18 trillion in debt and Obamacare and QE ended

[American]

mmmm, my statements are not mutually exclusive. Its no surprise that you think they are. I simply pointed out your "gotcha" moment based on a false conservative narrative "the Left hates lower taxes" was rather foolish. If "stimulus" is what they want, tax cuts are not really the best answer. They are an option but it just seems that they are always offered as fix for everything (even hilariously offered to cut the deficit). And when the upper brackets receive the most benefit, its clearly not a "stimulus" effort.

Seems to me you said two different things. Are tax cuts good or not?

 

[Vern]

Seems to me you said two different things. Are tax cuts good or not?

mmmmm, I actually answered that question. mmmmm, I tell you what, I'll answer it again if you answer "do tax cuts pay for themselves?"

tax cuts are not good when its not for a stimulus. And when its for a stimulus, its not good if the benefit mostly goes to the upper bracket. You keep thinking the world is the way your radio masters tell you the world is. remember when they told you that President Obama was born in Kenya and a secret muslim, wanted to kill old people and the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero"? So "the left" doesn't hate tax cuts. They hate giveaways to the rich for no reason.

So, do tax cuts pay for themselves?

 

[American]

mmmmm, I actually answered that question. mmmmm, I tell you what, I'll answer it again if you answer "do tax cuts pay for themselves?"

tax cuts are not good when its not for a stimulus. And when its for a stimulus, its not good if the benefit mostly goes to the upper bracket. You keep thinking the world is the way your radio masters tell you the world is. remember when they told you that President Obama was born in Kenya and a secret muslim, wanted to kill old people and the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero"? So "the left" doesn't hate tax cuts. They hate giveaways to the rich for no reason.

So, do tax cuts pay for themselves?

I was never on the birther bandwagon, but you keep trying. You might get something correct one day.

 

[Vern]

I was never on the birther bandwagon, but you keep trying. You might get something correct one day.

I like how you seem "offended" at the thought someone may have called you a birther. I was actually trying to make the point that the same people/media outlet/bumper sticker that told you "the left hates tax cuts" are pretty much the same sources that you told that President Obama was born in Kenya and a secret muslim, wanted to kill old people and the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero." If the notion that you were a birther is so offensive, you must really be offended that your sources of information had no problem "misleading" conservatives on that issue.

but I noticed you didn't answer a simple question about tax cuts that was a serious conservative narrative "tax cuts pay for themselves." Do you believe that? Or is that another thing that the conservative entertainment complex spewed as a fact and conservatives obediently parroted that would offend you if I thought you believed it?

 

[OrphanSlug]

mmmmm, I actually answered that question. mmmmm, I tell you what, I'll answer it again if you answer "do tax cuts pay for themselves?"

tax cuts are not good when its not for a stimulus. And when its for a stimulus, its not good if the benefit mostly goes to the upper bracket. You keep thinking the world is the way your radio masters tell you the world is. remember when they told you that President Obama was born in Kenya and a secret muslim, wanted to kill old people and the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero"? So "the left" doesn't hate tax cuts. They hate giveaways to the rich for no reason.

So, do tax cuts pay for themselves?

In the right condition they can, even Keynes believed so.

 

[American]

I like how you seem "offended" at the thought someone may have called you a birther. I was actually trying to make the point that the same people/media outlet/bumper sticker that told you "the left hates tax cuts" are pretty much the same sources that you told that President Obama was born in Kenya and a secret muslim, wanted to kill old people and the stimulus would cause "hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero." If the notion that you were a birther is so offensive, you must really be offended that your sources of information had no problem "misleading" conservatives on that issue.

but I noticed you didn't answer a simple question about tax cuts that was a serious conservative narrative "tax cuts pay for themselves." Do you believe that? Or is that another thing that the conservative entertainment complex spewed as a fact and conservatives obediently parroted that would offend you if I thought you believed it?

I think certain taxes are necessary. But I think the govt is far too involved in certain duties. So I support cutting taxes along with cutting spending in certain areas.

