How many times can you take credit for the same 500,000 jobs?

[OpportunityCost]

I know tea partiers can't think for themselves, so they find it odd that other people do. Get used to it.

shrug, I can think for myself just fine. I find it funny you two are arguing the exact opposite thing but want Obama to take credit for the upside in both cases.

 

[head of joaquin]

shrug, I can think for myself just fine. I find it funny you two are arguing the exact opposite thing but want Obama to take credit for the upside in both cases.

Whooosh! right over your head. It isn't the exact opposite thing. But feel free to get back to your regular scheduled meme.

 

[blaxshep]

1. Stimulus. 2.AHCA. 3.Dodd Frank. 4.Ending Bush's vanity wars. 5.Raising taxes on the top bracket.

1. Bush did same
2. Another big Government disaster not even implemented yet.
3. No even implemented yet
4. Wars still going and in fact expanded, Iraq ended because Bush signed treaty Obama is still pushing to keep troops there to spite the treaty.
5. You that whole $85Billion Obama got and spent already?

Man you really need to buy a vowel.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Maybe they should compare notes and see what narrative they want to push.

Hint: maybe you ought to understand what the two responses were addressing....they were not the same thing.

But I suppose this is just another example of you "raising the level".

 

[head of joaquin]

1. Bush did same
2. Another big Government disaster not even implemented yet.
3. No even implemented yet
4. Wars still going and in fact expanded, Iraq ended because Bush signed treaty Obama is still pushing to keep troops there to spite the treaty.
5. You that whole $85Billion Obama got and spent already?

Man you really need to buy a vowel.

Oh dear the reverse-meme, plus a No True Scotsman yelp.

Like clockwork.

 

[Fenton]

Supply-side BS. The economy is not
a "build it and they will come" fantasy.

If you think the attempts at reviving the economy was limited to monetary policy/efforts, you just have no business commenting here.

Bwaha !

Well of course, Obama and his post Keynesian malfeasance have really shown us supply siders up.

Your'e purposely ignoring 3 things...Qe 1 , Qe2 and Qe3..

Why are we on our 3rd round of QE ?

Because your'e telling me Obama's had a multi-tiered approach to solving our economic woes.

But for some reason chose to go back to printing and monetizing most of our short term debt, inflating assets and bonds all under alse pretenses, because his other economic policies were working ?

Lol..Hell QE isn't even working !

Our unprecedented and ineffectual QE is being added to other unprecedented and ineffectual economic policies....ok, got it.

I swear I dont remember Obama talking about this plan in 2008.

 

[Dickieboy]

Nothing like an old article to not make a point. The EU has recognized the utter failure of austerity. The only people who haven't are desperate delusional American conservatives.

Europe rethinks austerity - Los Angeles Times

But decide for yourself. US followed stimulus and its recession ended in two quarters and there has been growth ever since. The EU has seen double dip recessions in various member states, and has seen GOP decline in many country for 5 or 6 quarters.

Let's see: which policy worked? Boy that's hard to figure out. For a tea partier.

Thank you for providing a source that refutes your position...:lamo

"While I think this policy is fundamentally right, I think it has reached its limits," Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said in April.

Your link

BTW, do you think it a legitimate comparison a sovereign country vs union of 27 member states? Further do you think the 'one size fits all'(our policy) would work better for such an arrangement?

 

[head of joaquin]

Thank you for providing a source that refutes your position...:lamo


Your link

BTW, do you think it a legitimate comparison a sovereign country vs union of 27 member states? Further do you think the 'one size fits all'(our policy) would work better for such an arrangement?

Jesus, you're fun. First you left out the whole quote: "We cannot apply a one-size-fits-all program to the European countries."

"Having austerity be the main focus across Europe has been a mistake," said Megan Greene, chief economist at Maverick Intelligence, a London-based consultancy. "There needs to be a wholesale different approach to this crisis

Meanwhile, which western economy has had steady growth since the Bush Meltdown, and which ones haven't?

I'll help you. The US, which followed stimulus. Every country -EVERY COUNTRY - that imposed austerity have had either years of recession, double dip recessions, or virtually no growth.

Boy, that was easy.

 

[Dickieboy]

Jesus, you're fun.


Boy, that was easy.

Really...you quote a 'chief economist at Maverick Intelligence, a London-based consultancy'...why not just use your idol Krugman if your point was an unassociated non-influential opinion?

Fun and easy indeed...:lamo

 

[OpportunityCost]

Whooosh! right over your head. It isn't the exact opposite thing. But feel free to get back to your regular scheduled meme.

