DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe the tax cuts have an actual stimulative effect on the economy?Did you notice the phrase? He uses it twice. Interestingly, David Gregory takes care to avoid it, so Bloomberg had a good prompt, but he used it anyway.
BLOOMBERG: I don't think there's any question that they put more people -- more money in people's hands, and I think that the public will do a better job with more money in their hands to stimulate the economy than you will do with government programs.
GREGORY: But, Mayor, economists say, especially wealthier Americans don't end up necessarily spending money that they, that they keep through tax cuts. And look at the effect of the Bush tax cuts over a decade... what some have called a decade of, of futility, if you look at the number of jobs created.
BLOOMBERG: OK. But number one, some of these things are not connected, they just happen to have at same -- happened at the same time. And I think the more money you put in people's hands, the more they will spend. And if they don't spend it, they invest it. And investing it is another way of creating jobs.
December 12, 2010
Bloomberg uses the quirk of phrase that shows he hasn't absorbed the most basic message of the Tea Party movement.
From today's "Meet the Press":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
156 comments:
"Put money in people's hands."
Yep, an interesting perspective on who's money it is/was in the first place, isn't it?
Yawwnn. Smacking of lips together, licking of teeth) Burp.
Yawn.
Oh Bloomberg! Isn't he the mayor or something of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Show some respect, people. We're talking about Joe Scarborough's probable running mate.
I continue to be mystified that our left wing friends think the "rich" put their money in mattresses or under a rock.
They either spend it or invest it. What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to create jobs.
PS I love Gregory's comment "Economists say". You could get an economist to say any hair-brained thing you want....Paul Krugman comes to mind.
I'm not a huge fan of Nanny Bloomberg but I think you are being too picky here. The difference between putting and leaving money in people's hands is real but slight. Considering his record of statist tendencies this is huge progress. Perhaps this is one of those times when we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Oh those terrible 5% unemployment Bush years.
Put money in people hands and maybe they'll just spend it and buy old signed photos of Bob Dylan or copies of the Declaration of Independence.
And how does that create jobs?
I run into retired liberals (and formerly not so liberal) who now they have no income coming in are very generous with taxing those of us still working.
And many in the media and arts have the same view. They make me sick.
Putting out is a euphemism for getting put in.
It is not the people's money, unless you are talking about the Chinese people, because they are the ones lending it to us. Face it, Americans are a bunch of dead beats who refuse to work.
And don't tell me there aren't jobs out there. When America decides certain laws are more important than jobs, that's the same as deciding not to work.
"Face it, Americans are a bunch of dead beats who refuse to work."
You know what they don't say anymore about illegal immigration? "They're doing the jobs Americans won't do." It's indiscreet to point that out.
You know what they don't say anymore about illegal immigration? "They're doing the jobs Americans won't do." It's indiscreet to point that out.
I am my lawn's own gardener.
Bloomberg at least seems to have the basic plot correct here even if he uses a poor choice of phrase, whereas Gregory demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding.
ricpic .. it's funny you mention that.
I have clear memories of chicken lefty yelling about how awful the economy was, and I, in the southeast, was looking at an *under* 5% unemployment rate that gradually nudged 5%, and I wondered then if they weren't hell bent on creating a crisis they could run in and FIX!!1!1!1!1!!! it.
How's that fix goin' for you guys? I get it, you wanted us on the road to there is no fix but the FedFix.
Thank you Barney and Chris and Barack & Co.
Nanny Bloomberg doesn't even think you can control your own fuckin' stomach!
David Gregory has single handedly ruined the best news job on network television with his leftist hack behavior.
With Russert, you thought he was a hack. With Gregory you know it....
What wwere deficits and umemployment rates when ReidPelosi Congress took control in 2007?
What did tax rates have to do with housing bubble?
rcocean said " Put money in people hands and maybe they'll just spend it and buy old signed photos of Bob Dylan or copies of the Declaration of Independence.
And how does that create jobs?"
If you buy my copy of the Declaration Of Independence, I will use the proceeds to buy a new excavator for my oil business.
"The difference between putting and leaving money in people's hands is real but slight."
Oh bullshit.
What is it that Obama has promised to do?
Barack Obama hasn't promised to put one more dime in anyone's hands. He has promised not to RAISE taxes in the middle of a depression. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
He's borrowing to finance his socialist spending on union salaries and fatcat pensions since he can't get the money by stealing it from people out of their fucking paychecks.
It's only with the mainstream media's help that Bloomberg is able to couch the debate as if Barack Obama is fucking handing out hundred dollar bills in front of the White House for people to spend.
Hogwash.
Nobody will get anything more to spend tomorrow than they have today.
And what a fucking tool is David Gregory. Does anyone watch that shit any more?
He's merely the corporate PR spokesperson for General Electric - single largest corporate recipient of our federal tax dollars - and NBC is nothing more than the corporation's PR apparatus.