 

[Vern]

I think certain taxes are necessary. But I think the govt is far too involved in certain duties. So I support cutting taxes along with cutting spending in certain areas.

just to be clear, that's not what I asked you. again. Why do you bother to reply to my posts if you don't reply to my posts? what is it about the conservative "agenda" that precludes conservatives from posting clear straight forward statements or even answering simple questions. So since you're not a birther or a "tax cuts pay for themselves" conservative, it must have upset you to hear the conservative entertainment complex push those false "narratives" and be even more upset when you hear other conservatives parrot those false narratives.

and speaking of false conservative narratives, the thread is about 3 of them that "foretold" of the economy's doom. I don't mind the lying conservative narratives so much but I find it disturbing that conservatives are actually mad that the economy didn't collapse. the only other group I can think of that openly roots for that is al queda.

 

[American]

just to be clear, that's not what I asked you. again. Why do you bother to reply to my posts if you don't reply to my posts? what is it about the conservative "agenda" that precludes conservatives from posting clear straight forward statements or even answering simple questions. So since you're not a birther or a "tax cuts pay for themselves" conservative, it must have upset you to hear the conservative entertainment complex push those false "narratives" and be even more upset when you hear other conservatives parrot those false narratives.

and speaking of false conservative narratives, the thread is about 3 of them that "foretold" of the economy's doom. I don't mind the lying conservative narratives so much but I find it disturbing that conservatives are actually mad that the economy didn't collapse. the only other group I can think of that openly roots for that is al queda.

You should learn to calm down, seems you're at your wits end.

 

[Vern]

You should learn to calm down, seems you're at your wits end.

American, you continue to hit the reply button but you don’t reply to my post. In addition to still not answering a simple question you are now trying to make the conversation about me. don’t get me wrong, I’m flattered. It means you cant address the facts I’ve posted. But American, if you incapable or unwilling to even attempt to have an honest or intelligent discussion, why are you in this thread let alone a debate forum?

read the next post for an excellent example of what an honest and intelligent reply looks like

 

[Vern]

In the right condition they can, even Keynes believed so.

I’m sorry OS, I don’t believe that. I don’t doubt you can find “studies” that claim they could but the fact of the matter is republicans either don’t “implement” them with the “right conditions” or they simply don’t pay for themselves. Here’s what Bush’s CEA thinks about tax cuts

" The President’s own Council of Economic Advisors concluded in its Economic Report of the President, 2003, that, “although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”[15] The CEA chair at the time was conservative economist Glenn Hubbard."

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is “no credible evidence” that “tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.” He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”[13]

Claim That Tax Cuts "Pay For Themselves" Is Too Good To Be True — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And could you post a link for the Keynes thing. it just doesn’t seem like something he would concern himself with.

 

[Fearandloathing]

OH MY!

mmmm, I pretty sure conservatives have assured me that each one of those things would destroy the economy in some fashion. Certainly all three together will clearly end life as we know it in this country. Should I stock up on survival seeds? How long do those things last anyway? I figure the ones cons bought back in 2009 much be getting to the end of their shelf life. anyhoo

Amid Global Slowdown, U.S. Growth Keeps Looking Better
GDP Revision Shows Expansion at 3.9% Pace, for Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade

U.S. Third-Quarter GDP Revised Up to 3.9% Growth - WSJ

Just what the universe needs...yet another hate-the-right bait thread.

Guess what? The figures are bull**** steeped in manure

 

[OrphanSlug]

And could you post a link for the Keynes thing. it just doesn’t seem like something he would concern himself with.

"Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

The Means to Prosperity, Keynes. Chapter 1, page 7.

 

[Vern]

"Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget."

The Means to Prosperity, Keynes. Chapter 1, page 7.

sorry OS, if Keynes only published that one sentence, you might be able to pretend that’s what he’s saying. But his whole theory was stimulus in weak economic conditions. Even if you don’t know his theory, the very next sentence should give you some pause to your belief that "even Keynes believed so."

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget. For to take the opposite view to-day is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more;—and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.

With the two sentences it sure looks he made a case against ‘austerity’. Anyhoo, did you not notice that even Bush's CEA said tax cuts don't pay for themselves? I did post it. And did you notice I wasn’t posting just one sentence out of context to try to make my point. I posted several sentences that worked together and were clear and straightforward.

