PDA

View Full Version : MORON OF THE YEAR.



Qtec
12-02-2010, 07:17 AM
...yes....you guessed it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Rep. Shadegg Scoffs At The Fact That Jobless Benefits Are A Benefit To The Economy: ‘No, They’re Not!’</span>

<u>According to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office, Moody’s Economy, and myriad other economists,</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>unemployment benefits are the single best way to pump money into the economy and generate economic activity, as the unemployed are very likely to spend all of the benefits they receive (thus moving money into local businesses).</span> But during an interview with MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle today, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) scoffed at the notion that unemployment benefits help the economy. “Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that,” Shadegg jeered: </div></div>


This is just another example of what has been happening for the last 10 years...Republican politicians being allowed to lie on tv without being slapped down for the obvious liars that they are.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BARNICLE: What about the fact that unemployment benefits pumped into the economy are an immediate benefit to the economy? Immediate…

SHADEGG: No, they’re not! Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that.

BARNICLE: <span style="color: #990000">Unemployed people spend money Congressman, ’cause they have no money.

SHADEGG: Aha! So your answer is it’s the spending of money that drives the economy and I don’t think that’s right.</span><span style="color: #3333FF"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>yes, that's right you moron, spending drives the economy.</span> </span> It’s the creation of jobs that drives the economy…<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Actually, the truth is the unemployed will spend as little of that money as they possibly can. </span>Job creators create jobs.

BARNICLE: Have you ever been unemployed? Have you ever been unemployed?

SHADEGG: Yes, I have.

BARNICLE: What did you do with the money? Save it? </div></div>

The guy has no clue or he is lying through his teeth.
Don't you just want someone to slap him? I do.

They will say anything and do anything to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich [ and themselves, most of them] in place.
34 B to save 2 million Americans from a bleak Christmas is too much, but 830 B for the richest of the rich is a must.



Q..How much can you save when your income is $300 a week?

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...yes....you guessed it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Rep. Shadegg Scoffs At The Fact That Jobless Benefits Are A Benefit To The Economy: ‘No, They’re Not!’</span>

<u>According to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office, Moody’s Economy, and myriad other economists,</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>unemployment benefits are the single best way to pump money into the economy and generate economic activity, as the unemployed are very likely to spend all of the benefits they receive (thus moving money into local businesses).</span> But during an interview with MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle today, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) scoffed at the notion that unemployment benefits help the economy. “Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that,” Shadegg jeered: </div></div>


This is just another example of what has been happening for the last 10 years...Republican politicians being allowed to lie on tv without being slapped down for the obvious liars that they are.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BARNICLE: What about the fact that unemployment benefits pumped into the economy are an immediate benefit to the economy? Immediate…

SHADEGG: No, they’re not! Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that.

BARNICLE: <span style="color: #990000">Unemployed people spend money Congressman, ’cause they have no money.

SHADEGG: Aha! So your answer is it’s the spending of money that drives the economy and I don’t think that’s right.</span><span style="color: #3333FF"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>yes, that's right you moron, spending drives the economy.</span> </span> It’s the creation of jobs that drives the economy…<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Actually, the truth is the unemployed will spend as little of that money as they possibly can. </span>Job creators create jobs.

BARNICLE: Have you ever been unemployed? Have you ever been unemployed?

SHADEGG: Yes, I have.

BARNICLE: What did you do with the money? Save it? </div></div>

The guy has no clue or he is lying through his teeth.
Don't you just want someone to slap him? I do.

They will say anything and do anything to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich [ and themselves, most of them] in place.
34 B to save 2 million Americans from a bleak Christmas is too much, but 830 B for the richest of the rich is a must.



Q..How much can you save when your income is $300 a week?



</div></div>

Q, it is one of many similar illogical statements about the economy made on a daily basis, by Republicans and their supporters.

Seeing voters put the same idiots who ran our country into a debt ditch, back into congressional majority, proves the stupidity of the American voters.

This idiot also said something about how the millionaires and billionaires would hire more servants!!!!
Spending doesn't lead to job growth? Does this guy post on here as a rightie?
I couldn't believe my ears! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
12-02-2010, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">unemployment benefits are the single best way to pump money into the economy and generate economic activity, as the unemployed are very likely to spend all of the benefits they receive (thus moving money into local businesses).</div></div>I understand what they are trying to say, I get it, people don't have jobs so they are having to use all the benefits to keep the roof over their head and food on the table. The problem with focusing on just this is that it doesn't help these people become self-supportive. If you keep feeding the stray cat will he ever go find his own food?

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2010, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you keep feeding the stray cat will he ever go find his own food?

eg8r </div></div>

What does it cost to feed it? Does it outweigh the cost of not feeding it?

Say you don't feed it and it dies?

What if it goes after your chickens in the night out of hunger?


People are not cats.

There are sound economic and social reasons for making sure people have enough to eat, can still pay their rent and put gas in their car so they can look for a job.

There will always be that 2% who will never work, no matter what the incentive. The majority of those now needing help are those, pardon my French, who have been f--k-d in the a$$ by Wall St.. who BTW are now awarding themselves $144 BILLION in bonus's this year!


This opposition by the GOP to the extension - which has always been a formality in the past - is purely political. They don't give a rat's a$$ about Joe Six pack.


Q

pooltchr
12-02-2010, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This opposition by the GOP to the extension - which has always been a formality in the past - is purely political. They don't give a rat's a$$ about Joe Six pack.


Q </div></div>

The GOP is not opposed to the extention. They just want to bet some budget cuts in other areas to pay for it, rather than borrowing more money. IOW, they are suggesting that the Dems abide by the Pay-Go law that they passed last year.

Steve

Qtec
12-02-2010, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IOW, they are suggesting that the Dems abide by the Pay-Go law that they passed last year.

Steve </div></div>

As I said before , the unemployment extensions are emergency spending not covered by PAYGO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They just want to bet some budget cuts in other areas to pay for it, rather than borrowing more money. </div></div>

34 B to make a real difference in people's lives has to be paid for but borrowing 830 B to give to millionaires is OK!

Q

eg8r
12-02-2010, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What does it cost to feed it? Does it outweigh the cost of not feeding it?

Say you don't feed it and it dies?

What if it goes after your chickens in the night out of hunger?

</div></div>If you keep feeding it you know that it will come around for ever on voting day to keep you in office, that is a fact.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are sound economic and social reasons for making sure people have enough to eat, can still pay their rent and put gas in their car so they can look for a job.

</div></div>I don't disagree but if you are going to continue to do nothing about job growth in this country what jobs do you expect these people to find while they are sucking at the taxpayer teet?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ere will always be that 2% who will never work, no matter what the incentive.</div></div>Well, then Congress should be doing everything it can to get us back to that level instead of figuring out how to keep the level at a "livable" 10% which is what they have been doing now for over a year.

Lastly, what exactly do you think the outcome would be on businesses if taxes are increased?

eg8r

eg8r
12-02-2010, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said before , the unemployment extensions are emergency spending not covered by PAYGO.

</div></div>They are not acting like it is an emergency. They are saying 10% is our new norm? Even if it is an emergency (and should be) why would PayGo still not be evaluated to help pay for the extension? The Dems don't even want to offer that, they just want the money which we don't have and do with it as they please.

eg8r

Qtec
12-02-2010, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> while they are sucking at the taxpayer teet?</div></div>

Like I said, but you ignore, MOST of them are the tax payer or they were until Wall St pulled the rug from under them.

Q

eg8r
12-02-2010, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like I said, but you ignore, MOST of them are the tax payer or they were until Wall St pulled the rug from under them.

</div></div>I ignored it because it does not matter. You people like to keep telling me that we come from a rock that transformed into a monkey and then a human so why now are you telling me people are not like animals? If you catch a monkey in the wild and feed it what happens when you try and put it back in the wild? It gets killed because it has it mouth open and hand out waiting for someone to feed it.

I am ignoring your because you are ignoring reality. Many of those people may go back out into the workforce but many will also enjoy getting something for nothing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lastly, what exactly do you think the outcome would be on businesses if taxes are increased?

</div></div>Why did you ignore this?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What does it cost to feed it? Does it outweigh the cost of not feeding it?

Say you don't feed it and it dies?

What if it goes after your chickens in the night out of hunger?

</div></div>If you keep feeding it you know that it will come around for ever on voting day to keep you in office, that is a fact.

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Ed, that's exactly what happened in the last election, except it wasn't a stray cat, it was all of the FAT CATS! </span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are sound economic and social reasons for making sure people have enough to eat, can still pay their rent and put gas in their car so they can look for a job.

</div></div>I don't disagree but if you are going to continue to do nothing about job growth in this country what jobs do you expect these people to find while they are sucking at the taxpayer teet?


<span style="color: #990000">How can they get a job, when Republicans were outsourcing them for the last three decades?

Who accussed people who wanted to end tax cuts and subsidies for corporations which outsource American jobs, protectionists? REPUBLICANS! </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ere will always be that 2% who will never work, no matter what the incentive.</div></div>Well, then Congress should be doing everything it can to get us back to that level instead of figuring out how to keep the level at a "livable" 10% which is what they have been doing now for over a year.

<span style="color: #990000">Ed, if you can't see by now, that these huge global corporations, are not going to create American jobs, when they can hide their money offshore, and hire slaves, to do the work, regardless of anything involved in the American tax structures, I don't know when you'll ever see it.

If they want to do business offshore, and keep their money offshore, fine, let them go live in another country, becauses they are not at all concerned about what they're doing to AMerica.

Deport them! Create our own patriotic American corporations, who do not get to live in our country, unless they give a damn about what they're doing to it!

It seems to me, if the right could only focus on what these corporations are doing to our country, on every level, instead of buying into the RW BS about people on the dole, and entitlement programs, maybe they would see what is the real cause of what is dragging this country down! It's NOT THE POOR! It's NOT THE STRAY CAT, IT"S THE FAT CAT!

</span>

Lastly, what exactly do you think the outcome would be on businesses if taxes are increased?

eg8r
</div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000"> We already saw that outcome, during the Clinton Administration.

Then we saw the opposite, under Bush.


Which do you prefer?

G.

</span>

LWW
12-02-2010, 11:49 AM
There are many believers in stupidonomics ... as long as it's om the spoon.

The idea that being unemployed creates jobs is like believing in dry water.

LWW

eg8r
12-02-2010, 01:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, that's exactly what happened in the last election, except it wasn't a stray cat, it was all of the FAT CATS!

</div></div>Well, your theory holds no water because it was not true in the previous 2 elections.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can they get a job, when Republicans were outsourcing them for the last three decades?

</div></div>How can the business owners keep the jobs here when you want to keep stealing more and more money. When is enough enough?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, if you can't see by now, that these huge global corporations, are not going to create American jobs, when they can hide their money offshore, and hire slaves, to do the work, regardless of anything involved in the American tax structures, I don't know when you'll ever see it.

</div></div>Gayle if you can't see by now that the majority of all new hires happens in small businesses then I don't think you will ever see it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they want to do business offshore, and keep their money offshore, fine, let them go live in another country, becauses they are not at all concerned about what they're doing to AMerica.

Deport them!</div></div>That is the same thing as you saying no more tax cuts for the rich and from this point forward you will not take another deduction on your taxes. The poor need your money more than you do. You like to brush this off every time because it hits a little too close to home. You don't mind taking other people's money but they can't touch yours.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We already saw that outcome, during the Clinton Administration.

Then we saw the opposite, under Bush.


Which do you prefer?

</div></div>Clinton was the beginning of the snowball effect. He is the one that got all the outsourcing started with NAFTA. Even Hillary agreed it isn't working and making the fat cats fatter and costing more and more jobs. For some reason you guys like to ignore our own up close example of what happens when there is too much government oversight and taxes. California is one example you like to ignore or push to the side.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 02:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, that's exactly what happened in the last election, except it wasn't a stray cat, it was all of the FAT CATS!

</div></div>Well, your theory holds no water because it was not true in the previous 2 elections.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How can they get a job, when Republicans were outsourcing them for the last three decades?

</div></div>How can the business owners keep the jobs here when you want to keep stealing more and more money. When is enough enough?

<span style="color: #CC0000">They've had all of the tax cuts and subsidies in the world, and they didn't stop outsourcing jobs, Ed. It's not about taxes, it's about GREEd, they are making unprecedented profits! WAKE UP!</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, if you can't see by now, that these huge global corporations, are not going to create American jobs, when they can hide their money offshore, and hire slaves, to do the work, regardless of anything involved in the American tax structures, I don't know when you'll ever see it.

</div></div>Gayle if you can't see by now that the majority of all new hires happens in small businesses then I don't think you will ever see it.

<span style="color: #CC0000">The Small Business Job Creators, are less than .o3% in that bracket, Ed...I posted the information, did you read it? Republicans are lying about it, as always. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they want to do business offshore, and keep their money offshore, fine, let them go live in another country, becauses they are not at all concerned about what they're doing to America.

Deport them!</div></div>That is the same thing as you saying no more tax cuts for the rich and from this point forward you will not take another deduction on your taxes. The poor need your money more than you do. You like to brush this off every time because it hits a little too close to home. You don't mind taking other people's money but they can't touch yours.

<span style="color: #990000"> LOL, you should hope to pay the kind of taxes I have paid in my lifetime, and create the number of AMerican jobs that we have created. Ed.

I don't outsource jobs, and I don't hide my money off shore.Back when we were going through the one recession, we paid our employees out of our pockets, to keep them working, when business dropped off. We've never taken a dollar of any kind of government money, ever...even during the years we had to start all over in a different field, when computers ruined our first business...

I've never bitched about paying my taxes...</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We already saw that outcome, during the Clinton Administration.

Then we saw the opposite, under Bush.


Which do you prefer?

</div></div>Clinton was the beginning of the snowball effect. He is the one that got all the outsourcing started with NAFTA.


<span style="color: #CC0000">Then why didn't Republicans change it, Ed? they were the ones who pushed for it in the first place! They had the entire majority, when it went through. they never regulated it, that was the whole problem, and when others wanted to, they called them protectionists, remember? </span> Even Hillary agreed it isn't working and making the fat cats fatter and costing more and more jobs. For some reason you guys like to ignore our own up close example of what happens when there is too much government oversight and taxes. California is one example you like to ignore or push to the side.

[color:#CC0000LMAO! We're in the mess we're in because of anti regulatory Republican Policies. That's a fact. Just ask Alan Greenspan....[/color]

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">And in eight years, with a blank check majority, a republican in the W.H., Republicans in both houses, for seven of them, (Dems took over in Jan, 07)Bush and the Republicans did nothing about NAFTA!

If it was wrong, why didn't they change it Ed. They owned all of Capital Hill! Republicans had the Congress for twelve of the previous fourteen years, before Dems took over!

You think it's logical to blame everything on two plus years of a Democratic President, which historians have said inherited the second worst legacy in history?

The collapse happened on Bush's watch. So did 9/11, both after unprecedented warnings, from experts, who he ignored totally. It was Bush's 9/11. Bush's Wars. Bush's doubled deficit, Bush's b0orrowing more than all previous administrations, combined, Bush's collapse, and Bush's recession, which we are still trying to get free of, with NO HELP OR COOPERATION AT ALL FROM REPUBLICANS!

You righties are really funny.

President Obama had the economic numbers on a slow but steady rise, for the last two years, created more jobs than Bush did, under better circumstances, over eight years~! Kept the states going, and saved loads of jobs in every state...

And now the right is going to try to say this month's numbers are good, because Republicans are back in the Majority?

BWA HA HA HA...

What a crock!

You folks are so brain washed, it's really funny...

G.</span>

eg8r
12-02-2010, 03:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They've had all of the tax cuts and subsidies in the world, and they didn't stop outsourcing jobs, Ed. It's not about taxes, it's about GREEd, they are making unprecedented profits! WAKE UP!

</div></div>So is your quest to get your hands on their money.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Small Business Job Creators, are less than .o3% in that bracket, Ed...I posted the information, did you read it? Republicans are lying about it, as always.

</div></div>Small businesses employ over half the private workforce in America. They are the ones providing jobs in this tough climate and it is also those people that you are wanting to tax even more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't outsource jobs, and I don't hide my money off shore.Back when we were going through the one recession, we paid our employees out of our pockets, to keep them working, when business dropped off. We've never taken a dollar of any kind of government money, ever...even during the years we had to start all over in a different field, when computers ruined our first business...

I've never bitched about paying my taxes...
</div></div>I never said you did any of that. What I said was that if you want to take more taxes from others why don't you start by not taking any deductions yourself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why didn't Republicans change it, Ed? they were the ones who pushed for it in the first place! They had the entire majority, when it went through. they never regulated it, that was the whole problem, and when others wanted to, they called them protectionists, remember?</div></div>Why didn't they change it, who knows, but it is Clinton's fault for signing the bill and watching all those jobs leave the US. LOL you blame the Reps for the jobs going overseas and it was your team that put it all in process and now you want to ask why the Reps did not change it. Well I sure hope I won't have to hear you say that about HC. I hope the Reps find their spines and squash this thing as soon as they can. But just remember, every time you talk about jobs going overseas remember it was your camp that started that ball rolling and then you taxed like crazy to make sure it would not stop. Hard to stop an avalanche.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And in eight years, with a blank check majority, a republican in the W.H., Republicans in both houses, for seven of them, (Dems took over in Jan, 07)Bush and the Republicans did nothing about NAFTA!

If it was wrong, why didn't they change it Ed. They owned all of Capital Hill! Republicans had the Congress for twelve of the previous fourteen years, before Dems took over!

</div></div>I don't pretend to know why, I just hope they don't make the same mistake with the HC bill.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-02-2010, 03:31 PM
<span style="color: #CC0000"> It was the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS that pushed for NAFTA!

Get that straight, will ya?

It was a trade off for Clinton. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

eg8r
12-02-2010, 03:51 PM
NAFTA was signed into law in Dec of 1993. The Republican congress did not take over until 1994. What part is not "straight"?

eg8r