Thread: Liberal Math

Originally Posted by meridian5455

Here's some numbers to chew on. The data comes from government sources, but Obama supporters will disagree with the numbers regardless of the source.

Bush Tax Cuts Vs Obama Stimulus - The 24 Month Results of Each

This is what Bush left Obama to work with. Remember?

Originally Posted by Rasselas

My how selective you are in your definitions. That's not funny either. So Bush was a liberal? Because that's what you've just implied. You're trying to rewrite history to your own liking, but the data don't support your version. So you rewrite the definitions. Even Reagan's tax cuts were a stimulus, since they were not matched with spending cuts--in fact, he increased spending, so there was stimulus both in taxes and spending.

Do you regularly deal in self-serving, conveniently ignorant horseshit?

Selective?
You PROVE for me that Bush isn't a conservative. Same goes for Reagan... Fiscal conservatives believe in cutting spending and balancing the books. That goes hand and hand with their view of small government... Small gov = less money. Bush was neither. I love when you guys bring up Reagan, like that's supposed to mean something. I know I know, the MSM likes to tell you he's the messiah of conservatives. But it just isn't so. The "Reagan" people like to brag about isn't the Reagan that was really in office. Real current day conservatives follow the likes of Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig Von Mises. Austrian econ.... Bush wouldn't know who Mises was if he slapped him in the back of the head.

I don't need to change history. History and actions prove that what I'm saying is accurate. Only thing that's "ignorant horseshit" are your posts. Have you ever read Mises? Doubt it.

Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson

What the OP shows is conservative lack of logic and reasoning..

How is it taking money out of the economy? Who really spends and drives the economy? The middle class. All the products that the rich people make their millions off of are bought by the middle class. The millionaires have all the money they need and more, and if they get a little more back in tax money, you think they are spending it on products? No because they can buy whatever they want with the absurd amount of money they have.

And what do you think happens if unemployment benefits wasn't extended? More people with no money to buy products. That money is going right back into the economy. And those people aren't having to rely on welfare and other safety net options.

What would happen if many companies and banks went under without a stimulus? Many people out of job, less money in the economy. Less money in taxes being collected. Our country thrives on a strong middle class. You give a tax break to the middle class living paycheck to paycheck, they are going to spend that money. Give it to million- and billionaires, they have all the things they need, all the money to buy it, they aren't going to spend that money.


And speaking of messed up math, what about conservative math.
Lets cut billions in tax revenues while not cutting spending., That's great math.

But I'm not expecting anything less than dodges, deflections, and more idiotic comments that don't address anything I said. Go pull a talking point off fox and copy and paste it here, or one of the several standard right wing replies to avoid the discussion.

I'm in the midst of reading Amazon.com: Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts (9781604190441): Hunter Lewis: Books
You should check it out as it explains your misconceptions and how the Keynesian ideals were wrong for dealing with our current crisis. Once I've finished it I'll post some quotes up for you.

But since you want to talk about math. Liberals want to continnue to SPEND SPEND SPEND even though the debt is at 100% of GDP. the S&P said when they downgraded us a major portion of that was because of ENTITLEMENT spending, which is something Democrats refuse to cut..... Hell we could also talk about how Ron Paul would cut spending 1 trillion in his first year. Obama doesn't have shit on that. Neither do any of your liberal comrades.

Originally Posted by meridian5455

Here's some numbers to chew on. The data comes from government sources, but Obama supporters will disagree with the numbers regardless of the source.

Bush Tax Cuts Vs Obama Stimulus - The 24 Month Results of Each

...and Bush left us in the Shithole. Thanks George!

....tax cuts that were suppose to create jobs, didn't. Thanks George!

....Iraq War was going to be paid with the oil from Iraq. Thanks George! Mission Accomplished!

...and the Dow Jones has doubled under Obama in three years. Corporate profits are higher than ever.

...and this is why the Republicans are focussing on religion, contraceptives, and womens vaginas. Suits them well.

Why are Obama's critics so dumb?

Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson

And speaking of messed up math, what about conservative math.

Funny you'd ask about that:

After midterm election interviewer Robert Siegel stated that "many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism" regarding Republican hopes to retain both Houses in November, Rove suggested that the NPR host was biased.

"Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that," Rove said. "You're just making a comment."

"I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day," Seigel responded

"No you're not!" Rove exclaimed.

Rove said that he was reviewing 68 polls a week, and that "unlike the general public, I'm allowed to see the polls on the individual races," as opposed to public polls reported in the media.

"You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome," Rove said.

Rove claimed that the polls "add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House."

"You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math," Rove said. "I'm entitled to 'the' math."

The Raw Story | Rove 'dukes it out' with NPR host over polling data