60 minutes
-
I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between temporary spending and long term spending, and that we should do what we need to do to stay out of another recession.
If you got over your animus, and stopped imagining that you've stumped or stunned me with the points you make, these conversations would take a lot less time.
-
I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between temporary spending and long term spending, and that we should do what we need to do to stay out of another recession.
If you got over your animus, and stopped imagining that you've stumped or stunned me with the points you make, these conversations would take a lot less time.
I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between temporary spending and long term spending, and that we should do what we need to do to stay out of another recession.
If you got over your animus, and stopped imagining that you've stumped or stunned me with the points you make, these conversations would take a lot less time.
Had you made your point right off the bat rather than waste my time with playing the mule....
Actually curious, you claim there was a CBO top ten list of ways to stimulate the economy and that an exrtension of the tax cuts wasn't the forst on the list.
Was extending the unemployment benefits on that list? If so where?
WSS
-
Yes, it was on the list.
And I did make my point. It was about the reality of the unemployment situation, and the reality of the inability of the unemployed to find jobs, and why they can't find them. That was my point. It's why 60 Minutes was brought up in the first place, remember? You just didn't get it, and then took us down a rabbit hole, which even you admitted wasn't really related to what we were talking about.
-
Yes, it was on the list.
And I did make my point. It was about the reality of the unemployment situation, and the reality of the inability of the unemployed to find jobs, and why they can't find them. That was my point. It's why 60 Minutes was brought up in the first place, remember? You just didn't get it, and then took us down a rabbit hole, which even you admitted wasn't really related to what we were talking about.
Yes, it was on the list.
Where?
And I did make my point. It was about the reality of the unemployment situation, and the reality of the inability of the unemployed to find jobs, and why they can't find them. That was my point.
No, Heck, you didn't.
You gave us some examples of middle agers making huge sums of money for jobs that aren't needed.
Most people aren't losing 200K jobs.
They're losing 35 to 50 k jobs.
It's why 60 Minutes was brought up in the first place, remember?
No. It has little to do with the reality of the unemployment numbers.
You just didn't get it,
Wrong. It was a bad example. You just aren't bright enough to see it. and then took us down a rabbit hole, which even you admitted wasn't really related to what we were talking about.
Actually we were tqalking about that.
You just spent mnost of the time whining.
Here's one for you to dodge.
If another extension would be a boost why won't the administration do it?
It's a budgetary matter not needing more than 51%?
Spite?
WSS
WSS[/b]
-
It's #1, Steve.
"In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost."
You can find this stuff out too, you know. You just have to pay attention. Maybe you could even do a little research and tell us why, in terms of stimulus, UI benefit extension is preferable to high end tax cuts. Seriously. Could you do that?
And the reason they (probably) won't do it is because we're about to enter into a lame duck session and the support for another extension is not there politically, mostly because of people like you.
Economic theory doesn't matter for you. What makes good policy doesn't matter to you. You can "challenge" me to answer some question, and I can then produce what you're looking for, and even spoon feed the answer back to you. But it doesn't matter. Only your feelings do. And your feeling is that lazy people take advantage of it and collect the check instead of taking a low-wage job, which means ...well, you never explained. You have no point. Except that you don't like lazy people. Which isn't a point. It's a feeling.
So we'll get something less effective, like the Republican plan/religion of tax cuts for wealthy people. Because often times Republican Party policy, in large part, is based on - and you picked the perfect word - spite. Spite of "lazy" people. Spite of "elites." Spite of non-Christians, Mexicans, gays, Muslims, etc., etc. And they're about to take control of the House, and possibly the Senate.
And scene.
Have a nice weekend.
-
It's #1, Steve.
"In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost."
You can find this stuff out too, you know. You just have to pay attention. Maybe you could even do a little research and tell us why, in terms of stimulus, UI benefit extension is preferable to high end tax cuts. Seriously. Could you do that?
And the reason they (probably) won't do it is because we're about to enter into a lame duck session and the support for another extension is not there politically, mostly because of people like you.
Economic theory doesn't matter for you. What makes good policy doesn't matter to you. You can "challenge" me to answer some question, and I can then produce what you're looking for, and even spoon feed the answer back to you. But it doesn't matter. Only your feelings do. And your feeling is that lazy people take advantage of it and collect the check instead of taking a low-wage job, which means ...well, you never explained. You have no point. Except that you don't like lazy people. Which isn't a point. It's a feeling.
So we'll get something less effective, like the Republican plan/religion of tax cuts for wealthy people. Because often times Republican Party policy, in large part, is based on - and you picked the perfect word - spite. Spite of "lazy" people. Spite of "elites." Spite of non-Christians, Mexicans, gays, Muslims, etc., etc. And they're about to take control of the House, and possibly the Senate.
And scene.
Have a nice weekend.
It's #1, Steve.
"In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost."
You can find this stuff out too, you know. You just have to pay attention. Maybe you could even do a little research and tell us why, in terms of stimulus, UI benefit extension is preferable to high end tax cuts. Seriously. Could you do that?
Seriously why?
Is is such a chore for you to post your story?
Is it because it's from a source that somebody will chastise you for?
Why wouldn't I want to see it?
And I don't doubt spending huge sums of money we don't have will keep the economy rolling.
But unless things come roaring back on a big way and soon we're in deep shit.
It's much like those shoddy furniture companies that sell you a room full of shit with no payments for a year or two.
Imagine how much it will suck paying for the run down stuff by the time the bill comes.
I really think the debt and deficit are a potential disaster.
And the reason they (probably) won't do it is because we're about to enter into a lame duck session and the support for another extension is not there politically, mostly because of people like you.
I think you're wrong.
I think everybody knows someone on UI.
While most know it could be a disaster in the long run it's easy to take the freebie.
I would if my job paid UI.
I think you guys could have pushed that through in the last week.
If you were serious, which I don't think you are.
Economic theory doesn't matter for you. What makes good policy doesn't matter to you. You can "challenge" me to answer some question, and I can then produce what you're looking for, and even spoon feed the answer back to you. But it doesn't matter. Only your feelings do. And your feeling is that lazy people take advantage of it and collect the check instead of taking a low-wage job, which means ...well, you never explained. You have no point. Except that you don't like lazy people. Which isn't a point. It's a feeling.
No Heck it's an observation.
And "not liking" isn't part of it, that's just your way of attacking the messenger.
Average wage earners can usually get by on 475 a week. (not a guy who made 200K with a 500K mortgage but he's not the base)
And serious job hunting doesn't start til that runs out. I think the Dems decided that the benefit may keep the rate higher than would look good in 2012. If they weren't betting on that they'd have done it.
Hell you're losing seats anyway right?
If in fact your wayu is the best way things will look rosy in two years and Obama's a shoo in and likely brings back the house.
Voila.
So we'll get something less effective, like the Republican plan/religion of tax cuts for wealthy people. Because often times Republican Party policy, in large part, is based on - and you picked the perfect word - spite. Spite of "lazy" people. Spite of "elites." Spite of non-Christians, Mexicans, gays, Muslims, etc., etc. And they're about to take control of the House, and possibly the Senate.
And scene.
And we're back to the Dem platform of class warfare faux populism and next up, race baiting.
Thanks
Have a nice weekend.
You too.
WSS
-
Heck, you're like a painter who insists that people look like cubes, so you
are a cubist.
Your lib politicians have failed miserably. You have failed to support solutions.
Your college "Imagine" dreamings don't work, never have, never will.
Dream on, but the rest of us are looking to get rid of the bums, and want to elect REAL
American folks. And trying to attach racial bigot tags to anybody who disagrees with you doesn't work.
You support a racially divisive, smart-ass, arrogant, immature street thug for pres.
Most of Americans are admitting they were fooled. You won't admit it... or you are happy with that...
Doesn't mean anything about reality, but you are happy painting people as cubes.
I still think the only reason you're here, is to figure out how to do you job.
(are you getting a tiny little bit of courage to start your own thread yet, or not?)
-
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38702
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CBO-chief-Ta...2168294630.html
" "The problem is that if those tax cuts are not accompanied by other changes in the government budget, and are simply funded through borrowing, that borrowing crowds out other private investment in productive capital ... the computers, the machinery, the buildings, that are the source of long-term economic growth," Elmendorf said.
"
-
Steve, that quote is taken from the CBO website, written by CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, to accompany his testimony to Congress. Those are the words of the CBO Director, not some mysterious liberal news site I'm supposedly ashamed of.
You could have checked that too. Then you wouldn't look so ridiculous accusing me of ...whatever that was.