It's not "Meet The Press" because David Gregory is not a member of the press. To be a member of the press you'd have to actually write or say something against the Obama administration and Gregory never has. Not once.
It's "Meet General Electric."
Ah! Bloomberg...again.
In the earlier Bush/Gore post, I asked which party would benefit if Bloomberg ran as the "spoiler" third party candidate.
No responses over there. Perhaps now that Althouse has slapped Bloomberg on her "dinner table", we might have an opinion ... or two.
*Bi-partisan sarcasm*
Haha Sorry, couldn't help myself.
There was apparently an error in the transcript. Here's the updated version:
"BLOOMBERG: I don't think there's any question that they put more people -- more money in people's hands, and I think that the public will do a better job with more money in their hands to stimulate the economy than you will do with government programs.
GREGORY: But, Mayor, that's not the answer I wanted..."
Penny,
To answer your question I think a Bloomberg candidacy would hurt Obama. Bloomberg is a "government man" in that he believes government provides answers to perceived difficulties faced by citizens. (READ: spending) That should alienate the Tea Party types. He's also a social Liberal. That puts him at odds with the socially conservative base of the Republican Party. Therefore I cannot see how Bloomberg peels off many voters from any Republican candidate.
OTOH, Obama is currently weak. A Bloomberg candidacy would suck much of the "oxygen" out of the press and DC just when Obama hopes to ride a recovering economy into the voters' collective good graces. That would be much harder to accomplish if Obama finds himself on defense on two different fronts (not even considering a primary opponent from the radical Left). So messaging alone becomes harder.
That said, if I were advising Bloomberg I would suggest he not make a run at the Presidency. He can't win. Any campaign will be based on vanity.
As somebody hopeful for a different president come 1-20-13, I can only parrot Jenny and yell "Run, Michael! Run!"
As George Bailey once said,
"The, the money's not here. Well, your money's in Joe's house... that's right next to yours. And in the Kennedy House, and Mrs. Macklin's house, and, and a hundred others. Why, you're lending them the money to build, and then, they're going to pay it back to you as best they can."
Lefties don't get it.
The insane 250K number is still pretended by all to be the wealthy/middle class cut off line. No, no, no. That line is about 1.2 M, over which line most money is available to be invested. But where is it invested? In the Chinese economic boom or in Swiss Gold Francs. The wealthy have been planning for these days of economic disaster for 15 years.
"more money in people's hands... more money in their hands... the more money you put in people's hand"
"Bloomberg is a "government man"
Take a look at these hands! Take a look at these hands! The hand speaks! The hand of a government man! Well I'm a tumbler. Born under punches.
...I think you are being too picky here.
That would only be example #581,671.
I heard Gregory asking a couple of times when I had the misfortune of actually listening, "How do you expect to pay for those tax cuts?"
I do understand the intent of the question, but I am suddenly stopped by imagining what bizarre contortions are necessary to land on that construction, the premises that first must be accepted to ask the question. I assume Gregory heard it somewhere and it appealed to him. He seems to dull and slow to think up that crap himself. But while halted, my impulse is to reach for the nearest heaviest cast-iron pan to knock that construction out of his head. Instead I just change the channel.
They either spend it or invest it. What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to create jobs.
Mantra #12.
They either spend it or invest it. What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
FTFY.
The operative words in this interview were "hand" and "job."
wv- "pluchead"
Companies can never fail, make bad decisions, or lay off workers. Only poor individuals can! Especially if they receive the bulk of what the gov't has taken from paying off the debt!
Chip:
"Pay for the tax cut" has been the left/liberal mantra for at least 20 years.
The premise, of course, is our income is the government's money.
My company is too small to outsource anything.
But hey thanks for sharing your economic wisdom, Kruggie Jr.
Good point Brad, and all the other guys! It's not the government's money, it's China's money!
Some of us would rather pay off American debt than finance Chinese totalitarianism, but what can I say. We're just a bunch of crazy socialists that way.
Dumbasses.
I'm sure that means it's also too small for Wall Street or any significant number of people to care to invest in it, Rick. But thanks for the advice. Someday I hope my lemonade stand grows to be as big as yours.
It's not China's money, it's my money. I earned it. I'd liked to keep most of it. Thank you very little.
Tingle up, you need to come up with better cliches.
Pretty soon I'm just going to refer to each of you as "Local Committee Member of Province X... Province Y..."
That extra bit of your own money will come in real handy when the provincial Communist party member asks for baksheesh as you attempt to buy your freedom. You tell 'em!
What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
Hysterical.
Number of years you've worked in the private sector: 0
What I find funny is how often you rush to the Internet to beclown yourself.
You tell 'em, Rick. When the Chinese government is representing you in Washington, they will be very impressed with all your money. Show them the records and demand your rights and your freedom then! Yeah!
This is the reason the economy is in the gutter. Even Republicans don't understand that their freedom can be bought.
