Lyle Andersen: They done more to help the economy than you and I have.
Actually, President Obama and the Democrat's progressive "economic policies" acted as a "major headwind" to our economy. Their policies have definitely not been the tailwind behind our current economic performance, wherever people think it lays.
The fact that our economy still shows movement is testament to many things. One of them is that Obama's policies can't destroy the free market as fast as he wants to destroy it.
History has shown that the best thing that the government could do, to help the economy, is to get out of the way and to do virtually nothing.
Progressive economic policies is to the economy what laxatives are to diarrhea.
Obama's policies didn't get the economy to where it is at now. Without his policies, the economy would be further ahead in growth than where it is now. Lowered unemployment numbers resulting from people dropping out of the workforce is nothing to be proud of.
He is the most incompetent president in modern times.
Lyle Andersen: [name redacted] what did you personally do to help the economy,give three points please,note getting up and going to work is honorable but is a Basic step. (STRAWMAN FALLACY)
Lyle, what I personally did for the economy isn't relevant. The argument is on whether Democrat policies were effective for the economy or not. Matter of fact, your initial reply had nothing to do with the initial post on this thread.
The reason I jumped on the Obama angle is because you made it about President Obama allegedly doing something for the economy.
The fact of the matter is that Democrats in general didn't do anything substantial to help the economy along. If anything, their policies created an environment that caused the rich, super rich, and business owners... the people that create the most jobs in the free market... to hold onto their earning instead of invest it.
His "solutions" were aimed at giving money back to the "poor" or "middle-class." The problem is that the economic engine happens to be the very people that the Democrats and progressives demonize, the rich and super rich. These are the people that contribute the bulk of consumer spending. They also pay the majority of personal income tax to the government.
Jobs don't exist so that people could put food on the table. They exist because some rich guy/gal, or someone hoping to get rich, saw that job as a necessity to his/her efforts to get richer. When you create an economic environment that discourages them from hiring more people, or from keeping most of their employees, you hamper good job growth. In fact, you contribute to job market contraction.
Apparently, you fell asleep in class when they were trying to teach you economics back in the 1960s and 1970s.
Lyle Andersen: (2 ) blankety blaming somebody without naming Pacific issues, is not stating a fact. and I suspect there is a bias on your part because you're hate black people because there black. (3)so I will stay with the facts I was taught in the 60s and 70s.
Lyle, how about advancing some facts instead of just talking about them? All you've done was talk about "staying with facts," however, you have not advanced any facts. Not a single part of your post, or the one before, contained relevant facts. You've talked the talk, now how about walking the walk?
I provided you with facts in the previous post. Apparently, whatever it was that you were taught in the 1960s and 1970s, it didn't include researching the topic that you choose to argue.
Earlier, I talked about how the best thing that the government could do with regards to the economy is "nothing." That's a fact. Read about the depression that took place in the 1920s. It lasted approximately 1 year. The following decade, we had the Great Depression. That lasted for years.
What was the difference between the depression that took place in the 1920s, and the one that took place in the 1930s? The answer is what I stated in my earlier post, government did "nothing". The government did nothing significant, with regards to addressing the 1920s depression, in order to get us out of the depression.
That following decade? The government got involved to try to "solve the problem." Government action resulted in the worst economic crisis in US history.
That's just one of the facts that I talked about in my previous post. Certainly, someone should have told you about that part of our history... back when you were "learning" to "stick with the facts" in the 1960s or 1970s.
Also, for someone that likes to lecture about facts, but doesn't use them, your opinion about what I said doesn't constitute refutation. It also doesn't constitute fact.
Accusing me of being racist, because I disagree with many of the president's policies, demonstrates your bias in favor of progressives and against conservatives. In fact, it demonstrates you as being a "sheep." Who, in their right mind, would actually believe that we disagree with the president because he's "black"?
The fact of the matter is that I'd support people like Herman Cain, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, etc. against any white, brown, red, green, blue, black, etc., liberal any time.
Your assumption that I "hate" the president because he's "black," arrogantly assumes that his policies, policies that you agree with, are "fact." If you are someone that was taught to "stick with the facts," you failed those that taught you.
Here's a fact for you: I disagree with the president, and the Democrats, on many of their policies. I would have the same disagreement if we had a white president advancing the same policies. This disagreement doesn't constitute hate.
Either they didn't teach you to "stick with the facts" back in the 1960s and 1970s... or you fell asleep when they tried to teach you guys that. Whether you like it or not, I brought up specific issues specific to the argument on this thread. Those are facts. Since you insist that they're something other than facts, I seriously doubt that you "stick with the facts."
I stated the facts. Your arrogance is insisting that these facts are something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment