-
Comment -
well josh your bs excuse was the red states get more military spending than the blue, that chart shows just as much spending in blue states to the military and maybe more. it names three northern states that have huge military spending. you know to argue over something so trivial like this when it is a pure fact that the red states get more in transfer payments than blue, and you know what josh you know it.Comment -
WSJ is owned by the same parent company. It has also won numerous journalistic prizes. I don't blow off stuff like you do, I've even watched hour + long videos you've posted and said I agreed with most of it.
The chart doesn't show that at all, it says non-payers by state on it.
He did mention defense contractors in 3 blue states, but that is much cheaper than operating an actual base.Comment -
Yeah you say you agree, then in every other post you disagree. 2 faced.WSJ is owned by the same parent company. It has also won numerous journalistic prizes. I don't blow off stuff like you do, I've even watched hour + long videos you've posted and said I agreed with most of it.
The chart doesn't show that at all, it says non-payers by state on it.
He did mention defense contractors in 3 blue states, but that is much cheaper than operating an actual base.Comment -
guitar josh, how do you feel knowing that all the dumb shit you advocate is completely counter to want the public wants? (i.e., public wants more government involvement in things like health care, wall st, want fair-trade policies that protect american workers and the environment, want to see the rich and corporations pay more in taxes, etc.)
when you say stupid shit like, "best thing FDR did was die," surely you know that FDR is consistently rated as the 1st or 2nd best president in the history of our country.Last edited by scumbag; 11-03-15, 04:17 PM.Comment -
Boys, what's with the name calling and personal attacks? Not everyone is 100% right or 100% wrong.
If you don't agree, just say so and move on.
Comment -
josh is 100% wrong on economic issues. what he advocates is the near feudalism of victorian england.
there was never a freer-market than victorian england (aka dickens era). and we see the miserable poverty it created.
the simple fact is: a thriving middle-class is not the natural-state of all-out capitalism; for a thriving middle-class to emerge, it takes government policies (i.e., a progressive tax code, education, worker protection, consumer protections, collective bargaining, etc.).Comment -
^you haven't even accepted governments DO NOT create jobs so you truly have NO business talking about economics. You couldn't even pass an intro class.
not having fun when I make you look like a clown?
what a surprise. You've been exposed, nothing will change this but your attempts to try are entertaining.Last edited by brooks85; 11-03-15, 04:52 PM.Comment -
Sorry RK, I got no tolerance for whiny rich guys crying about there Freedom.
Guy is borderline psychopath & a pathological liar.
Anyone that says the best think FDR did was die. Is fuked in the head.Comment -
this penetrating idiot is still stuck on this?
dumbass,
even forbes articles acknowledge reality: government does "create jobs".
from an actual economist:
John T. Harvey
John T. Harvey is an English-born American Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University. Harvey, a post-Keynesian economist, considered a heterodox school of thought, publishes accessible editorials and content to the field's study. Wikipedia
Born: January 20, 1961 (age 54), London, United Kingdom
Books: Currencies, Capital Flows and Crises: A Post Keynesian Analysis of Exchange Rate Determination
- Of Course the Government Can Create Jobs!
- A recurring theme in the Presidential Debates has been the role of the government in the economy. There are obviously many complex issues involved and a number of tradeoffs and caveats exist with any policy. That said, however, the assertion that the government cannot create jobs is ridiculous. It is a function of a biased definition of “job” designed to decide the question even before it has been asked.
To show this, start with a relatively neutral definition of job: any routine activity for which we earn income. This covers a wide range of pursuits, from managing a grocery store to selling financial derivatives. It does not include cutting your lawn (it’s routine but you don’t earn income) or selling that pool table you were positive you were going to use (you earn income but it’s not routine). As for myself, Texas Christian University contracts with me to teach, research, and perform service activities on a regular basis, and in exchange they *************** money into my account every month. I don’t think anyone would deny that what I do qualifies as a job.
But, those who say that the government cannot create employment are adding another element to the definition. To them, a job is any routine activity for which we earn income paid by an entity required to earn a profit. There is no compelling reason for this addendum and it arbitrarily excludes people like James Galbraith, who is an economist just like me, but at the University of Texas, and Jeffrey Halstead, Chief of Police in Fort Worth, Texas. By the qualified definition, they don’t have “jobs” because their income is derived from tax revenue and not private-sector sales. Ditto every single fireman, public school teacher, Marine, sailor, airman, soldier, national park ranger, defense industry employee, NASA scientist, social worker, librarian, etc., etc. None of them has a job.
Why would someone would embrace such a questionable characterization? Because their true goal isn’t to generate a scientific understanding of the manner in which the macroeconomy operates, but to make a moral statement. Specifically, their contention is that only those routine activities financed by profit are truly of value. Everything the government does is unnecessary because if people really wanted it, they would have bought it in the private sector: that which is useful is profitable. Furthermore, they say, were it not for my taxes, those in the public sector would not have a job. Firemen earn a salary only because some of mine was taken away (under threat of imprisonment).
It is not surprising that those who espouse this view are almost always in the private sector themselves. It says, “I deserve my income because I work hard creating something of value. Meanwhile, government employees are just handed a portion of my salary for doing something no one really wants. Therefore, not only am I morally superior, but my taxes should be cut!” It’s a very convenient philosophy, but it’s not economic analysis. (From time to time, you also hear this from some in the public sector, but they either conveniently ignore the contradiction or believe that where they work is one of the few exceptions.)
What this ignores is something I was arguing in my last post: not everything that is profitable is truly of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. If we defined a job as any routine activity for which we earn income paid by an entity whose activities are socially valuable, then we would most certainly be excluding things done by BOTH the private and public sectors. How much do private sector activities like pornography, reality TV, and cigarette smoking add to our well being? Meanwhile, if we depended solely on profit for motivation, we would not have national defense, child protective services, or education (or police protection or fire protection) for the poor.
Furthermore, the means by which public sector activity is financed is more complex than implied above. Not only do your taxes go to pay the salary of the fireman, but, when he spends it, his salary contributes to your wages. So who is supporting whom–is the government dependent on taxation of private sector salaries, or are private sector salaries dependent on sales to government institutions and employees? Obviously, they are largely interdependent and rely on the continuation of the flow between them. Largely, however, but not completely, for if one of the two can act with autonomy, it is the government. At the federal level, we can spend in deficit indefinitely and without fear of default (see It is Impossible for the US to Default), meaning that the government can spend even without tax revenue, and its spending can create private sector sales–and jobs. Therefore, in a world where we have a difficult time generating sufficient demand to hire all those willing to work, the private sector is actually more dependent on the government to boost its sales than the government is on the private sector for tax revenues (see Why the Private Sector NEEDS the Government to Spend Money). Now who is the parasite?!
This is not to argue that all government spending is socially useful. Of course it isn’t, any more than all private sector is. It is our responsibility to complain loudly when we think the public sector is wasting resources (something we will all have an opportunity to do on November 6). But, one thing is clear: the government creates jobs, and lots of them. In fact, the private sector needs them to do so. Don’t forget, the rules of accounting tell us that if the government is in deficit, then the private sector must be in surplus (see Why You Should Love Government Deficits)!- A recurring theme in the Presidential Debates has been the role of the government in the economy. There are obviously many complex issues involved and a number of tradeoffs and caveats exist with any policy. That said, however, the assertion that the government cannot create jobs is ridiculous. It is a function of a biased definition of “job” designed to decide the question even before it has been asked.
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnthar...-creates-jobs/
penetrate off troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!Comment -
don't know WTF happened to my post -- was trying to link this to show what a drooler even forbes (not exactly liberal propaganda) think brooks is.
Comment -
lol I can quote economist with MUCH more deserved respect than him. Those who can't do, teach.
but this part proves his poor logic
"But, those who say that the government cannot create employment are adding another element to the definition. To them, a job is any routine activity for which we earn income paid by an entity required to earn a profit. There is no compelling reason for this addendum and it arbitrarily excludes people like James Galbraith, who is an economist just like me, but at the University of Texas, and Jeffrey Halstead, Chief of Police in Fort Worth, Texas. By the qualified definition, they don’t have “jobs” because their income is derived from tax revenue and not private-sector sales."
The fact is he is wrong and on the defensive for two reasons;
1. Without tax dollars he has no job so defending himself with his opinion proves nothing. That is why if you objectively read that article, it proves nothing except how biased he is. Here, take a look you must have missed it.
"Why would someone would embrace such a questionable characterization? Because their true goal isn’t to generate a scientific understanding of the manner in which the macroeconomy operates, but to make a moral statement. Specifically, their contention is that only those routine activities financed by profit are truly of value. Everything the government does is unnecessary because if people really wanted it, they would have bought it in the private sector: that which is useful is profitable. Furthermore, they say, were it not for my taxes, those in the public sector would not have a job. Firemen earn a salary only because some of mine was taken away (under threat of imprisonment)."
what, morals? I thought the topic was how government creates job. But now he is telling the reader whatever on the opposite side of his position thinks ... Stick to economics John T Harvey, you're a terrible internet writer(wouldn't even insult real journalists by calling him one).
2. He is a teacher with tenure at a school apart of a dirty, for-profit, scam perpetuated on millions of kids. And guess what? He brainwashes them to be just like him.
I had a conversation with a delivery driver one time about driver-less cars and how you'll first see them doing his job in the future. He immediately got defensive, even though he will be retired by the time it happens, and that is exactly what you have here. Fear, not logic.
and just to keep ripping this article apart, following the paragraph that proves how biased he is, he follows up with this one. He ends his last paragraph with" Firemen earn a salary only because some of mine was taken away (under threat of imprisonment)," a fact but a very poorly constructed point because without taxes fire departments would still be paid by private business/consumers directly just like any normal service(data protection) so it is not the "firemen" that are useless. It is taxing people to pay them. He is just using a popular logical fallacy to make the other sides argument look bad without any real proof.
"It is not surprising that those who espouse this view are almost always in the private sector themselves. It says, “I deserve my income because I work hard creating something of value. Meanwhile, government employees are just handed a portion of my salary for doing something no one really wants. Therefore, not only am I morally superior, but my taxes should be cut!” It’s a very convenient philosophy, but it’s not economic analysis. (From time to time, you also hear this from some in the public sector, but they either conveniently ignore the contradiction or believe that where they work is one of the few exceptions.)
What this ignores is something I was arguing in my last post: not everything that is profitable is truly of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. If we defined a job as any routine activity for which we earn income paid by an entity whose activities are socially valuable, then we would most certainly be excluding things done by BOTH the private and public sectors. How much do private sector activities like pornography, reality TV, and cigarette smoking add to our well being? Meanwhile, if we depended solely on profit for motivation, we would not have national defense, child protective services, or education (or police protection or fire protection) for the poor."
here he goes again with the moral thing. TCU's English department should be embarrassed by this article. But, here is the coup de grâce to his poor logic.
"Meanwhile, if we depended solely on profit for motivation, we would not have national defense, child protective services, or education (or police protection or fire protection) for the poor."
1. National defense has NOTHING to do with the economics of why governments do not create jobs.
2. BS defense spending like Iraq War is the ultimate example of governments do not create jobs. Those contractors rebuilding Iraq were stealing tax dollars, nothing else. That is not job creation.
3. Child protective services? Oh like the people who took a kid away from their family because they let her play outside in her yard for 2 hours alone. Government knows best right?
4. My favorite... he uses education as an example... if you can't admit the hypocrisy in that you are truly pathetic.
I doubt you'll read all this but I showed the clear bias of that liberal economist. All you need to know though is this;
Governments DO NOT create jobs.
Last edited by brooks85; 11-03-15, 08:58 PM.Comment -
edit your fukn post ya putz, that is the problem.
Get read all those damn !'s in the bottom where you say the reason for editing a post.Last edited by brooks85; 11-03-15, 08:27 PM.Comment -
should fix itself on next pageComment -
all jacked upComment -
I just want to be treated the same under the law as everyone else. You would shoot someone else in the back and take their money claiming it was their fair share.
Doesn't really bother me, considering that the general population can't even name their congressional rep. BTW, using what those people want is a weak argument.
How does it feel to have such horrible ideas that almost no one, including yourself, will voluntarily live that way? The only way to get most people to practice socialism is through force, since they know they'll end up being exploited if they don't. I'm sure you don't know that roughly half economists say that FDR's policies did nothing but prolong the depression, even academic studies have been published showing that to be true.
You arguments are so bad you're saying that Victorian England was defined by feudalism, despite scholars saying it was defined by it's prosperity and peace. It didn't create poverty, the people at the end of that era had a much higher standard of living and a longer average life span.
That isn't a fact, the middle class was created by capitalism. Worker protection, consumer protections, etc, are all products of the free market.
I have no tolerance for delusional narcissistic sociopaths that think the world owes them something simply because they didn't die in the past month.
You can't even name one lie I've told you piece of shit.Comment -
Dante, I went back and looked at military spending per state. I used the number of soldiers by state and divided that by the populations of the state. The 19 states that voted blue in that past 4 presidential elections have 181 citizens for every soldier, while the 22 states that went red in every election since 2000 have about 112 citizens per soldier. I have the numbers for the states that voted for both parties, but it doesn't make much of a difference. One of the main reasons that red states get more from the federal government than blue states is because red states have so many more soldiers per capita than blue states.Comment -
No Josh I would just shoot you. You can keep your money.
I have never took a handout in my life. I doubt you can say the same.
Josh lie total is 42.Comment -
Well, at least you admit you would kill someone for different political beliefs. And you would take my property. ANd anyone else's, and shoot them, because you're a selfish, entitled POS. Haven't taken a handout? You sure wish you could, although I doubt that's true. I haven't lied at all, every time you accuse me of lying you're lying yourself.Comment -
Gotta laugh at Brooksy. Sitting in his union state job cubicle, posting in here while at work, saying unions suck and his job is not created by the govt.
That's real logic going on. Uses math and logic in just about every post, yet shows none.
Hypocrisy at it's finest.Comment -
more rkelly "my truths"Gotta laugh at Brooksy. Sitting in his union state job cubicle, posting in here while at work, saying unions suck and his job is not created by the govt.
That's real logic going on. Uses math and logic in just about every post, yet shows none.
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Everyone knows what you are rkelly; an idiot. And that is not an insult, just an honest observation.
Also, terrible logic. There are many educators out there that live off tax-dollars but still teach the truth; governments do not create jobs. Since you're uneducated on all these topics you create your "my truths" which is why you're consistently failing every time you try to make a point.
Last edited by brooks85; 11-04-15, 11:46 AM.Comment -
-
I like Scumbag, most of us would have given up after page 5 or 6, Scumbag is relentless, ruthless, guy goes on an 18 page assault. Well conditioned posterComment -
BROOKS first place in poker. Did you finally loosen up that tight ass, like I told you too.more rkelly "my truths"
Everyone knows what you are rkelly; an idiot. And that is not an insult, just an honest observation.
Also, terrible logic. There are many educators out there that live off tax-dollars but still teach the truth; governments do not create jobs. Since you're uneducated on all these topics you create your "my truths" which is why you're consistently failing every time you try to make a point.Comment -
Comment
