Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so in plain words, what exactly did you think Democrats were saying, your comments seem to claim you thought they meant we would have a retraction in growth. Are you saying you thought different, if so, what ???
As for your argument that i cant prove that economic growth would have been more, of course not, just as you cant claim it would have been less, but We havent seen any President cut back government spending during a recession as much as this president and we have the slowest growth in decades.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush all added government workers and spending in the public sector.
So when they said that it would threaten the foundation of the nation
What we see happening with this Republican strategy is a willingness to threaten the very foundation of the world’s greatest economic power. That is a very risky proposition.”
You didnt take it to mean it would have a retraction in growth? What exactly do you think they meant by it then?
The sequestration was an awful thing for America. Those numbers being posted now would be considerably higher if not for that nonsense.
Here in Atlanta, dozens of thousands of public sector jobs were lost. The city was posed for a very massive drop in unemployment this year but the sequester considerably hampered those advancements.
Considering the sequester is actually an INCREASE in spending, not a decrease, what exactly caused these loss of jobs exactly?
Oh wait, you didnt know the sequester increased spendign because all you listened to was the whining and crying about how it was to blame for everything under the sun..
Those make believe "considerably higher" numbers that you are pulling out of your butt, where would that money have come from? Thats right, the public, so how does taking money from the public, and then spending the money by the government, equate to a higher economic value?
So basically, the additional costs of Obamacare and energy inflation added to the GDP, as if that's a good thing?
It is NOT a good thing, as you and I know. Those who only see a number, a headline, a comedian/talk show host don't delve behind it, so I shared the reality of why it was not good. It still went over heads.
Considering the sequester is actually an INCREASE in spending, not a decrease, what exactly caused these loss of jobs exactly?
Oh wait, you didnt know the sequester increased spendign because all you listened to was the whining and crying about how it was to blame for everything under the sun..
Those make believe "considerably higher" numbers that you are pulling out of your butt, where would that money have come from? Thats right, the public, so how does taking money from the public, and then spending the money by the government, equate to a higher economic value?
Because, when you take that money out of the economy jobs are lost smart one! You are the one talking out of your ass. You spew so much right wing nut job non-sense on this forum that you aren't even worth discussing with.
As much as you right wing crazies want to believe it doesn't the government is a vital source of employment for millions in this country. And yes, taxes support those jobs. Taxes are needed to create those jobs.
I will get bitchy talking to you. You are one of the top five craziest posters on this forum and you give it a bad name. Go spout your nonsense elsewhere.
Because, when you take that money out of the economy jobs are lost smart one! You are the one talking out of your ass. You spew so much right wing nut job non-sense on this forum that you aren't even worth discussing with.
As much as you right wing crazies want to believe it doesn't the government is a vital source of employment for millions in this country. And yes, taxes support those jobs. Taxes are needed to create those jobs.
I will get bitchy talking to you. You are one of the top five craziest posters on this forum and you give it a bad name. Go spout your nonsense elsewhere.
How does the government spend money if not by taking it out of the economy or devaluing it
All you did was prove me correct which is completely histerical.. You go girl
How does the government spend money if not by taking it out of the economy or devaluing it
All you did was prove me correct which is completely histerical.. You go girl
Explanation: The sequester stopped government spending without resulting in lower taxes. It clogged the valve. The government still took the save revenues from the populace but then stopped injecting it back into the economy in the form of jobs. That is why sequester was damaging! Do you comprehend yet? It is a very simple concept.
So you both admit the comments were meaningless but decided to not only expound them, but high 5 them as well.. My god, is there no end to the amount of embarassment you are willing to undertake to defend the fearmongering Democrats were doing?
No, we are saying no one made such comments. You are being dishonest.
4.1% growth...good news ...and the best in 2 years.
Essentially Obama's own mess got a little better
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