The rest of your post is equally clueless, and makes me ashamed I looked at this on a Saturday.
-
You could have checked that too. Then you wouldn't look so ridiculous accusing me of ...whatever that was.
Go ahead Heck.
Tell me what I accused you of.
BTW yes if that's your response you wasted part of a Saturday.
Now back to putting razor blades in apples?
WSS
-
"Seriously why?
Is is such a chore for you to post your story?
Is it because it's from a source that somebody will chastise you for?
Why wouldn't I want to see it?"
It's from the mouth of director of the CBO. From last month. He testified before Congress about it.
You seem to think I'm pulling this out of left field. All you had to do is Google the quote and you could have found out where it was from - the CBO website.
And no, the American economy isn't like a shoddy furniture store running a sale. That would be another one of your oversimplifications.
So again, explain why the CBO says that UI extension is the most effective stimulus measure the government can take, and why it's better than cutting taxes for the wealthy. It's not that long answer. It could be summed up in a sentence.
And then you can tell me why it's a bad idea because it's like a used car dealership, something, something, government freebies.
-
"Seriously why?
Is is such a chore for you to post your story?
Is it because it's from a source that somebody will chastise you for?
Why wouldn't I want to see it?"
It's from the mouth of director of the CBO. From last month. He testified before Congress about it.
You seem to think I'm pulling this out of left field. All you had to do is Google the quote and you could have found out where it was from - the CBO website.
And no, the American economy isn't like a shoddy furniture store running a sale. That would be another one of your oversimplifications.
So again, explain why the CBO says that UI extension is the most effective stimulus measure the government can take, and why it's better than cutting taxes for the wealthy. It's not that long answer. It could be summed up in a sentence.
And then you can tell me why it's a bad idea because it's like a used car dealership, something, something, government freebies.
So again, explain why the CBO says that UI extension is the most effective stimulus measure the government can take, and why it's better than cutting taxes for the wealthy. It's not that long answer. It could be summed up in a sentence.
Because it is.
But good in the short term.
Not you not I can see the future.
And renewing the tax cuts are good too.
But the bill is going to come due.
Right?
While you whine about black and whiite Heck, try to get your mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good.
If we turn things around great.
Then MAYBE we can start to pay off the debt.
If we don't it will be worse than if we let the whole thing fall apart now.
That shuldn't be so hard to understand.
Also:
Since evil Republicans will have a say in it after Tuesday won't things be lots worse in the shrt and long run?
WSS
And then you can tell me why it's a bad idea because it's like a used car dealership, something, something, government freebies.
And you'll start slobbering that you don't understand or some other nonsense.
-
When you don't understand something, which you clearly don't, how would you like me to convey that you don't understand something?
I think the best way is to say, "You don't understand." Maybe you have some other ideas.
Look, this has been a particularly embarrassing thread for you. So try to figure out why UI is a better stimulative measure than high end tax cuts. Find out what the reasoning is behind that. Then maybe you'll understand why you don't understand.
As for your other nonsense, no one is suggesting there is only one thing to do, so this is another retreat by you into logical fallacy land. (Welcome home.) What we're talking about is that the CBO laid 11 different options for policy makers on the table to find out what is the best use of government money. And they found that UI extension is the best option. The worst of the 11 options was extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
You were against an UI extension then and you're against it now. Something about how lazy people take the freebie instead of taking all those jobs that aren't there. And you were for the Bush high end tax cut extension. So basically you're against the #1 option and you're for the one that came in last. Also, you're a truth-teller who wants to do what's best and I'm a partisan hack. Okay...
But let's recap some more: then you dared me to find out if UI extension was on that list. So I told you it was. Then you wanted to know where it was on the list. I told you it was #1. Then you questioned how I got that information, suggesting it was from a left-wing source I'd be embarrassed to quote. I told you it was from the CBO director's own statement, and from the CBO website.
Oops.
...And now you say you're for an extension of unemployment benefits, and have the balls to question whether or I can "get [my] mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good." Comical.
Honestly, Steve. You lost this one. You're embarrassing yourself to anyone who can read and isn't Cal. Stop digging.
Or explain to me why UI extension is more stimulative that high end Bush tax cut extension. And "because it is" isn't the answer.
Or you could just say, "I don't understand this stuff as well as I thought. Maybe I should revisit my opinions about what steps should be taken to get the economy moving again instead of just parroting what I'm told, all while pretending I'm above all of that."