Dude, if the ball hits the curb it goes over your intellectual head.

Meme again? Get a new routine, maybe you and Gimme can argue both sides of an argument and blame all the bad stuff on Bush and all the credit for good stuff goes to Obama. Wait....youre already doing that in this thread.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Hint: maybe you ought to understand what the two responses were addressing....they were not the same thing.

But I suppose this is just another example of you "raising the level".

One of you is arguing that we are doing nothing, the other is arguing about all the good things Obama is doing. And both of you are blaming Bush :applaud

 

[head of joaquin]

One of you is arguing that we are doing nothing, the other is arguing about all the good things Obama is doing. And both of you are blaming Bush :applawdud

Nope, both of us are arguing that Obama got done what he could, but that the GOP obstructed and right now is obstructing completely. We need to be promoting job growth, but the Tea Party doesn't want the economy to recover so they're blocking it. Obama's achievements were before the tea party occupation forces took over the House. Since then, the GOP has blocked any progress. It's what conservatives do.

I hope this doesn't hurt your little narrative.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Nope, both of us are arguing that Obama got done what he could, but that the GOP obstructed and right now is obstructing completely. We need to be promoting job growth, but the Tea Party doesn't want the economy to recover so they're blocking it. Obama's achievements were before the tea party occupation forces took over the House. Since then, the GOP has blocked any progress. It's what conservatives do.

I hope this doesn't hurt your little narrative.

LOL. Ok sure, but you want to claim he isnt a big spender too.

So which pile of bull**** are you shoveling in THIS thread?

 

[head of joaquin]

LOL. Ok sure, but you want to claim he isnt a big spender too.

So which pile of bull**** are you shoveling in THIS thread?

I see I did hurt your little narrative. Sorry.

Meanwhile, Obama's progressive policies clearly saved the economy from the worst of Bush's failed conservative clownery. But the economy would be doing even better if we could get the weirdo tea baggers out. Next election, we will.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Meanwhile, Obama's progressive policies clearly saved the economy from the worst of Bush's failed conservative clownery.

So Obama IS a big spender, glad we cleared that up. So any debt reduction should be put in the R column, gotcha.

But the economy would be doing even better if we could get the weirdo tea baggers out. Next election, we will.

Good luck with that, Obama's likely to drag the democrats down next cycle, hes got less credibility than a used car salesman.

 

[Jack Hays]

Um, news flash, the economy is growing.

The point that you keep avoiding is that your President was not inaccurate but your choice of source was.

The President has indeed been accurate, Time after time, talking about the same 500,000 jobs.

 

[head of joaquin]

So Obama IS a big spender, glad we cleared that up. So any debt reduction should be put in the R column, gotcha.



Good luck with that, Obama's likely to drag the democrats down next cycle, hes got less credibility than a used car salesman.

I'm pretty sure you're going to keep posting like this with ne'ery a fact.

 

[head of joaquin]

The President has indeed been accurate, Time after time, talking about the same 500,000 jobs.

Multiplier effect. I know, I know, you don't like real economic terms, but there it is.

 

[Jack Hays]

I cant tell which part youre quoting and which is your original content.

Only the first line is mine.

 

[Jack Hays]

Multiplier effect. I know, I know, you don't like real economic terms, but there it is.

I guess that's the problem. There is no multiplication. It's the same 500,000 jobs.

 

[head of joaquin]

I guess that's the problem. There is no multiplication. It's the same 500,000 jobs.

And I guess you don't understand the multiplier effect. And probably never will.

 

[Jack Hays]

And I guess you don't understand the multiplier effect. And probably never will.

That's the point of the Fact Checker. There's no multiplier; it's the same 500,000 jobs. Argue with the Washington Post if you disagree.

 

[head of joaquin]

That's the point of the Fact Checker. There's no multiplier; it's the same 500,000 jobs. Argue with the Washington Post if you disagree.

[sigh]

Look up multiplier effect and report back in.

 

[Jack Hays]

[sigh]

Look up multiplier effect and report back in.

I'm quite well aware of the multiplier effect. Again, that's the point of the article. There is none in this case.

 

[Jack Hays]

[sigh]

Look up multiplier effect and report back in.

Doesn't have much to do with jobs.

Definition of 'Multiplier Effect'
The expansion of a country's money supply that results from banks being able to lend. The size of the multiplier effect depends on the percentage of deposits that banks are required to hold as reserves. In other words, it is money used to create more money and is calculated by dividing total bank deposits by the reserve requirement. :mrgreen: