You have to love liberal economics.

exGOPer · Dec 29, 2017

gwb-trading said:
Go visit the White House where you can salute your commander in chief. Call him whatever you please -- it does not change the FACT ---- PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. Get used to it.
More...

Nixon was a commander in chief as well, you guys elected that moron HW for eight years, I am quite used to the fact that as long as 50% of the country is full of low intellect inbreds, some imbecile will make it to the WH. That's just probability playing out. Get used to the fact that you voted in and support a pedophile who is utterly classless and ignorant. At least HW seemed sincere even for his idiocy, this schmata is clearly a reflection of the disease that US conservatism has become, bunch of brain dead reactionaries gasping for supremacy before they are browned out.

Arnie · Dec 29, 2017

Here4money said:
I never said it was a well managed country or that nationalizing private industry helped in any way.... In fact, I argued it was part of the reason. I'm just not willing to ignore the elephant in the room either. It's like saying slavery didn't cause the civil war.... You know, historical revisionism.
More...

To say the Civil War was all about slavery is as ridiculous as saying it had nothing to do with it.

gwb-trading · Dec 29, 2017

exGOPer said:
Nixon was a commander in chief as well, you guys elected that moron HW for eight years, I am quite used to the fact that as long as 50% of the country is full of low intellect inbreds, some imbecile will make it to the WH. That's just probability playing out. Get used to the fact that you voted in and support a pedophile who is utterly classless and ignorant. At least HW seemed sincere even for his idiocy, this schmata is clearly a reflection of the disease that US conservatism has become, bunch of brain dead reactionaries gasping for supremacy before they are browned out.
More...

Say the words, say it... President Donald Trump

fhl · Dec 29, 2017

Abraham Lincoln himself said the civil war wasn't about slavery. And he wrote it down for all posterity in a letter to Horace Greeley.

Let the record reflect who the real historical revisionists are.

WeToddDid2 · Dec 29, 2017

exGOPer said:
Nixon was a commander in chief as well, you guys elected that moron HW for eight years, I am quite used to the fact that as long as 50% of the country is full of low intellect inbreds, some imbecile will make it to the WH. That's just probability playing out. Get used to the fact that you voted in and support a pedophile who is utterly classless and ignorant. At least HW seemed sincere even for his idiocy, this schmata is clearly a reflection of the disease that US conservatism has become, bunch of brain dead reactionaries gasping for supremacy before they are browned out.
More...

So you think that Repubs are the new black people? Are you advocating Nazi Eugenics?

Cuddles · Dec 29, 2017

Arnie said:
To say the Civil War was all about slavery is as ridiculous as saying it had nothing to do with it.
More...

Sure, but to deny that it was mostly about slavery is pretty ridiculous too.

fhl · Dec 29, 2017

exGOPer said:
Nixon was a commander in chief as well, you guys elected that moron HW for eight years, I am quite used to the fact that as long as 50% of the country is full of low intellect inbreds, some imbecile will make it to the WH. That's just probability playing out. Get used to the fact that you voted in and support a pedophile who is utterly classless and ignorant. At least HW seemed sincere even for his idiocy, this schmata is clearly a reflection of the disease that US conservatism has become, bunch of brain dead reactionaries gasping for supremacy before they are browned out.

========================
smh, this is the guy who promotes the normalizing of men sucking each other's cocks. He did so right here on this forum in an exchange with me. I shouldn't be surprised that he also holds the above views. They're probably symptomatic of men who suck each other's cocks.

exGOPer · Dec 29, 2017

gwb-trading said:
Say the words, say it... President Donald Trump
More...

Pedophile Dotard Drumph

exGOPer · Dec 29, 2017

WeToddDid2 said:
So you think that Repubs are the new black people? Are you advocating Nazi Eugenics?
More...

There is a saying, most people deserve each other and the same goes for Cons. All the red state Cons now whining about jobs and wages are the same morons who sided with the Republican elites to keep the blacks down and now their own life is in the shitters. Karma comes for everything, I don't have to hope or advocate anything, justice will prevail. Stand aside and enjoy the schadenfreude.

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-to-indiana-but-first-lots-of-layoffs.316527/

Piptaker · Dec 29, 2017

Max E. said:
If giving every american 12000 dollars will grow our economy by 2.5 trillion why stop there why not give everyone 100,000 dollars or a million dollars, lol.

Giving every American $12,000 a year in free money could grow the economy by $2.5 trillion, study finds

A monthly check of $1,000 delivered to every American adult would grow the US economy by roughly $2.5 trillion over eight years, a new study found.

Conducted by the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, the study investigated three strategies for implementing basic income, a form of wealth distribution that involves giving everyone a standard salary just for being alive.

Proponents of basic income say it would reduce or even eliminate poverty, while skeptics say it could erase people's motivations to keep working, possibly ruining the economy instead of improving it.

The three basic incomes proposed by the study were $1,000 paid monthly to every US adult; $500 paid monthly to every US adult; and $250 paid monthly to every US child. "For all three designs," a summary of the report said, "enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would grow the economy."

Specifically, the study found that the largest of the three — $12,000 a year doled out to every American adult — would grow the economy by 12.6% to 13.1% over eight years, by which time the policy's effects would start to wane. That would translate to an increase in gross domestic product of $2.5 trillion, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.

The researchers made some assumptions in the study that could lead to such an optimistic conclusion.

The team's analysis was based on people continuing to work as if they weren't receiving a basic income, something skeptics have taken issue with. Some believe that basic income, while not enough to live off, would disincentivize full-time work.

Some studies have found this not to be the case, but most have taken place in developing countries and have prompted skeptics to argue the results wouldn't necessarily translate to a richer, more populous country like the United States. At least in the few basic-income experiments ongoing in the US, employment rates haven't seemed to change much.

The researchers also assumed basic income would solve a demand problem in the economy — i.e., a lack of people spending their money to buy things. "Fundamentally, the larger the size of the UBI, the larger the increase in aggregate demand and thus the larger the resulting economy is," they wrote.

Other economic theories put less stock in that idea. They argue that other costs — like interest rates on mortgages and credit cards — would rise.

The US is still far from a comprehensive basic-income plan. The biggest experiment in the world is set to begin this fall in Kenya. Operated by GiveDirectly, it involves 6,000 people, some of whom will receive a monthly payment every month for the next 12 years. The experiment will cost $30 million.

Smaller experiments have cropped up around the world over the past few years, including in California, Canada, Finland, and the Netherlands. Other nations, such as India and Switzerland, have discussed experiments of their own in the coming years.

Until those experiments begin giving people money and analyzing the resulting data, however, economists will be left to speculate as to how transformative a basic income could really be.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/givi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
More...

The problem with left or progressive economics, (and politics) is the state- government wants to actively regulate - control free market and society which then brings up a number of different serious issues if your looking from the brilliant Austrian economic and Rothbardian philosophies - perspectives.