the "3 million jobs" that were createdorsaved is sustainable without massive infusions of federal money, and we can't run multi-trillion deficits indefinitely. Sooner or later we run out of somebody else's money. When we do, all those jobs we createdorsaved suddenly get uncreatedorunsaved.

If that money had been left in the private sector to be invested, maybe we would have created some real, sustainable jobs. We are not getting out of this until that happens. And that's not looking like happening any time soon.

The problem is that the private sector WASN'T creating jobs. THey were dumping them. THe stimulus was to keep the jobs going UNTIL the business community started hiring. Unfortunately for Obama, the business community is sitting on their money and NOT investing. It was also a way to improve some infrastructure so businesses could be more productive. It also gave a tax break to most people in hopes that it would stimulate the economy. Some of it worked better than others but it was not a panacea and really was not meant to be.

(06-05-2011 02:12 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On my iphone and it's hard to quote, but this is responding to Robert's #79.

That's exactly the problem with the "stimulus"--or one of them anyway. None of the "3 million jobs" that were createdorsaved is sustainable without massive infusions of federal money, and we can't run multi-trillion deficits indefinitely. Sooner or later we run out of somebody else's money. When we do, all those jobs we createdorsaved suddenly get uncreatedorunsaved.

If that money had been left in the private sector to be invested, maybe we would have created some real, sustainable jobs. We are not getting out of this until that happens. And that's not looking like happening any time soon.

The problem is that the private sector WASN'T creating jobs. THey were dumping them. THe stimulus was to keep the jobs going UNTIL the business community started hiring. Unfortunately for Obama, the business community is sitting on their money and NOT investing. It was also a way to improve some infrastructure so businesses could be more productive. It also gave a tax break to most people in hopes that it would stimulate the economy. Some of it worked better than others but it was not a panacea and really was not meant to be.

And none of that worked, Gee, I wonder why? Roberta the feeble minded could you possibly explain that without using Force Majeure or the republicans as scapegoats. Lies will not get you thru it.

(06-05-2011 03:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 02:12 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On my iphone and it's hard to quote, but this is responding to Robert's #79.

That's exactly the problem with the "stimulus"--or one of them anyway. None of the "3 million jobs" that were createdorsaved is sustainable without massive infusions of federal money, and we can't run multi-trillion deficits indefinitely. Sooner or later we run out of somebody else's money. When we do, all those jobs we createdorsaved suddenly get uncreatedorunsaved.

If that money had been left in the private sector to be invested, maybe we would have created some real, sustainable jobs. We are not getting out of this until that happens. And that's not looking like happening any time soon.

The problem is that the private sector WASN'T creating jobs. THey were dumping them. THe stimulus was to keep the jobs going UNTIL the business community started hiring. Unfortunately for Obama, the business community is sitting on their money and NOT investing. It was also a way to improve some infrastructure so businesses could be more productive. It also gave a tax break to most people in hopes that it would stimulate the economy. Some of it worked better than others but it was not a panacea and really was not meant to be.

And none of that worked, Gee, I wonder why? Roberta the feeble minded could you possibly explain that without using Force Majeure or the republicans as scapegoats. Lies will not get you thru it.

Some of it worked. It did keep unemployment from getting worse than it did. If there was no stimulus, all those teachers would have been let go much sooner than they did and the unemployment rate would have skyrocketed beyond what it is now. If we go through with the tea party plan of cutting government deeply in one short period, there will be no jobs for them all. I am not arguing that there shouldn't be cuts. They are needed. It is just that if you cut them all at once, the economy would collapse.

(06-05-2011 03:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Some of it worked. It did keep unemployment from getting worse than it did. If there was no stimulus, all those teachers would have been let go much sooner than they did and the unemployment rate would have skyrocketed beyond what it is now.

I would like you to back this up with facts. one time in your life, back this statement up.

(06-05-2011 03:37 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 03:32 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Some of it worked. It did keep unemployment from getting worse than it did. If there was no stimulus, all those teachers would have been let go much sooner than they did and the unemployment rate would have skyrocketed beyond what it is now.

I would like you to back this up with facts. one time in your life, back this statement up.

What part? I can't give you specific numbers saying how high the unemployment rate would have gone without the stimulus plan because the plan was passed and implemented. Common sense tell you that if you cut lots of people and there are no jobs available for them, that the unemployment rate will go up. Common sense also tells you that drastic cuts in government(ie. job losses) will also cause the unemployment to rise significantly since there aren't enough private sector jobs for all the workers. I know common sense is difficult for you so I really don't expect you to understand. The point is that it was supposed to be a stop gap measure until the private corps started hiring again. THey haven't. THus the teachers(and other government workers) who are now being cut have no place to go because corps are sitting on their profits and not investing and growing.

