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

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Debt is not the reason our economy contracted...NOW what Einstein?

Actually it is. The housing market collapsed, so equity was lost, and many people found themselves owing more than their home was worth.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

...

SO...if debt is the reason our economy contracted, WHO is to blame? ...

Bwarney Fwank.

Originally Posted by goober

Actually that was one of those things I learned in economics class, you should try to understand economics, it would change your whole political philosophy.

The fact that you took an economic class neither means you know anything about economics nor that you even understand what your liberal economics professor was attempting to teach.

It's basically like the rest of your post where you say that conservatives grow government. That's great and I'm sure you think you're all perceptive and intelligent. Of course, then you're still stuck wondering why, if growing government leads to election victories, why doesn't everyone campaign on it and try to be a bigger liberal than the next guy.

Meanwhile, you're here blabbering about how spending borrowed money grows government and you can't explain it other than to say "...that's what I learned in economics class!" That's about as cogent as when people defend global warming with "...that's what my science teacher told me!" That's great, kiddo. You can't explain it, but you can sure repeat it. Good for you, human tape recorder.

Originally Posted by goober

When you get into economics there is a number called capacity, it's what the economy is capable of producing, if everyone had a job, and all the plants and equipment were being used.
It's where we would be if everything was going well.
Right now we are about a trillion shy of producing what we could produce, and we don't get that back, since this recession began we have produced three trillion less in goods and services, our net worth is three trillion less than it should be, because there is a shortage of demand.
Consumers can't provide that demand, their credit is tapped out, their incomes are down, States can't provide that demand, they are required to balance budgets, and their revenues are down so they are cutting back. The only player who can provide that demand is the Federal government.
And there's a multiplier effect on the spending, a dollar in transfer payments, unemployment checks, social security, welfare, etc. produces 7 dollars in GDP, the money gets spent almost immediately, the storekeeper where the money is spent, buys more inventory, the wholesaler orders from the factory and the money turns over and over, even military spending (the least productive) has a multiplier of around 3.

Full employment lowers welfare costs, unemployment costs and increases tax revenues, and you avoid the social costs of long term unemployment.
More importantly, since in the long run we're all dead, you make life better in the short run for the people, and that's where we live, in the short run.

Yep, big daddy government borrowing and spending is the way out of our mess. Yet Obama has borrowed thus far 4.5 trillion and is going to add another 1.5 trillion this yr and what do we have to show for it, except raising the national debt by 6 trillion in 4 yrs. And now you want to spend more than that number, by how much, another trillion this coming yr. Making for borrowing 2.5 trillion, in which Obama will have raised the national debt in just 4 yrs by a whopping 7 trillion. I have always said liberals think there is never an end to the money supply.

Originally Posted by Forplay

I have always said liberals think there is never an end to the money supply.

If you don't have to earn the money and are just spending someone else's money, why would you care if there's an end? You get "intellectuals" like goober talking about some class he took in college and how he learned that if you spend more money, incomes rise. But if you ask him why incomes aren't at an all time high when spending is, he has no answer. He just robotically repeats his talking point.

Originally Posted by goober

Right now we are about a trillion shy of producing what we could produce, and we don't get that back, since this recession began we have produced three trillion less in goods and services, our net worth is three trillion less than it should be, because there is a shortage of demand

I forgot to touch on this point. Here is another point where I think you aren't getting it. I believe that we didn't lose $3 trillion in anything. I think our economy was over-inflated due to massive amounts of debt used to sustain it. There is a reason the word "bubble" exists in economics. Our whole economy is based on a bubble based on debt.

Actually, you missed the bigger problem, which is that goober thinks that the economy "should be" at a certain level. It merely highlights his utter and total ignorance. He's a typical liberal. Someone "should make" so much. Someone else makes "too much." The economy "should be" at $3 trillion, but it's not. And America is such a great place that someone so ignorant can still chug along and talk about his college education and lecture people from his perch of academia. In any other country, he'd be dead in some ditch somewhere or starving in poverty.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

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.

