Thread: WI Recall of Gov. Walker Produces 1 MILLION Signatures

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You have the NERVE to talk about full context? After you hacked out a tiny portion of what YOU linked to? You only selected what supports today's anti-worker GOP. WHY do you think Scott Walker is facing recall? WHY do you think over one hundred thousand working people showed up at Walker's door???

Yep, he called you out for hacking out-of-context quotes, and he was right. Don't get upset because you go called out on it. On top of that, the Unions do not equal workers. They are a small % of overall workers and they are probably the worst part of that group. Your false equivalency is telling of your blind partisanship.

Now, let's talk about Walker. You failed to answer my question. Hell, you even basically asked it yourself, "WHY do you think Scott Walker is facing recall?". I would like you to answer that question. What concrete negative effect has Walker's policies had? I don't want an ideological answer like, "He attacked unions." because that isn't a negative effect. If teachers unions are removed but the teachers are being paid the same and, in fact, more teachers were hired, there is no negative effect.

Tell me ONE negative thing that has actually happened under Walker's leadership.

PS. I'll tell you the real answer to your question of why Walker is facing a recall. It's because of liberal sheep.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You folks on the right have NO clue about economics. The WORST thing to do right now is austerity. It will contract the economy even more and plunge us into a depression.

Let me ask you a question. If you are being crushed by debt do you stop eating out 3 times a week and buying new things or do you start eating out 5 times a week and buy a new car?

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Let me ask you a question. If you are being crushed by debt do you stop eating out 3 times a week and buying new things or do you start eating out 5 times a week and buy a new car?

You live in government ran utopia where you never have to think or work again. Making a joke

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Question for you libs. Could you point out something bad that has resulted in Walker's policies? Not some ideological BS, I mean hard facts (eg. budget increased, teachers lost jobs/got pay cuts). SOMETHING?

A lot of talk ans STILL, none of you anti-Walker people can answer this question. I guess you hate him for balancing the budget.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

A lot of talk ans STILL, none of you anti-Walker people can answer this question. I guess you hate him for balancing the budget.

He ummmm he ummm he ummm He is a racist who hates kids!!!!!!!!! right?

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You folks on the right have NO clue about economics. The WORST thing to do right now is austerity. It will contract the economy even more and plunge us into a depression...

Incredible irony here. The spending that y'all have done didn't do what you said it would. Spending your way out of a recession has never worked.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Let me ask you a question. If you are being crushed by debt do you stop eating out 3 times a week and buying new things or do you start eating out 5 times a week and buy a new car?

The telling thing is that few people live their personal life in a liberal manner willingly. In other words, if you listened to liberals and how they "think" about economics or even social positions, you'd laugh if I told you to live that way. And yet they all sit there in academia and so forth lecturing about how "ah, if you spend more and more money, then you make even more!" or "if you increase taxes on people, the only thing that happens is the government makes more money!" And then their supporters crowd around going "mooo! Moooo!! Brilliant! Moooo! Moooooo! Baaaa! Mooooooo!" and congratulating themselves on how smart and sophisticated they are. This moderate guy I work with was arguing that we need to legalize drugs and allow people to choose if they want to use drugs and I asked him if his kids started using drugs would he mind? And he got angry and was like "my kids would never use drugs!! NEVER!" And I go "why do you care? It's just a choice! Right?"

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Let me ask you a question. If you are being crushed by debt do you stop eating out 3 times a week and buying new things or do you start eating out 5 times a week and buy a new car?

There is a difference between a government and a household.
In a household, you make as much as you can, and your spending should be restricted by your income.
A government is supposed to spend as little as it can to do what needs to be done. And then set taxes high enough to cover it.
If you do that, you'll get a government that does look at spending with a hard eye, because it carries the political cost of higher taxes.

Reagan discovered that if you cut taxes, and increase spending, you run a huge deficit, but you get re-elected by a landslide.
That's what Cheney meant when he said "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter".
In a household it's rare that you can decide to make more money, that would be the case if you were turning down work, where you could make more to balance your budget.
In a government, it's rare when you can spend less. You could reduce government salaries, cut programs, but then do you cut all government pay, because then you have people leaving the government, and despite all the rhetoric, most government jobs need to be done.
What a government can do is take in more money, by raising taxes, but that has a political cost, too.
What we had was a period when the GOP dominated government, in which they increased spending dramatically, decreased revenue dramatically, and reduced the actual work that the government does, by eliminating necessary regulations, which resulted in the collapse of the financial system.
Leaving us with a weakened economy, huge deficits, and just enough GOP control to stymie attempts to correct the situation.

Originally Posted by goober

There is a difference between a government and a household....

Actually, there's very little difference. Spend more that you earn and you go into debt. Debt as a necessary investment is OK, even good, so long as it's not too much. Borrow for stuff you don't need and you'll be paying a lot of your income just to keep up with interest. When your creditors decide that your debt/ earnings ratio is too high they'll downgrade your credit, so you'll be forced to pay even higher interest fees.

Originally Posted by goober

There is a difference between a government and a household.
In a household, you make as much as you can, and your spending should be restricted by your income.
A government is supposed to spend as little as it can to do what needs to be done. And then set taxes high enough to cover it.
If you do that, you'll get a government that does look at spending with a hard eye, because it carries the political cost of higher taxes.

Reagan discovered that if you cut taxes, and increase spending, you run a huge deficit, but you get re-elected by a landslide.
That's what Cheney meant when he said "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter".
In a household it's rare that you can decide to make more money, that would be the case if you were turning down work, where you could make more to balance your budget.
In a government, it's rare when you can spend less. You could reduce government salaries, cut programs, but then do you cut all government pay, because then you have people leaving the government, and despite all the rhetoric, most government jobs need to be done.
What a government can do is take in more money, by raising taxes, but that has a political cost, too.
What we had was a period when the GOP dominated government, in which they increased spending dramatically, decreased revenue dramatically, and reduced the actual work that the government does, by eliminating necessary regulations, which resulted in the collapse of the financial system.
Leaving us with a weakened economy, huge deficits, and just enough GOP control to stymie attempts to correct the situation.

So this is interesting for a number of reasons:

1) goober is bold enough to state that you run a government differently than you live your personal life. I say "bold" but I actually mean the opposite because there's nothing "bold" about blatantly making a lame statement meant to wash away the fact that everything you believe is discordant with how you live your life. It's like if I said "people need to stop taking showers" even if I showered and when you questioned me, my "bold" reply was "that's right, that only applies to you, not me."

2) As usual, goober takes the tactic of attempting to give himself some credibility by citing Reagan and trying to position Reagan as a liberal -- you can't make this up, it's too idiotic. Meanwhile, he ignores things like the fact that spending occurred by the Democrat Congress and that, if spending more means you get re-elected, then why don't liberals just win elections for the rest of all time by pronouncing they will promise to tax and spend? LOL, right? Oh, wait, more of "I live differently than what I just told you." What a shock.

3) The rest of his post is railing about how Republicans caused the collapse of the financial system, requiring a complete ignorance of the reality of the issue. As usual, goober sits around in some imaginary world and convinces himself he's some super smart guy who knows how it all works.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Since you are so smart when it comes to economics, could you explain to us how spending borrowed money while you are in debt helps the economy? I am interested because I would like to know what they teach at Yale and Stanford without having to pay the tuition.

Spending increases GDP, which means more jobs, higher incomes.
Taxes on the wealthy reduce deficits, with no effect on spending or investment.
That's why increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending can boost the economy and reduce the deficit.
It's why cutting spending and reducing taxes on the wealthy results in recession, unemployment and high deficits.

Originally Posted by goober

Spending increases GDP, which means more jobs, higher incomes.
Taxes on the wealthy reduce deficits, with no effect on spending or investment.
That's why increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending can boost the economy and reduce the deficit.
It's why cutting spending and reducing taxes on the wealthy results in recession, unemployment and high deficits.

Oh, so government spending means more jobs and higher incomes? If so, then why aren't there more jobs and higher incomes than ever in history? Because we've spent more during Barack Hussein's term than ever in history.

Or did you just mean more GOVERNMENT jobs and higher GOVERNMENT incomes?

LOL, owned, as usual.

Anyone want to buy the goober that I own? I'll sell it to you for cheap.