Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: John B. on 9 Feb 2010 15:18 On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now. > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing that > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to invest > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in midstream. > > -- > bill-o So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010?
From: BAR on 9 Feb 2010 15:26 In article <2eca23d8-b634-4145-abee- fdd831ad8e0e(a)y7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 8, 10:37�pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > On �8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Far smaller? You're going to have a tough time proving that. Without > > > the stimulus, would we have unemployment below 10% today? Would GDP > > > have grown 2.2% in the third quarter of 2009 and 5.7% in the fourth? > > > > The Federal Government has intervened in two and only two recessions: this > > one and the Great Depression. See a pattern? > > > > -- > > bill-o > > Two events do no make a representative sample. Nonetheless, the > parallels I see are (A) that Hoover's do-nothing policy during the > first three years of the Depression made it worse and (B) FDR's > immediate intervention in the economy through government spending > stabilized it in 1933, although obviously not permanently. Where does the government money come from? What controls are put in place to stop the government from spending the money when the economy shows signs of returning to normal. Either you want the government to take over or you want the private sector to thrive. Pick one and only one.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Feb 2010 15:41 On Feb 9, 3:18 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now. > > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing that > > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to invest > > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in midstream. > > > -- > > bill-o > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010? The govt intervention is probably the cause of it. The govt spending *IS* the growth. The fallacy is that there is some other end to be achieved. If the economy recovers, it will not be because of govt spending, and govt spending cannot do anything but slow any actual recovery because it wastes wealth on nothing...create a few jobs; maybe, but does not create wealth, rather, consumes it.
From: Moderate on 9 Feb 2010 15:45 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e34e35e6-da6b-43e1-84a2-4f08e184fe62(a)v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now. > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing > that > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to invest > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in midstream. > > -- > bill-o So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010? ***************************************************** I see you ignored my reply and now you want to move the goal posts. Tsk Tsk
From: John B. on 9 Feb 2010 16:02
On Feb 9, 3:45 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e34e35e6-da6b-43e1-84a2-4f08e184fe62(a)v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now. > > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing > > that > > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to invest > > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in midstream. > > > -- > > bill-o > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010? > ***************************************************** > > I see you ignored my reply and now you want to move the goal posts. Tsk Tsk I didn't see your reply and I wasn't talking to you, anyway. |