It was SUPPOSE to keep unemployment from going above 8%. Jeez!!!

(06-05-2011 04:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It was SUPPOSE to keep unemployment from going above 8%. Jeez!!!

Yea and Oklahoma was supposed to win the BCS championship. What happened? circumstances change. There were some better teams than the Sooners last year. In this case, businesses didn't start hiring like they thought. Businesses sat on their profits.

(06-05-2011 04:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Common sense tell you that if you cut lots of people and there are no jobs available for them, that the unemployment rate will go up.

Back up that these cuts were going to happen. Back up how many teachers were slated to be cut prior to the stimulus being inacted. Tell me what proof you have there was no other way they would not have lost their jobs.

Back up your statements with facts fool. Google facts since you need to understand what they are.

Quote:The point is that it was supposed to be a stop gap measure until the private corps started hiring again. THey haven't. THus the teachers(and other government workers) who are now being cut have no place to go because corps are sitting on their profits and not investing and growing.

This is flooded with rank stupidity. First the point wasn't to be a stop gap. Obama was clear the point was to grow the economy.

Second the idea that business sit on profits, making a conscious decision not to grow, thus ensuring less profits, requires a level of stupidity I didn't even think you were capable of. But then again you never cease to amaze me with your ability to reach new heights of idiocy.

Robert you are far and away too ignorant to discuss matters of the economy. You lack even a basic understanding of how it works. You really should quit trying and just go back to doing your drive by posts that give us all a good laugh at your expense.

(06-05-2011 05:00 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 04:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Common sense tell you that if you cut lots of people and there are no jobs available for them, that the unemployment rate will go up.

Back up that these cuts were going to happen. Back up how many teachers were slated to be cut prior to the stimulus being inacted. Tell me what proof you have there was no other way they would not have lost their jobs.

Back up your statements with facts fool. Google facts since you need to understand what they are.

Quote:The point is that it was supposed to be a stop gap measure until the private corps started hiring again. THey haven't. THus the teachers(and other government workers) who are now being cut have no place to go because corps are sitting on their profits and not investing and growing.

This is flooded with rank stupidity. First the point wasn't to be a stop gap. Obama was clear the point was to grow the economy.

Second the idea that business sit on profits, making a conscious decision not to grow, thus ensuring less profits, requires a level of stupidity I didn't even think you were capable of. But then again you never cease to amaze me with your ability to reach new heights of idiocy.

Robert you are far and away too ignorant to discuss matters of the economy. You lack even a basic understanding of how it works. You really should quit trying and just go back to doing your drive by posts that give us all a good laugh at your expense.

Never mind. You are right. States weren't considering cutting teachers before the stimulus was passed.

So you are telling me that if you cut a lot of teachers/government workers and there are no private sector jobs for them to move into that there won't be an increase in unemployment? So you are telling me that consumer spending wouldn't decrease if these cuts are made making a recovery much more difficult(businesses won't hire if nobody is spending). Wow. Thanks. I am glad I know nothing about economics. Can you please recomend the comic book you got your economic brilliance from?

(06-05-2011 05:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Never mind. You are right. States weren't considering cutting teachers before the stimulus was passed.

I never said that fool. I told you to back up what you said. But I think you realize that, which is why you try to deflect.

Quote:So you are telling me that if you cut a lot of teachers/government workers and there are no private sector jobs for them to move into that there won't be an increase in unemployment?

Nope. If that was what I was telling you, I would have, you know, actually said it. But you'll note nowhere in any of my posts do I say that.

Quote:So you are telling me that consumer spending wouldn't decrease if these cuts are made making a recovery much more difficult(businesses won't hire if nobody is spending). Wow. Thanks. I am glad I know nothing about economics. Can you please recomend the comic book you got your economic brilliance from?

Nothing I said even hints at what you just wrote. But if you think I did say it, back it up. Should be easy, no google search required, very little effort. Just go back and copy and paste from this page where I said any of that.

I'll be waiting.

(06-05-2011 05:27 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 05:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Never mind. You are right. States weren't considering cutting teachers before the stimulus was passed.

I never said that fool. I told you to back up what you said. But I think you realize that, which is why you try to deflect.

Quote:So you are telling me that if you cut a lot of teachers/government workers and there are no private sector jobs for them to move into that there won't be an increase in unemployment?

Nope. If that was what I was telling you, I would have, you know, actually said it. But you'll note nowhere in any of my posts do I say that.

Quote:So you are telling me that consumer spending wouldn't decrease if these cuts are made making a recovery much more difficult(businesses won't hire if nobody is spending). Wow. Thanks. I am glad I know nothing about economics. Can you please recomend the comic book you got your economic brilliance from?

Nothing I said even hints at what you just wrote. But if you think I did say it, back it up. Should be easy, no google search required, very little effort. Just go back and copy and paste from this page where I said any of that.

I'll be waiting.

All you have to do is go reread your posts. Those are things you said or implied.

As for the numbers of teachers that would have been cut, the number that are currently being cut would be a good guess. You can try going through all these links and adding it up. It should be close to the amount that was delayed by about a year. I will see if I can find an actual number. I heard somewhere it was 125,000 but I am not sure if that was in one month or over a period of time.

http://search.comcast.net/?cat=web&con=p...rchSubmit=

(06-05-2011 05:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  All you have to do is go reread your posts. Those are things you said or implied.

Yet amazingly you can't repost them as evidence. If all I have to do is reread my posts, they should be there for you to easily cut and paste now shouldn't they? So do it a$$hat. For once, in your fuggin life, back up what you say with facts.

Quote:As for the numbers of teachers that would have been cut, the number that are currently being cut would be a good guess.

How? Why is what is happening now a good indicator of what would have happened then? Why do you need a guess? You have stated as a fact that hundreds of thousands of teachers were going to be cut. Why can't you back that up? Taking a guess now is not backing it up robert. So try again. Or admit you have nothing to base your statement on other than the fantasy world you've built in your head.

(06-05-2011 05:53 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-05-2011 05:43 PM)RobertN Wrote:  All you have to do is go reread your posts. Those are things you said or implied.

Yet amazingly you can't repost them as evidence. If all I have to do is reread my posts, they should be there for you to easily cut and paste now shouldn't they? So do it a$$hat. For once, in your fuggin life, back up what you say with facts.

Quote:As for the numbers of teachers that would have been cut, the number that are currently being cut would be a good guess.

How? Why is what is happening now a good indicator of what would have happened then? Why do you need a guess? You have stated as a fact that hundreds of thousands of teachers were going to be cut. Why can't you back that up? Taking a guess now is not backing it up robert. So try again. Or admit you have nothing to base your statement on other than the fantasy world you've built in your head.

In the syimulus plan:

"Schools
A main goal of education spending in the stimulus bill is to help keep teachers on the job.

Nearly 600,000 jobs in elementary and secondary schools could be eliminated by state budget cuts over the next three years, according to a study released last week by the University of Washington. Fewer teachers mean bigger classes, something that districts are scrambling to prevent.

The stimulus sets up a $54 billion fund to help prevent or restore state budget cuts, of which $39 billion must go toward kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education. In addition, about $8 billion of the fund could be used for other priorities, including modernization and renovation of schools and colleges, though how much is unclear, because Congress decided not to specify a dollar figure.

The Education Department will distribute the money as quickly as it can over the next couple of years.

And it adds $25 billion extra to No Child Left Behind and special education programs, which help pay teacher salaries, among other things.

This money may go out much more slowly; states have five years to spend the dollars, and they have a history of spending them slowly. In fact, states don't spend all the money; they return nearly $100 million to the federal treasury every year.

The stimulus bill also includes more than $4 billion for Head Start early education programs and for child care programs."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inv...t-you.aspx

Well done robert. For the first time in your life you made an actual effort to back up your statements with facts. Congrats.

Still missing the cut and paste of all those things you say I said, but baby steps.

Now,

Quote:Nearly 600,000 jobs in elementary and secondary schools could be eliminated by state budget cuts over the next three years,

Note the word could not would. You state in your posts it was a given those jobs would go away. There is nothing to support it being a fact.

Second, it was 54 billion out of 787 billion, or roughly 7% of the entire stimulus. The stimulus was sold on the fact that it would grow the economy. That has not happened. Simply funding teachers for a few years does not stimulate economic growth. 600,000 consumers in a nation of over 300 million spending less would not even move the needle as it pertains to the overall economy.

I'll give you credit for actually looking something up. The next step is for you to develop the deductive logic abilities to reason through what it is that you read.

Baby steps.