 

[Vern]

Just what the universe needs...yet another hate-the-right bait thread.

Guess what? The figures are bull**** steeped in manure

Just what the universe needs...yet another conservatives-as-victims-because-they-don't-want-any-scrutiny-or-discussion-of-their-narratives-and-actions whine post.

Guess what? Your attempt to deflect from the thread topic is bull**** steeped in manure.

You know what FL, if my goal was to win a childish argument, I just won. But that wasnt my goal. My goal is to discuss the non stop conservative narratives that consistently turn out to be wrong. At some point even cons have to start to wonder if maybe they're not 'good faith' predictions but simply lying propaganda designed to incite fear and anger in their base. And remember, these are the same people who told you that President Obama was born in Kenya, wanted to kill old people and his stimulus would cause hyper inflation, dollar collapse and market to zero.

 

[OrphanSlug]

sorry OS, if Keynes only published that one sentence, you might be able to pretend that’s what he’s saying. But his whole theory was stimulus in weak economic conditions. Even if you don’t know his theory, the very next sentence should give you some pause to your belief that "even Keynes believed so."

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the Budget. For to take the opposite view to-day is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more;—and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.

With the two sentences it sure looks he made a case against ‘austerity’. Anyhoo, did you not notice that even Bush's CEA said tax cuts don't pay for themselves? I did post it. And did you notice I wasn’t posting just one sentence out of context to try to make my point. I posted several sentences that worked together and were clear and straightforward.

Close, but there was nothing wrong with my context.

What Keynes was referring to with the entire quote (really, the entire 'The Means to Prosperity') was economic behavior, in this case with the text used taxation at the right level as to not discourage income but maximize income and therefore eventually maximize revenues. The part you included was to make a statement about the fallacy of raising prices in the face of declining sales to make a point about behavior from poor economic / or fiscal choices. As such, there is no reason to raise taxes when tax revenues are down due to some economic deficiency, often defined by Keynes in terms of aggregate demand (but not exclusive to that subject.) The proper course is to lower taxes and increase spending in ways to effect aggregate demand. Short term debt, not all the time debt.

My original post in this thread was about the suggestion that there is the "right conditions" to lower taxes and see that pay for itself in later tax revenues. It would depend on where we are in the economic cycle. Keynes statement supports the notion, and was in context of what I was saying. I have no reason to "pause" as fundamentally Keynes understood taxation and economic behavior as evidenced by my quote, your addition, and the entire document in question.

BTW, Bush 43's tax cuts did not pay for themselves because, like a total ass, he went to war twice on the backs of a tax break. Something that no economist would ever suggest no matter where we are in the economic cycle or what the conditions of the underline economic indicators are.

 

[Vern]

Close, but there was nothing wrong with my context.

..........The proper course is to lower taxes and increase spending in ways to effect aggregate demand. Short term debt, not all the time debt.
....

I’m sorry OS, I think it’s out of context to try to say Keynes was claiming “tax cuts pay for themselves.” I just don’t understand the need to try to make his words fit a narrative. Anyhoo, if you want to believe that is what Keynes was saying go right ahead. But you clearly understand his concept of stimulus in a weak economy.

so when republicans were calling for spending cuts in 2009 to address the worst recession since the depression you knew they were advocating the worst possible solution right? I personally think they were lying when they told their base that the stimulus would cause “hyperinflation, dollar collapse and market to zero.” Their agenda was to incite fear and anger in their base. The case could be made that they were just wrong but the problem is its just one of many conservative narratives that were wrong and incited fear and anger in their base. This thread is about 3 other conservative narratives that incited fear and anger in their base and turned out to be wrong. And those are just the economic based ones. Do you see a trend?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I’m sorry OS, I think it’s out of context to try to say Keynes was claiming “tax cuts pay for themselves.” I just don’t understand the need to try to make his words fit a narrative. Anyhoo, if you want to believe that is what Keynes was saying go right ahead. But you clearly understand his concept of stimulus in a weak economy.

so when republicans were calling for spending cuts in 2009 to address the worst recession since the depression you knew they were advocating the worst possible solution right? I personally think they were lying when they told their base that the stimulus would cause “hyperinflation, dollar collapse and market to zero.” Their agenda was to incite fear and anger in their base. The case could be made that they were just wrong but the problem is its just one of many conservative narratives that were wrong and incited fear and anger in their base. This thread is about 3 other conservative narratives that incited fear and anger in their base and turned out to be wrong. And those are just the economic based ones. Do you see a trend?

You are doing the same thing and not seeing it.

When Republicans were calling for spending cuts in 2009 (really around 2012 and 2013 leading up to the shutdown,) you are making the inherent suggestion that spending at the time was stimulus in intention. While some of course was we also had quite a bit of spending which did little to effect aggregate demand issues. In fact, any objective review of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will show that way too much of the act went to shoring up State budgets, spending on healthcare (mostly Medicaid,) and "protecting the vulnerable" and way too little went to infrastructure and technology. You could argue well that "stimulus spending" all over the period was politically squandered in one way or another. So the Republicans calling for cuts and Democrats saying they were spending for the economy is a bit of a lie... all the way around.

To further my point, spending policies in key areas from 2009 to present are doing exactly opposite to what Keynes would have suggested in how we handle an economy dealing with aggregate demand deficiencies. I offer the below as a snapshot of our infrastructure spending going back to before the financial system implosion. I would argue the below trend on spending tells us we failed in our efforts to reduce the amplitude of the economic trough and length of recovery period. The one place we should spend to get the biggest bang for the buck is ignored by both (D) and (R) and we see the results. Our growth is still prone to issue, we have the lowest labor participation rate, we still have fundamental problems with labor rates at each quintile level (as in way to many at the bottom 5th while others are still behind 2007 numbers,) and we are still way too high on the percentage of the population on one or more forms of government assistance. On top of all this we now have over $18 Trillion in debt, a debt to GDP ratio above 100% and still a weak economy. While we happen to be doing better than others we still have serious concerns dealing with debt over the long term including everything the Fed has done to increase their debt held some 400%+ since the recession. All not good.

If anything the only reason we have a falling deficit is because of political gridlock in spending wants, which seems to be squandered anyway in whatever they pass. A good place to look is what got the latest bill through.

So you tell me, you really think we were spending the right way when it mattered most in 2009 to present? You sure that is the story you want to go with?

 

[Vern]

You are doing the same thing and not seeing it.

I don't know what you mean that I'm doing the same thing. Anyhoo, I cant be bothered with your stimulus rant. I obliged your off topic posts because I thought you had some interesting things to say. If you want to discuss the thread topic that once again conservative narratives foretelling of the economy's doom that turned out to be false and whose only purpose seems to be to incite fear and anger in the conservative base I'm all ears.

 

[Conservative]

I don't know what you mean that I'm doing the same thing. Anyhoo, I cant be bothered with your stimulus rant. I obliged your off topic posts because I thought you had some interesting things to say. If you want to discuss the thread topic that once again conservative narratives foretelling of the economy's doom that turned out to be false and whose only purpose seems to be to incite fear and anger in the conservative base I'm all ears.

Amazing what low expectations you have which is typical liberalism. Do you give a damn about the high number of part time employees, the numbers of unemployed, the low economic growth, the fact that we are over 18 trillion in debt which is ballooning debt service? Does it bother you that Obama has a 15% approval rating with the troops

Obama's job approval plummets among US service members | TheHill

Does it bother you that the U-6 rate is still over 11%? Nothing seems to bother you because what you show is just how selfish liberals really are. You have your job, you have your own security therefore nothing else matters?

Only a true liberal couldn't care less about high debt, low economic growth, high numbers of part time employees, higher insurance costs, massive expansion of govt. and dependence. Yes, that is true liberalism

 

[Vern]

Amazing what low expectations you have which is typical liberalism. Do you give a damn about the high number of part time employees, the numbers of unemployed, the low economic growth, the fact that we are over 18 trillion in debt which is ballooning debt service? Does it bother you that Obama has a 15% approval rating with the troops

Obama's job approval plummets among US service members | TheHill

Does it bother you that the U-6 rate is still over 11%? Nothing seems to bother you because what you show is just how selfish liberals really are. You have your job, you have your own security therefore nothing else matters?