Eclipse was wrong, and so are you. I did not hack up the context of Eisenhower's quote. I gave the complete quote.

And to add more context and dispel the lie that Ike was not talking about unions, HERE is the full context of that quote.



Remarks at Dedication of AFL-CIO Building.
June 4, 1956

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Dwight D. Eisenhower: Remarks at Dedication of AFL-CIO Building. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Remarks at Dedication of AFL-CIO Building.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

These two quotes show clearly how the GOP has changed.

Then:
"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Now:
"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru and co-author of the GOP's 'Contract with America'

So is it your contention that when the Democrats ran against Eisenhower, they were running against the party of the working class?

All you did was slap down two quotes without the slightest thought about what they mean and thought you hit some home run. That's pretty pathetic. Do you think Eisenhower was talking about "labor" in the same context as Norquist? Or you don't know, but the words are the same? In fact, what do you think those quotes mean?

It's pretty amazing how liberals on here "argue." They just make any random statement they want and we have to take it seriously for some reason. Fine. Then if Eisenhower used to be for labor, then I suppose Democrats were against labor because they opposed Eisenhower. OWNED.

Anyone want to buy this guy from me? I'll throw in my goober for free.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

So is it your contention that when the Democrats ran against Eisenhower, they were running against the party of the working class?

By the way, your quotes are quite stupid. Or, rather, your interpretation of them is. All you did was slap down two quotes without the slightest thought about what they mean and thought you hit some home run. That's pretty pathetic. Do you think Eisenhower was talking about "labor" in the same context as Norquist? Or you don't know, but the words are the same? In fact, what do you think those quotes mean?

It's pretty amazing how liberals on here "argue." They just make any random statement they want and we have to take it seriously for some reason. Fine. Then if Eisenhower used to be for labor, then I suppose Democrats were against labor because they opposed Eisenhower. OWNED.

Anyone want to buy this guy from me? I'll throw in my goober for free.

Hey, if you want to act like an ass, go for it. There was a time in this country when both parties worked together for the common good. There was such a thing as the loyal minority. Unlike today's teapublicans, who are domestic terrorists who want to destroy the President of the United States. And if the economy, country and people are harmed, so be it. THAT is what terrorists do, they can only destroy and cause harm. Just like Scott Walker. I know what Ike meant with his comments, he didn't exclude unions. He praised them. Read the speech the quote came from. And I know what Norquist means by the actions of Republicans. They have been union busting since Reagan.

What Republicans have been doing since Obama took office is not 'politics', it is domestic terrorism.


Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency




"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

Speaking of asses, how about you blabbering about a loyal minority when I don't see you complaining about the "loyalty" of the Democrats during the Bush terms. Oh, wait, I forgot: that's OK because that's principled or something retarded, right? LOL. Try again, kid.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

So is it your contention that when the Democrats ran against Eisenhower, they were running against the party of the working class?

By the way, your quotes are quite stupid. Or, rather, your interpretation of them is. All you did was slap down two quotes without the slightest thought about what they mean and thought you hit some home run. That's pretty pathetic. Do you think Eisenhower was talking about "labor" in the same context as Norquist? Or you don't know, but the words are the same? In fact, what do you think those quotes mean?

It's pretty amazing how liberals on here "argue." They just make any random statement they want and we have to take it seriously for some reason. Fine. Then if Eisenhower used to be for labor, then I suppose Democrats were against labor because they opposed Eisenhower. OWNED.

Anyone want to buy this guy from me? I'll throw in my goober for free.

Can I buy him for what he's actually worth and sell him for 1/2 of what he thinks he's worth? I'm going to win big if I can.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Can I buy him for what he's actually worth and sell him for 1/2 of what he thinks he's worth? I'm going to win big if I can.

Sure, if you can find someone who is that big a sucker to pay that amount, lol. Sold! And I'll throw in that free goober I promised because he's starting to stink up the joint.