* Calling all liberals, Video what do you think?
- Thread starter Big P
- Start date
doc111
Well-Known Member
It's frightening! I'm interested to see how some of our more liberal friends will try to spin this one.
abe23
Active Member
Wow, you guys are really obsessed with this one, huh?
I don't give a shit about this ad. It's political speech and as long as they can pay for the airtime, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Just because some wacky birkenstock 'women's' organization issues some dumbass statement doesn't mean I give a shit. I still support obama and think glenn beck is a very good entertainer....
I don't give a shit about this ad. It's political speech and as long as they can pay for the airtime, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Just because some wacky birkenstock 'women's' organization issues some dumbass statement doesn't mean I give a shit. I still support obama and think glenn beck is a very good entertainer....
Big P
Well-Known Member
no the thread is not about that you must fast forward to 4:15 min into the video and thats what we are talking about.
abe23
Active Member
Ok, got it. Sorry 'bout that...
Interesting that you mention spin when Glenn the entertainer deliberately chooses 1941 as the last figures for FDR. You'd think that with two wars and superpower status, spending AFTER 1941 might offer a more relevant comparison, but sure. We're doing a lot of deficit spending. The idea is that when the economy picks up, we will have surpluses that will allow us to pay for this....which is what we did to pay for FDRs deficit spending and also why we had a budget surplus under Clinton, right?
Interesting that you mention spin when Glenn the entertainer deliberately chooses 1941 as the last figures for FDR. You'd think that with two wars and superpower status, spending AFTER 1941 might offer a more relevant comparison, but sure. We're doing a lot of deficit spending. The idea is that when the economy picks up, we will have surpluses that will allow us to pay for this....which is what we did to pay for FDRs deficit spending and also why we had a budget surplus under Clinton, right?
doc111
Well-Known Member
Yeah man! Pay attention! We're talking about deficit spending here!
laughingduck
Well-Known Member
But, But But Obama needs to finance socialism. It takes more money.
doc111
Well-Known Member
It's all just part of his master plan..............
Big P
Well-Known Member
but clinton was able to do that becuase of the internet bubble which boomed in his time,
he left us with the bag when it popped.
just like we hold the bag from the excessive lending and the housing bubble
see the nice tower forming at the end?
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
clinton left a budget surplus so how could his average "deficit" be 8% of GDP- you can't run deficits and build a surplus
and beck is hesitant to relieve obama of responsibility for prior legislation - which is the primary fallacy in his argument
the budgets, both short-term and long-term, are based on existing legislation. the budgets aren't based on what obama thinks he might get passed
the budget is based on the programs currently in-place
if you think obama is driving the budgets, you're wrong
and oh by the way, becky, you conveniently forgot to include the cost of two wars bush was waging which he left out of his budget...................didn't wanna talk 'bout it
and beck is hesitant to relieve obama of responsibility for prior legislation - which is the primary fallacy in his argument
the budgets, both short-term and long-term, are based on existing legislation. the budgets aren't based on what obama thinks he might get passed
the budget is based on the programs currently in-place
if you think obama is driving the budgets, you're wrong
and oh by the way, becky, you conveniently forgot to include the cost of two wars bush was waging which he left out of his budget...................didn't wanna talk 'bout it
Big P
Well-Known Member
the wars are included in bushs number in that video my friend and it was 0.8% during clinton not 8%
you saw it wrong on the video
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
it doesn't matter if he claimed 8% or .8% = it is either a deficit or a surplus it can't be both
the bush budget did not include the full cost of either war
that fact is common knowledge and all over the internet - you're a fool, my friend, if you try to claim otherwise
the bush budget did not include the full cost of either war
that fact is common knowledge and all over the internet - you're a fool, my friend, if you try to claim otherwise
doc111
Well-Known Member
Everything on the internet is true isn't it?
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
get real assholeEverything on the internet is true isn't it?
Big P
Well-Known Member
it did include the wars dumbass, trying to make shit up
you think we're stupid or somthin?
lol "its common knowledge" dude your a complete clown
doc111
Well-Known Member
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Keynesian_economicsKeynes asserted that unemployment can be readily cured through governmental deficit spending, and that inflation can be checked by means of government tax surpluses (Rothbard 200. In other words, he argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation. Keynes' macroeconomic theories were developed in the context of to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
yep, i think you are a total idiot