- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yeah, I stand by tall blondes are fun, so? :coffeepap
"Obama Herales 1.1M Private sector Jobs Created since January" so are you telling me that the President lied? The official numbers show a net of 4 million jobs lost.
Nope. I don't know for sure if that number is accurate or not. But I do some jobs were created, yes. ANd the only ones the president can take credit for are the ones that used money he worked to have spent on those jobs.
Boo Radley said:Nope. I don't know for sure if that number is accurate or not. But I do some jobs were created, yes. ANd the only ones the president can take credit for are the ones that used money he worked to have spent on those jobs.
Oh, I see, so now the President can create or save jobs when you have stated that the President and Congress don't have any affect on the jobs. Which is it?
Oh, I see, so now the President can create or save jobs when you have stated that the President and Congress don't have any affect on the jobs. Which is it?
Read better. You're not stating my position correctly. Even creating jobs is not controlling the economy. As you note, dispite creating jobs, the economy was not controlled or saved. It merely helped some not suffer as much as they would or could have. That is not control.
I don't think you even understand your OWN position. Now jobs apparently don't affect the economy either? Glad to hear that unemployment also doesn't affect the economy. You really are confused.
Quote Boo Radley
Now, read slower. Take notes. Maybe ask someone to help.
Again, read better. I'll repeat my argument for just as I wrote it before: While I don't argue the government has no effect, I do argue it has no siginificant effect. The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.
Now, read slower. Take notes. Maybe ask someone to help. :coffeepap
Nah, better not, it will just get me a early Xmas card from a mod. :mrgreen:
Now apparently it all depends on the definition of significant? Did you support Clinton as well? You really don't have a clue how our economy works as you are all over the place now yet still backed into a corner. Let's see you convince anyone else that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. doesn't impact the economy? That doesn't fly nor does your argument on any other issue. you really need to cut your losses.
Now apparently it all depends on the definition of significant? Did you support Clinton as well? You really don't have a clue how our economy works as you are all over the place now yet still backed into a corner. Let's see you convince anyone else that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. doesn't impact the economy? That doesn't fly nor does your argument on any other issue. you really need to cut your losses.
I even define for you: The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.
There's no bouncing and nothign that is ahrd to follow.
I assure you that reading isn't a problem but following the Boo bouncing ball is.
Talk about a bouncing ball, go look at your post today, starting with your first one where you say “you are still diverting from the thread topic “and the rest of your post are devoted to diverting from the thread topic. :lamo
You are losing it, take a deep breath, get away from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. No one buys the rhetoric that a 3.6 trillion dollar Federal Govt. with 60% of that entitlement spending doesn't impact the economy. I am sure a day or two would allow you to come back with a clearer mind.
:coffeepap
Again, read better. I'll repeat my argument for just as I wrote it before: While I don't argue the government has no effect, I do argue it has no siginificant effect. The government cannot control the economy as other factors mean much more than anything the government does.
That's the first time I've ever heard anything like that..
Historically governments have had dramatic effects on economies, depending on their economic philosophies and individual freedoms of the government.
All we have to do is look at a map, or an appropriate graph, to see that economies vary wildly, and almost always because of the actions, or inactions, of their governments. To claim that governments have no significant effect on economies flies in the face of all historical and visible evidence. It is a ridiculous argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?