Only a true liberal couldn't care less about high debt, low economic growth, high numbers of part time employees, higher insurance costs, massive expansion of govt. and dependence. Yes, that is true liberalism

What truly bothers me is how your BDS prevents you holding those accountable for destroying the economy in the first place. And it bothers me that you pretend to care about average Americans but cheer on the republicans' obstruction of attempts to help them.

and it bothers me that you just use my posts to vent your BDS driven delusions. But since you're here, wasn't Obamacare, QE ending and 18 trillion in debt supposed to destroy the economy all by themselves?

 

[Conservative]

What truly bothers me is how your BDS prevents you holding those accountable for destroying the economy in the first place. And it bothers me that you pretend to care about average Americans but cheer on the republicans' obstruction of attempts to help them.

and it bothers me that you just use my posts to vent your BDS driven delusions. But since you're here, wasn't Obamacare, QE ending and 18 trillion in debt supposed to destroy the economy all by themselves?

What is amazing is how you apparently never took a civics class. Interesting how you believe creating dependence is actually helping anyone. Any idea what the debt service is going to be on the 18 plus trillion in debt when interest rates begin to rise or do you believe these record low interest rates are going to last forever?

Notice you never address the actual posts and by the way BDS is what you have, not me. Your obsession with Bush is a sickness. Seems you cannot accept the reality that Obama has lost much of his support from those who voted for him, wonder why?

 

[Vern]

What is amazing is how you apparently never took a civics class.

Hypocrisy/ Whining. Con, constantly deflecting with dishonest posts is rude. I don’t complain because it just proves you cant have an intelligent or honest conversation of the facts I post. But its still rude.

Interesting how you believe creating dependence is actually helping anyone.

Delusion/Deflection. here con posts his ideological delusion as fact. And see how his delusion has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing. His BDS creates an emotional need to blurt out random and pointless delusions. My posts seem to aggravate his BDS.

Any idea what the debt service is going to be on the 18 plus trillion in debt when interest rates begin to rise or do you believe these record low interest rates are going to last forever?

Dishonest/Deflection. Just more babble pretending to an actual point. His BDS prevents him from holding Bush and republicans accountable for causing the deficits when they destroyed the economy but he feigns concern. If he truly cared about debt and deficits, he would vote democrat. And of course his BDS doesn’t allow him to acknowledge that President Obama has reduced the deficit below its 40 year average.

Notice you never address the actual posts and by the way BDS is what you have, not me. Your obsession with Bush is a sickness. Seems you cannot accept the reality that Obama has lost much of his support from those who voted for him, wonder why?

Projection/Delusion/Hypocrisy. Oh Con , I directly address your posts. Please show me where you’ve addressed the best 2 qtr stretch of GDP in 10 years and how that is the opposite of what conservatives predicted (its the thread topic) And of course Con tries to project his mental illness onto me. I simply post facts. Facts upset Conservative. His acute BDS forces him to post any lie, whine, deflection or spin to make the hurting stop.

 

[Conservative]

Hypocrisy/ Whining. Con, constantly deflecting with dishonest posts is rude. I don’t complain because it just proves you cant have an intelligent or honest conversation of the facts I post. But its still rude.



Delusion/Deflection. here con posts his ideological delusion as fact. And see how his delusion has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing. His BDS creates an emotional need to blurt out random and pointless delusions. My posts seem to aggravate his BDS.



Dishonest/Deflection. Just more babble pretending to an actual point. His BDS prevents him from holding Bush and republicans accountable for causing the deficits when they destroyed the economy but he feigns concern. If he truly cared about debt and deficits, he would vote democrat. And of course his BDS doesn’t allow him to acknowledge that President Obama has reduced the deficit below its 40 year average.




Projection/Delusion/Hypocrisy. Oh Con , I directly address your posts. Please show me where you’ve addressed the best 2 qtr stretch of GDP in 10 years and how that is the opposite of what conservatives predicted (its the thread topic) And of course Con tries to project his mental illness onto me. I simply post facts. Facts upset Conservative. His acute BDS forces him to post any lie, whine, deflection or spin to make the hurting stop.