What a day that would be.
-
When you don't understand something, which you clearly don't, how would you like me to convey that you don't understand something?
I think the best way is to say, "You don't understand." Maybe you have some other ideas.
Look, this has been a particularly embarrassing thread for you. So try to figure out why UI is a better stimulative measure than high end tax cuts. Find out what the reasoning is behind that. Then maybe you'll understand why you don't understand.
As for your other nonsense, no one is suggesting there is only one thing to do, so this is another retreat by you into logical fallacy land. (Welcome home.) What we're talking about is that the CBO laid 11 different options for policy makers on the table to find out what is the best use of government money. And they found that UI extension is the best option. The worst of the 11 options was extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
You were against an UI extension then and you're against it now. Something about how lazy people take the freebie instead of taking all those jobs that aren't there. And you were for the Bush high end tax cut extension. So basically you're against the #1 option and you're for the one that came in last. Also, you're a truth-teller who wants to do what's best and I'm a partisan hack. Okay...
But let's recap some more: then you dared me to find out if UI extension was on that list. So I told you it was. Then you wanted to know where it was on the list. I told you it was #1. Then you questioned how I got that information, suggesting it was from a left-wing source I'd be embarrassed to quote. I told you it was from the CBO director's own statement, and from the CBO website.
Oops.
...And now you say you're for an extension of unemployment benefits, and have the balls to question whether or I can "get [my] mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good." Comical.
Honestly, Steve. You lost this one. You're embarrassing yourself to anyone who can read and isn't Cal. Stop digging.
Or explain to me why UI extension is more stimulative that high end Bush tax cut extension. And "because it is" isn't the answer.
Or you could just say, "I don't understand this stuff as well as I thought. Maybe I should revisit my opinions about what steps should be taken to get the economy moving again instead of just parroting what I'm told, all while pretending I'm above all of that."
What a day that would be.
When you don't understand something, which you clearly don't, how would you like me to convey that you don't understand something?
I think the best way is to say, "You don't understand." Maybe you have some other ideas.
Actually the best way is to tell me what there is to understand about the benefits of increasing long term debt.
But you can't so you don't/
When you're clueless a simple harrumph is all you can come up with.
Look, this has been a particularly embarrassing thread for you. So try to figure out why UI is a better stimulative measure than high end tax cuts. Find out what the reasoning is behind that. Then maybe you'll understand why you don't understand.
As for your other nonsense, no one is suggesting there is only one thing to do, so this is another retreat by you into logical fallacy land. (Welcome home.) What we're talking about is that the CBO laid 11 different options for policy makers on the table to find out what is the best use of government money. And they found that UI extension is the best option. The worst of the 11 options was extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
And I say the extensions will be popular in the short term and potentially disatrous in the long. Simple as that.
You were against an UI extension then and you're against it now. Something about how lazy people take the freebie instead of taking all those jobs that aren't there. And you were for the Bush high end tax cut extension. So basically you're against the #1 option and you're for the one that came in last. Also, you're a truth-teller who wants to do what's best and I'm a partisan hack. Okay...
Actua;;y I have to agree with ya on that. See ther is some common ground.
But let's recap some more: then you dared me to find out if UI extension was on that list. So I told you it was. Then you wanted to know where it was on the list. I told you it was #1. Then you questioned how I got that information, suggesting it was from a left-wing source I'd be embarrassed to quote. I told you it was from the CBO director's own statement, and from the CBO website.
Oops.
Idiot.
I asked you to post it.
So f*cking what?
(and uh you didn't)
...And now you say you're for an extension of unemployment benefits, and have the balls to question whether or I can "get [my] mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good." Comical.
If I were king I wouildn't. If I were a politician looking to get my party back on the A list I would.
Honestly, Steve. You lost this one. You're embarrassing yourself to anyone who can read and isn't Cal. Stop digging.
Anyone who can read can see you've said nothing.
Nothing Heck.
Just bitched.
Or explain to me why UI extension is more stimulative that high end Bush tax cut extension. And "because it is" isn't the answer.
Gets dough into peoples hands ASAP. They buy shit. They aren't investors.
Hell I hope they come out tonight and buy beer with it.
But only and idiot overlooks the fact that it will have to come from somewhere down the road.
But that's you, right?