Some of us would rather pay off American debt than finance Chinese totalitarianism, but what can I say. We're just a bunch of crazy socialists that way
Laugh out loud funny.
Is that why the President you voted for ran a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit?
Number of correct statements Jay has ever made in his life: 0.
BigGov:
"Some of us would rather pay off American debt..."
Response:
Since tax revenues are never more than 19% of GDP, we must either grow the GDP or reduce spending. Taxes retard growth because resources are misallocated to avoid taxes (perfectly legal). So the government finds it very difficult to increase revenues with tax increases. (See, e.g. all of recorded history) History has also shown government is not good at growing the GDP. (See, e.g. Obama and George W. Bush) Therefore, in order to reduce debt we must spend less.
Great! Let's cut some of that spending immediately. I'm glad we are in accord.
How much is your freedom worth, Jay?
Some of us would rather pay off American debt
Yeah, cash 4 clunkers and the GM and state bailouts were great evidence of that.
Idiot.
Hi, Birkel.
Many thanks for engaging in an important conversation.
Without any sense of irony, I got to scratching my head about Bloomberg because of Sarah Palin.
She isn't likely to win either.
What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
Using this "logic" no company should ever make a profit because they simply would "outsource jobs."
Your idiocy knows few limits.
Birkel chimes in with the usual bs about cutting spending when he knows his party will defend 3/4ths of the budget to the death and only bring up the <1% that constitute earmarks. And in a more secure year, foreign aid. It's all about cosmetics and showmanship (or as they call it, "politics") for these frauds.
Grow, grow, grow. So where do you keep the fertilizer for this magic beanstalk of yours, Birkel? You do know that too much fertilizer (manure) actually kills the plants from nitrogen toxicity, don't you?
Tinkle up....are you sure you read the original posting? I am not sure where your going with your comments but they clearly do not apply to topic at hand.
Have you ever run a business? Raised capital? Made a profit? Used profits to expand a business? Hired employees with your expanded business?
Number of correct statements Jay has ever made in his life: 0.
Nobody as ignorant as you could have possibly ever worked in a for profit business.
GM is more profitable than it's been in years and has resulted in millions of jobs saved but fucks like you only pretend to care about unemployment when you have nothing else to offer, other than your hatred of Obama.
But let's go after the Kenyan Socialist theme again. How's that working for you? New angle into the birth certificate thing?
BigGov:
"How much is your freedom worth, Jay?"
Response:
Your freedom to swing your fist stops just short of my nose. If you assume your freedom extends further, my freedom will extend well past your own nose.
So the answer to your question depends how highly you value the nose on your face.
Penny:
A confluence of factors -- such as a serious Bloomberg candidacy -- could result in any Republican winning, even Palin.
with the usual bs about cutting spending when he knows his party will defend 3/4ths of the budget to the death and only bring up the <1% that constitute earmarks
Er, the last Republican president wanted to reform social security.
The current elected Democratic president runs monthly deficits totaling the yearly deficit of the last elected Republican President.
You are comically stupid.
I am not sure where your going with your comments...
I am going after your jerking yourself off to dollar signs and those who have more of them than you do. Patronage is not the answer to this mess. Never was. More and more patronage won't do it either. At some point someone has to stop dangling that hypnotic coin in front of you. You are refusing to differentiate between stimulative tax cuts and tax cuts that just make you feel like a bigger man with more of "your own" money. We get the picture, you like money and you like people who have a lot of it to keep more and more of it. It's not about that but about the entire economy.
GM is more profitable than it's been in years and has resulted in millions of jobs
Hysterical.
Yes, "millions" of jobs!!!
but, but, but, I thought that when companies invest money they outsource jobs?
OOPS! Coherence isn't your strong suit.
BigGov,
Where did you earn your degree in macroeconomics?
Tee hee hee
Your freedom to swing your fist stops just short of my nose. If you assume your freedom extends further, my freedom will extend well past your own nose.
So the answer to your question depends how highly you value the nose on your face.
President Hu Jintao says to stop wasting your time trash talking your fellow Americans and to step up the pace of your labor and your contributions to him.
Oh boy. There goes Jay underestimating the employment that depends on a domestic automotive industry.
No problem. His plan to have decimated the American auto industry would have resulted in more labor available to work on choo choo trains.
Bloomie may want to run our lives, but he did know enough about how money works to make a fortune. And he knows, whether you like the word "put" or "leave", that money in the hands of the people is the only way to get the economy going.
I also see somebody at Kos has been monitoring the thread and logged in as Trickling with all the Daily Worker talking points in hand.
GM is more profitable than it's been in years and has resulted in millions of jobs
GM received $50 billion dollars. How much is that per "job"?
Also, Ford brand will top Chevrolet for the second straight year.
You have no credibility, clown.
His plan to have decimated the American auto industry
How big of a bailout did Ford get again?