God knows I have tried, The best two quarter stretch in 10 years still doesn't equal the AVERAGE YEARLY GROWTH of the U.S. economy nor can you tell me what Obama has done to generate that growth after 6 years in office. You seem to believe what you read from leftwing sites and ignore actual data as well as basic economics and civics. Isn't the U.S. Free Enterprise economy great, it only took 6 years to recover from Obama. Wonder why it is that with this so called great economy, Obama has such a low approval rating? Seems that the majority in this country know what you fail to recognize, Obama is incompetent and so are his supporters.

Civics will tell you that budgets are yearly which makes deficits yearly. Too bad you don't understand how 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers affect govt. revenue causing the yearly deficits that you want to blame Bush for. Too bad, Vern, but civics, economics, logic, and common sense aren't in your DNA.

 

[Vern]

God knows I have tried, The best two quarter stretch in 10 years still doesn't equal the AVERAGE YEARLY GROWTH of the U.S. economy

Oh Con, your non stop dishonesty is rude. I don’t really care but you seem to be whining about “rudeness” lately so I thought I point it out. Lets examine your dishonest statement.

Nobody said it equals annual GDP. You do realize its going to account for half of the “ AVERAGE YEARLY GROWTH of the U.S. economy” right? probably not. But Con, I mention the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade in the context that cons are ranting that the exact opposite would happen based on each individual lying conservative narratives. How is the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade even possible with all three of those “conservative boogiemen” running loose? Its what the thread is about.

nor can you tell me what Obama has done to generate that growth after 6 years in office.

I’ve told you many times. Everytime I've posted the facts you just use it as an excuse to spew more of your deflecting delusional rants. You pretending to not know is rude and dishonest but sadly typical.

You seem to believe what you read from leftwing sites and ignore actual data as well as basic economics and civics.

Con, you once again prove you are incapable of responding in an honest and intelligent fashion. Pretending WSJ is a leftwing website doesn’t make the fact that we’ve experienced the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade magically go away. Whining that I ignore actual data as you actually ignore actual data is hypocritical and dishonest.

I know you have an acute case of BDS but it doesn’t absolve you of your childish, rude and dishonest posts. This is debate forum not an elementary school playground.

 

[Conservative]

Oh Con, your non stop dishonesty is rude. I don’t really care but you seem to be whining about “rudeness” lately so I thought I point it out. Lets examine your dishonest statement.

Nobody said it equals annual GDP. You do realize its going to account for half of the “ AVERAGE YEARLY GROWTH of the U.S. economy” right? probably not. But Con, I mention the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade in the context that cons are ranting that the exact opposite would happen based on each individual lying conservative narratives. How is the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade even possible with all three of those “conservative boogiemen” running loose? Its what the thread is about.



I’ve told you many times. Everytime I've posted the facts you just use it as an excuse to spew more of your deflecting delusional rants. You pretending to not know is rude and dishonest but sadly typical.



Con, you once again prove you are incapable of responding in an honest and intelligent fashion. Pretending WSJ is a leftwing website doesn’t make the fact that we’ve experienced the Best Two-Quarter Stretch in More Than a Decade magically go away. Whining that I ignore actual data as you actually ignore actual data is hypocritical and dishonest.

I know you have an acute case of BDS but it doesn’t absolve you of your childish, rude and dishonest posts. This is debate forum not an elementary school playground.

Dishonesty is ignoring that the debt exceeds the entire GDP of the country so to claim that this is the best GDP growth in 10 years takes into account nothing since it is yearly growth that matters and still the debt exceeds GDP. When did GW Bush have more debt than actual GDP? Current GDP 17.6 trillion with a debt of 18.1 trillion. That to a liberal is exceptional results?


What magically goes away with you is common sense, logic, and reality. The Current GDP growth matters not because the annual GDP is what matters and right now the annual GDP Growth is boosted by record low interest rates. Amazing isn't it, that with such a great economy Obama has still lost 10% of his voters and still has very low approval ratings. Wonder why? Could it be you live in a liberal dream world that ignores reality and what is actually happening in the real world?