Or you could just say, "I don't understand this stuff as well as I thought. Maybe I should revisit my opinions about what steps should be taken to get the economy moving again instead of just parroting what I'm told, all while pretending I'm above all of that."
Maybe the Robin Hood plan of yours will work.
For the first time in world history.
What a day that would be.
Maybe that'll happen if you ever address any issue beyond yelping.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of mys ass.
Now I gotta go to work.
WSS
-
You really aren't very good at this.
-
You really aren't very good at this.
You really aren't very good at this.
Nothing.
As always.
As usual.
But keep bragging by all means.
WSS
-
Heck, if we take a board vote,
I predict it would be greatly in favor of
"Steve royally kicked your ass again"..
You start the poll. Well, you may not know how to
start your own thread, you "all-knowing jackwagon".
If you don't, ask John for official instructions.
If you're just too frightened, like a scared little bunny rabbit, I for one, will send you
a virtual tissue. @@
-
Heck, if we take a board vote,
I predict it would be greatly in favor of
"Steve royally kicked your ass again"..
You start the poll. Well, you may not know how to
start your own thread, you "all-knowing jackwagon".
If you don't, ask John for official instructions.
If you're just too frightened, like a scared little bunny rabbit, I for one, will send you
a virtual tissue. @@
Heck, if we take a board vote,
Well it'd probably be along idealogical lines.
The thing is that I'd expect anybody with a speck of independent thinking to recognize Hecks adolescent debate tactics.
Honestly who in his right mind could so completely dismiss the potential disaster if the deficit keeps explodng?
I mean really, this guy at least pretends to think that the only reason anyone is concerned as the dfeficit and debt move toward eating up the entire GDP is spite.
What an idiotic response, though in line with his party's "enemise list" campaign.
And now he's painted himself into a corner.
The longer one refuses to address points the harder it is to admit reality.
Usually that ends in a huffy "well of course that's obvious!!" then change the subject to something else.
He just isn't very good at this.
But it might impress other political salespeople.
WSS
-
It's pretty disappointing.
The one lib who has kept showing up once in a while,
is so dishonest about his belonging to the Dems, that he
won't learn anything, can't stay on subject, and his responses
are pitifully linear. Squiggly linear, avoiding the actual issues and subjects of threads.
I'm sure that when this election results are in, he'll disappear, rather than admit those results.
-
Heck, if we take a board vote,
Well it'd probably be along idealogical lines.
The thing is that I'd expect anybody with a speck of independent thinking to recognize Hecks adolescent debate tactics.
Honestly who in his right mind could so completely dismiss the potential disaster if the deficit keeps explodng?
I mean really, this guy at least pretends to think that the only reason anyone is concerned as the dfeficit and debt move toward eating up the entire GDP is spite.
What an idiotic response, though in line with his party's "enemise list" campaign.
And now he's painted himself into a corner.
The longer one refuses to address points the harder it is to admit reality.
Usually that ends in a huffy "well of course that's obvious!!" then change the subject to something else.
He just isn't very good at this.
But it might impress other political salespeople.
WSS
Well it'd probably be along idealogical lines.
The thing is that I'd expect anybody with a speck of independent thinking to recognize Hecks adolescent debate tactics.
Honestly who in his right mind could so completely dismiss the potential disaster if the deficit keeps explodng?
I mean really, this guy at least pretends to think that the only reason anyone is concerned as the dfeficit and debt move toward eating up the entire GDP is spite.
What an idiotic response, though in line with his party's "enemise list" campaign.
And now he's painted himself into a corner.
The longer one refuses to address points the harder it is to admit reality.
Usually that ends in a huffy "well of course that's obvious!!" then change the subject to something else.
He just isn't very good at this.
But it might impress other political salespeople.
WSS
Steve, you've got to be kidding me. I can barely stomach typing as much as I do, and then as soon as I don't - because it's the weekend and I'd much rather spend the time with my son than explaining things to you - I'm somehow dodging this.
And now as the capper - and it's a beauty - you've now retreated once again, and are now claiming that what we're discussing is whether I'm concerned with the deficit enough, with you insisting I'm "completely dismissing it." Which wasn't what we were talking about, and is yet another example of you changing the subject, this time from a talk about the nature of the unemployment situation, to UI extension vs. high end tax cuts, to overall and vague concerns about the deficit.
All while you argue for a position that makes the deficit far, far worse than the program I'm talking about.
It's positively hysterical.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login