Questions:
Who is more accountable, the lying thieving crook who gets a report card every quarter, or the lying, thieving crook who gets a report card every two, four, or six years?
Who will spend your money more wisely, the lying thieving crook who feeds his family and yours on a profitable return on investment, or the lying thieving crook who feeds his family on your money regardless.
If you don't like the government's shit sandwich can you tell the IRS to go eff themselves? If you don't like your Big Mac, would you bitch to the manager?
Government sucks at everything, some things less than others. I only want to pay for the least sucky services. Congres sucks, or at least 80% of us think so. Why do we pay those worthless shits to suck?
Here I go casting pearls before swine again....I should know better.
Thanks Tinkle up.
There goes Jay underestimating the employment that depends on a domestic automotive industry.
There is more to the "domestic auto industry" than GM, you blathering idiot.
Toyota has plants in several states.
So does Ford.
They didn't get a bailout.
You're incoherent and not that bright.
How much would unemployment have increased if GM fell?
You seem familiar with big, red rubber noses and size 17 shoes. And every time you say something proven to be stupid another one of you jumps out of the same car.
What are you pissed off about, Jay? That GM is more profitable than it's been in 10 years or that workers kept jobs?
Go to China and sell your git-rich schemes to them, Brainiac! That's who's getting the money you're borrowing!
How much would unemployment have increased if GM fell?
Um, a statistically insignificant amount compared to the 9+ million jobs lost since Nancy took the gavel.
Further, you do understand that GM is "profitable" because it cut its workforce, right? (closing 14 factories and shedding more than 65,000 blue-collar jobs in the U.S. through buyouts, early retirement offers and layoffs.
You understand fewer people now work a GM, correct?
BigGov:
"How much would unemployment have increased if GM fell?"
Response:
You should learn to ask a sensible question. The question you could reasonably ask is "How much would employment have fallen if GM went bankrupt through the normal bankruptcy procedures?"
And the answer to that question is: The unions supported by the autoworkers would have gone bankrupt too, silly. So Obama couldn't let that happen.
GM is more profitable than it's been in 10 years or that workers kept jobs?
GM closed 14 plants.
GM makes cars in Mexico & Canada.
GM received $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments starting in 2008.
You are so utterly stupid, you don't understand what all that means.
"How much would unemployment have increased if GM fell?"
Er, GM did "fall" as it went bankrupt.
Additionally, M posted a $3.4 billion loss for the fourth quarter of 2009, but its operations in Asia, South America and other regions made money.
The "outsourced" places made a profit.
And you're an incoherent imbecile.
And the answer to that question is...
You keep flip-flopping between economics and political theater. Obama's patronage isn't anywhere near as costly to the country as is Boehner's.
Shorter BigGov:
I would now like to change the subject.
All:
The comment thread will be more coherent if you substitute that phrase each time.
ou keep flip-flopping between economics and political theater
Projection.
I love the fact that you asserted:
What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
And then defended the GM bailout.
Why it is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
Jay, for someone who uses the word "imbecile" like he's got Tourette's Syndrome, you sure are one bulb too dim to understand that we're almost in 2011.
Take your 2008 and 2009 stats and shove them back with all the rest of the moldy, rancid shit you keep in your refrigerator.
"...cognitive dissonance..."
You're running out of words of the day and moving on to catchy phrases, I see.
Cognitive dissonance was 2009's cool word. You need to stay on top of these things.
Shorter BigGov:
I would now like to change the subject.
Yup, right on cue:
we're almost in 2011.
Why it is almost as if this leftist clown has cognitive dissonance or something...
You're running out of words of the day and moving on to catchy phrases, I see.
I love the fact that you asserted:
What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
And then defended the GM bailout.
Take your 2008 and 2009 stats
Translation: you can't deal with the facts.
Don't worry, I knew that already.
Hey, did you know that the GM bailout saved like a billion jobs and stuff!!/??!!`````111111
What are you pissed off about, Jay? That GM is more profitable than it's been in 10 years or that workers kept jobs?
I think just about every business in the country would be "more profitable than it's been in 10 years" two years after getting $50 billion in taxpayer money.
Talk about a low bar to clear.
And - Has anything really changed at GM? Any reason to think they won't be back for another bailout in 5 or 10 years? Same union, same management. Look the same to me. What's changed, Ritmo? Why is GM viable now when it wasn't before?
Jay, do they need to adjust your frame a bit? You are starting to paste the same bits in consecutive posts without realizing you've repeated yourself.
Birkel switched from his attempt to make a point about GM to yapping about Obama and unions. If you're having trouble staying coherent and on-track, start with your own posts.
GM is more profitable than it's been in 10 years or that workers kept jobs?
GM received over $50 billion from the US government and subsequently laid off 65,000 workers.
You're a moron.
You are starting to paste the same bits in consecutive posts without realizing you've repeated yourself.
Hysterical.
I love the fact that you asserted:
What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
And then defended the GM bailout.
So GM outsourced jobs with the money, right?
Why it is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
Because instead of rewarding bad management it was sacked and restructured, Maguro. But you guys reward incompetence like it's sliced bread or something so I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Hell, Jay can't even understand who was president in November 2008, let alone what happened to the economy then.
GOod point, Jay. GM outsourced more jobs than were saved by it not falling, almost!
It is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
It is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
It is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
By the way, in addition to over $40 billion sunk into GM since the government owns 70% of the company,
GM still has $15 billion in debt.
GM has $27 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.
Hi guys! I'm just pretending to be "Jay" for a little while here! Don't mind me. I'm having trouble with my internal frameshift programming and am going into epileptic fits of malfunctioning cognition, as he does. But we'll soon be back on track!
It is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
GOod point, Jay. GM outsourced more jobs than were saved by it not falling, almost!
So you were for bailouts before you were against them.
I love watching you imbeciles trying to be coherent.
It is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
How are your engineers coming along on your frameshift programming malfunction, Jay?
Will they be done with the problem soon?
Poor Stuttering Jay... He got picked on a lot as a youngster and never learned how to fix his problem.
Hi guys! I'm just pretending to be "Jay" for a little while here! Don't mind me. I'm having trouble with my internal frameshift programming and am going into epileptic fits cognitive malfunctioning, as he does. But we'll soon be back on track!
Pearls before swine indeed.
Those were pearls, Birkel?! I thought Jay was puking out tapioca all over me. Or something even less appealing.
Your pearls are best worn as a necklace by the person most appreciative of them, I hear. Who would that be tonight, I wonder?
When Ritmo joins the party ... "the party's over"
So much for that thread. Good night.
Ratmo---thread killer. Same as it ever was.
I suppose you dumbshits thought Jay was saving it. All I did was repost his thrice-repeated cliches until his system snapped back into focus. Blame me for "killing" something by merely posting your own comrade's words, though! Ridiculous!
Ratmo---thread killer. Same as it ever was.
It really reminds me of a carpet bomb
Just remember, rick: When you're partying with Hu Jintao's money, you must spend it wisely. No sparklers and no disco balls. Champagne is ok, though - very stimulative to the festive atmosphere he expects. And make sure to collect tips at the door. You owe him big time.
Ahhhh No comment, but thanks for trying
I killed no one other than that cretinous mutation, "Jay". If you want to have a serious discussion, it's more than possible now that his repetitive bs and other random gurglings have been swept away.
"turn out the lights, the party's over" Don Meredith RIP
"Just as soon as my Chinese creditors finish carrying away my furniture."
- rick, Semi-anonymous small business owner and commenter disseminating semi-informed opinions about his financial greatness when it comes to possessing uncreditworthy banknotes.
Matt 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
The Chinese are atheists, rick. They care even less for your Jesus-ification of money than I do.
It is stunning how little someone like Gregory understands about economics. The point Bloomberg was making--and that Gregory didn't even realize was a point being made--is that private individuals will spend their own money in a much more economically productive and efficient manner than will the government.
Gregory doesn't even understand the argument. He doesn't even know that there is an argument.
Stupid, badly educated lefty journalists.
Big Gov...FYI, there are conservatively estimated to be 50,000,000 Christians in China and all of them are the kind of Christians whose faith is stronger than the fear of imprisonment death. What could we do in the USA if we had a such dedication to Jesus from 50,000,000 educated young people? The Chinese Christians talk about moving west into the Holy Land as missionaries to convert the Muslims. The Party ruling in China has figured out how dangerous that many self confident people can be to their existing 60 year monopoly on corruption. P.S.: I enjoyed your comments as usual.
Thanks TradGuy for your compliment and informative and interesting comment. I apologize for (almost) letting someone throw me off track.
I had to look twice before I realized it was the "put money in people's hands."
So he's not coming to the issue from a Tea Party perspective or he'd realize that the only right way of saying this is "let people keep the money they earn."
Be that as it may, he's still mostly saying the right thing and if he started from the perspective of the money belonging to the state and realizes that it's better for the economy that the money is in the hands of the people... I'm not going to be too picky about that. It's still good.
Was watching Top Gear today and the Ford Fiesta got a glowing review.
A fun little car built by an American company that was solvent enough not to need the desperate bail outs and government take-over. If there were any way I could buy a new car I'd love to send a little capitalist love Ford's direction.
Trickles said: "I apologize for (almost) letting someone throw me off track."
No child, that was all you.
But hey, you may have shit all over another thread and got your clock cleaned, but at least you got your dick sucked from your lone groupie.
(In addition to the presented facts so clearly inconvenient to his argument, for the love of all that is holy don't point out that the government took a net loss from the purchase and sale of GM assets)
Synova said: "If there were any way I could buy a new car I'd love to send a little capitalist love Ford's direction."
I'm going to be making a couple of automotive purchases soon, and thankfully the gubmint weeded out two manufacturers from which to choose.
Who says the gubmint can't help?
How much is your freedom worth, Jay?
Not speaking for Jay, but right about now....your life.
113 comments so far - 44 by "Big Gov't" alone. This reminds me of BHTV, & not in a good way.
the government took a net loss...
But employment didn't and employment is good for keeping anti-American Republicans out of office.
As for rc, what the fuck is up with all these retards who only count my responses to trolls like Jay and not the comments themselves? I understand that most of you lack any purpose in life and, therefore, a reason for defending what you say. But some of us feel like sticking up for what makes sense. Sue me.
And who even knows (or cares) what Dust Bowl Queen is talking about? I understand her homicidal tendencies toward her first husband form a seminal event in her life experience, and that she hates human beings for being less neat and tidy and more emotional than numbers. But she should realize that most people don't share her sociopathic disease. And they like it that way.
None of which changes the fact that China owns her ass...
And the apology was to Traditional Guy, not to you, GMaynot. So shut your mouth and mind your own damn business.
"As for rc, what the fuck is up with all these retards who only count my responses to trolls like Jay and not the comments themselves?"
Because even when you attempt to make a substantive remark, your premise is so hopelessly flawed that your contributions are near worthless.
"I understand that most of you lack any purpose in life and, therefore, a reason for defending what you say."
Says the guy who just spammed up the thread with 99.5% fecal matter. Your projection is pathological.
"But some of us feel like sticking up for what makes sense."
Only in your fevered mind.
GMaynot said:
blahblahblahblahblah...nahanahnananana.... I'm better than you because I say so !
What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to create jobs.
In China?
Companies create jobs when they get orders, not when they get investors.
Trickles fumed: "And the apology was to Traditional Guy, not to you, GMaynot. So shut your mouth and mind your own damn business."
Follow your own advice Mr. Moderator-of-the-Blog-He-Hates-So-Much: the next time you need to purge your bowels on a thread, mind your own business and keep it off my monitor.
There are actually people here worth reading.
(sticks out tongue)
Your comment would have been more meaningful if it had just consisted of immature facial gestures, GMaynot.
Oh those terrible 5% unemployment Bush years.
Three of my acquaintances were mortgage brokers back then.
Obama needs a good bubble.
fls said: "Companies create jobs when they get orders, not when they get investors."
Wow. Where do you get this stuff?
Companies need investors to expand, which includes hiring new workers.
Getting an order creates work, not jobs.
There are actually people here worth reading.
Yes, and you are not one of them.
You are also not worthy of more respect than Traditional Guy is. He's got more decency, reason and humanity in his little finger than you have in your whole body.
As such, when he and I have a personal exchange, I expect you to shut the heck up about it and butt out.
Your monitor can blow a cathode or a few dozen pixels, for all I care.
Trickles said: "Your comment would have been more meaningful if it had just consisted of immature facial gestures, GMaynot."
Which, ironically enough, would suffice for every argument you've ever tried to make here.
Wait, that's not fair. In all honesty, you do very well in the healthcare topics usually. Everywhere else, you're dreadful.
Everywhere else, you're dreadful.
Any more opinions, GMay? It's not like you care to engage a fact or two tonight. Or really ever, as far as I can tell.
Logical fallacies are first annoying, then grudgingly accepted as inaccurate but shorthand for something understood, then misused.
In this case, income is taxed.
Higher income is taxed more.
Higher income = wealthy.
Therefore wealthy are taxed more.
The fallacy is that higher income does not necessarily equate to wealth.
Now we assert the wealthy don't spend. That seems true, but is it true of higher income people?
Are we asserting people who are not wealthy, but make, say $250K annually, burn it?
Or perhaps they are just not yet wealthy but will save it year after year eventually becoming wealthy?
Or just perhaps, they use that money to earn more income - eventually becoming wealthy by creasting something that builds wealth (such as a business or an investment)?
Or perhaps, people who make that kind of money do so in some years and not in others, therefore are never going to be wealthy?
When we accept the assertion that making a strong income in a given year is the same as being wealthy, we accept a fundamental logic error. We make (or accept as "sounds right") assumptions that are not connected.
Hey, let's base policy on that!
Trickles triumphantly seized on the implicit barb I already directed toward him: "Yes, and you are not one of them."
Good job man.
"You are also not worthy of more respect than Traditional Guy is."
Didn't say or imply I was, and don't really care.
"He's got more decency, reason and humanity in his little finger than you have in your whole body."
Yes yes, I always compliment my girlfriend when she goes down on me too. I'll try this one tomorrow. Thanks Champ, I'll let ya know how it works out.
"As such, when he and I have a personal exchange, I expect you to shut the heck up about it and butt out."
Well, you can shit in one hand, and "expect" in the other, and see which one fills up faster.
"Your monitor can blow a cathode or a few dozen pixels, for all I care."
Now Trickles, that just hurt. Deep man. Almost as much as when you call me GMaynot.
Wow GMaynot. You really are a true vulgarian.
Nice to know there can't be mutual respect between me and another guy without you reading something sexual into it. I suppose your friends (if you have any) are the type to leave you out to dry...? Or are all your friendships/relationships purely transactional? Like bonobo chimps, consisting of nothing more than the mutual exchange of favors (sexual or otherwise) and no more substantive ideas or esteem?
That's pretty sad, man.
"Any more opinions, GMay? It's not like you care to engage a fact or two tonight. Or really ever, as far as I can tell."
Of course you don't recall Trickles. Of course you don't.
"Wow GMaynot. You really are a true vulgarian.
Nice to know there can't be mutual respect between me and another guy without you reading something sexual into it."
This is rich coming from the guy who had a thing for using "homosexual" as a pejorative toward people with whom you disagreed a little while ago.
Very rich indeed.
It's pretty incoherent to say that I need to agree with someone, just because he's gay.
Why, the other day I disagreed with a gay friend of mine on where we should eat or how he to decorate his place in Spain.
I'll let him know that my disagreeing with him is an affront to his homosexuality, because I don't think he got that message.
Maybe we should have been more like the bonobo chimps you so aspire to be like and exchanged sexual favors as a way of, you know, "smoothing things over" - even though I'm not gay. I heard you like things base and unevolved like that.
Wow. Where do you get this stuff?
Wikip, where else?
"Excess capacity means that insufficient demand exists to warrant expansion of output."
Businesses will not expand unless demand warrants it.
Trickles wrote: "It's pretty incoherent to say that I need to agree with someone, just because he's gay."
It's only incoherent if you don't know what "pejorative" means.
Honestly Trickles, for such voluminous use of the language, your proficiency is just terrible.
fls said: "Businesses will not expand unless demand warrants it."
Right. You're talking about the reason for expansion - increase in demand.
The discussion was the mechanism for expansion - capital investment.
You can have plenty of demand, but without capital to invest (either your own or, in most cases, someone else's), you just have work.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Pssst... That idiot, trickles, doesn't even know what "outsourcing" is. And he's such an ignorant blowhard an intellectual seventh grader - he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Here's a cluebat for you, Mr. Macroecon Theory:
Outsourcing != offshoring.
Dolt.
I killed no one other than that cretinous mutation, "Jay".
By proving you don't understand that GM received $50 + billion and laid off 65,000 workers?
Is that how you did that?
Or was it when you were reduced to repeating what I said over & over because your silly drivel is factually false?
Idiot.
Big Gov't Trickling Down on You said...
the government took a net loss...
But employment didn't
Huh?
GM LAID OFF 65,000 PEOPLE YOU ABJECT IMBECILE.
Further, the jobless rate has now topped 9 percent for 19 straight months, the longest stretch on record.
You people have actually convinced yourselves that bailing out GM "saved jobs."
It didn't. It was a political payoff. You know nothing about how bankruptcy works, so your silly, ignorant assertions carry on.
Wikip, where else?
Hysterical.
Another brain dead lefitst who has never worked in the private sector...
what the fuck is up with all these retards who only count my responses to trolls like Jay and not the comments themselves?
Your "responses" to me were your "comments" you babbling goof.
You understand that there is no difference between this:
Big Gov't Trickling Down on You said...
Mantra #12.
They either spend it or invest it. What happens to the "invested" money? It is used by companies to outsource jobs.
FTFY.
And this,
Big Gov't Trickling Down on You said...
It is almost as if you have cognitive dissonance or something...
Right? You can grasp they contain the same amount of facts, correct?
I love the fact that you've said you almost got off topic.
You have no topic, stupid. It is all bird droppings coming from you...
Regardless, because of Ricardian equivalence, taxe cuts are useless if they are not accompanied by spending cuts.
I wonder if it would be possible for any company who receives billions from taxpayers and is also allowed to unload all unprofitable parts of their business could avoid turning profis.
Bloomberg is way too smart to get in the same canoe with Scarborough - way too smart.
I have no idea if he will run or not or if he will be actually good enough (although he is a fine mayor) but one thing about him, he does what he says and you are a fool if you get in his way or bet against him.
Bloomberg should've been laughed (or shamed) out of office for his gibbering "people upset with health care" conjecture after the Times Sq. terror attempt.
Seriously, idiot, you're Mayor of a City that has been the perennial target and victim of Islamic terrorists for decades, and you think "Tea Party" when a bomb goes off? Or did you not really think it, but tried to use a moment of fear and very real danger among NY'ers to push a callow political meme?
Bloomberg is the worst kind of person. Any decent City would've rejected him long ago.
The overpaid, teleprompter reading leach, like gregory, thinks that other people are just as undeserving of the money they earn as he is. he is correct that the money he gets isn't earned.
Even the "Put" vs. "Leave" nomenclature misses the point. For high income earners, especially S Corp. owners, the issue isn't the extra money that can be spent to increase aggregate demand, it's the effect on the net return on capital & investment. Raising the top income rate to 39.6% reduces the net/after tax return on capital by more than 13% (4.6% increase on 35% current top rate). That reduces the number of investment projects that yield an after tax return and therefore reduces the number of investment projects that go forward.
Mayor Bloomberg forgot he was in theology class. Shame on him. He can make $10 billion but not remember like us smart people that he is in theology class. If we had him on the policy team and McCain had become president, maybe we would have had his kind of policy here rather than the Stalinist (just thought I'd make a try for theology class myself) stimulus plan we have.
Bloomberg has only survived and thrived in New Yotk because he has bought off the oppisition. The natural drive for a minority candidate in the now "majority minority" NYC was stunted by Blommie buying off such various and diverse political actors as Al Sharpton, Herbet Daughtry, Rev Butts and many others who if they supported the Controller Bill Thompson who still came very close to defeating him.
Nanny Bloomberg has sold out the heart of NYC to the monied real estate interest and has nothing but contempt for the average working people of this city.
Thinking about the pultocrat Nannie Bloomberg makes even a rock ribbed conservative crazy like me channel Robert Cook.
If Bloomberg ran and we had a real "free press" in this nation he would be destroyed by the many crooked deals he has done in his life. But the mainstream media would never expose one of their own and he would skate by as he has done here in NYC.
I would paticular like to ask questions about the deals for Yankee Staduim, Citifield, the New Nets Stadium, the development of the Williamsburg waterfront, the destruction of Willets Point and the upcoming deal on the Brooklyn waterfront.
I thought it was -our- money. The stuff we exchanged our labor and ingenuity for... I didn't know that we were just playing with their money...
BTW... HOWCOME nobody ever mentions that taxing The Rich basically puts a larger barrier between The Rich and those who strive to become rich-?
The greater the leap between the middle and The Rich; the higher the penalty and greater the disincentive to earn more...
Also all the chatter about paying "Their Fair Share" and "Those who have more should pay more"... aren't these solid arguments for a -FLAT TAX-...i.e. EVERYBODY pay 15-20% on the gross income with NO deductions or loopholes...
Thanks to a healthy personal exemption, only about 3% of Americans had to pay income tax in 1939 -- let's go back to that. (4/130 million)
Another one of Jay's lies:
Further, the jobless rate has now topped 9 percent for 19 straight months, the longest stretch on record.
The silly fuckface has apparently forgotten that during the years 1931 through 1940 the United States was actually... a country... with unemployment statistics!
But everything that comes out of Jay's vomit flecked mouth must sound like the word of God to that bellowing giant of wisdom.
The cons are nervous and making shit up even more feverishly than before because they remember (and if they had any morality, would feel guilty for) the fact that this is the second time they've done this to us. The first time kept them out of significant power as a relevant governing party for the better part of 40 years. BOHICA Republicans!!!
The biggest lie of Jay's career:
GM LAID OFF 65,000 PEOPLE YOU ABJECT IMBECILE.
Not having provided a date or a source for this statement, I began to suspect that the shit-for-brains was up to something fishy. Turns out he was.
I found two credible sources for GM U.S. workforce statistics for the relevant years of late 2008 (when his president, W. Bush, started the recession) until 2010 - or as it's known, "now", when we can analyze the effects of any subsequent act by Obama or Congress on GM's employment.
Here's what I found:
In early 2009, just after Obama took office, GM's U.S. workforce was 96,537. This was BEFORE Obama had time to enact any change in policy (dated February 11, 2009, AP):
The company plans to reduce its total U.S. work force from 96,537 people in 2008 to between 65,000 and 75,000 in 2012, but did not specify how many of the surviving jobs will be salaried or hourly.
In August 2010, it was reported (WSJ) that its North American workforce increased from 103,000 to 105,000. Granted, not all of these jobs are in the U.S., but it goes to show how ridiculous Jay's claim of a loss of 65,000 jobs is.
Worldwide employment for the company as a whole fell from 215,000 to 208,000 - or 7,000 for the mathematically challenged. Not great, but nowhere near a loss of 65,000 in the whole world, forget in America alone!.
So, where does Jay get this 65,000 number? From his ass, apparently. Which smells like the same shit in his brains. The two components of his body would appear intimately connected.
He's a lying sack of shit who yells at the top of his lungs to proclaim his ignorance regarding the subtle art of fact checking.
Nice try, imbecile.
GM restricted losses to 22,000
Jay exaggerates only by a factor of about 3, apparently.
Good try, Jay.
Or even 10,000, if this stat from October referring to 79,000 U.S. employees is accurate.
Either way, Jay is full of shit. The evidence keeps piling up against him. But he is loud and gratuitously foul-mouthed. We should grant him that.
Post a Comment