And good riddance to the whole f##king lot of these commie, racist, corrupt scum. They have done massive work in destroying America and moving us towards dictatorship.
“And good riddance to the whole f##king lot of these commie, racist, corrupt scum. ”
Don’t celebrate too soon…..
They will be replaced by other, younger, newer, commie, racist, corrupt scum. This is because:
1) There are always commie, racist, corrupt scum who use those tools to amass power for themselves, and…..
2) Witless, unthinking, useful idiots who slurp up the lies and distortions coming from the commie, racist, corrupt scum. Lenin rejoiced in their numbers.
The Democratic Class of 1974 isn’t quite gone; there’s still Pat Leahy.
Hey Jim, you think Pat Leahy read the new CBO report on Obamacare and its effect on unemployment?
I don’t know. The report states that the ACA, by increasing demand for goods and services, will increase labor demand. The CBO director testified yesterday to a House committee that this increase in labor demand will reduce unemployment.
Keynes used to throw bathroom towels on the floor and claimed he was creating jobs.
You are using the broken window fallacy. Creating jobs under the ACA means that the money has to come from somewhere else. Doctors now getting more cash means a tailor somewhere doesn’t get to make a suit.
You are using the broken window fallacy
I’m just quoting the CBO report.
Doctors now getting more cash means a tailor somewhere doesn’t get to make a suit.
Do you really believe that there’s a fixed amount of money, that any growth in one sector of the economy is offset by losses elsewhere?
A lot of the increase in health care goods and services will merely offset the decrease in demand caused by prior seat-belt, airbag, and drunk driving laws. It would certainly be simpler and more economically beneficial to simply repeal those laws and encourage drivers to crash into each other.
Why should he bother? The Party tells Pat which way to vote, and as long as there’s booze and bribes in it for him, that’s the way Pat Leahy votes. Reading bills is for suckers.
I’m just quoting the CBO report.
That’s the problem. Let’s use an analogy. I’m a hippie who listens to physicists like Fred Allen Wolf talk about consciousness and quantum mechanics. To me, Wolf is a physicist (he has a PhD). But he’s also talking about an interpretation of the wave equation. To many physicists, he’s a nut job, but since I (as a hippie) agree with Wolf’s ideas, I think he’s great. So when someone tells me that I’m crazy because I believe that my mind creates reality…
I simply say, “I’m just quoting physicists.”
Does that sound familiar?
Do you really believe that there’s a fixed amount of money
I separated your sentence because you conflated two ideas. When you distort markets (such as controlling America’s health care system), you are forcing people to make choices with their “fixed” income. In that case, there is a fixed amount of money.
that any growth in one sector of the economy is offset by losses elsewhere?
Economies grow quite well without printing up truckloads of cash. Deflation is supposed to be part of the equation, but we got rid of that with silly money printing.
By including deflation, you can see that there is no loss to any sectors. It is your misbelief that printing money somehow lifts everyone to higher levels of prosperity. The truth is, printing money has a natural amount of inflation that must be kept to a minimum. This inflation adds up over time, and even will lead to expensive products, that you think need to be rectified by more government intervention.
And, this inflation is mentioned in every textbook on Macroeconomics 101.
That’s the problem.
No, I don’t think that’s the problem. Leland asked whether Leahy had read the CBO report, implying that he should, because Leland seemed to think the report said something negative about the ACA and unemployment. I replied that the report says that the ACA will lower unemployment. That’s when you jumped in to say that I was using the broken window fallacy.
Now if you think the CBO is wrong about the effect of the ACA on unemployment, then it would be reasonable to take that up with Leland, who brought it up in the first place. If you think the CBO is relying on the broken window fallacy, feel free to make that case. The CBO’s economic analysis is pretty run of the mill, mainstream stuff.
When you distort markets (such as controlling America’s health care system), you are forcing people to make choices with their “fixed” income
That’s an odd thing to say. Even in a totally free, undistorted market, people have to choose how to spend the money they have. And even though at any point in time each individual has a fixed amount of money to spend, as a whole the economy can (and usually does) grow. It isn’t a zero-sum game, and good news for one sector of the economy does not imply bad news for all the rest.
Only a scumbag like Baghdad Jim would call an estimated 2 million FTEs dropping out of the workforce “a decrease in the unemployment rate.”
Only a scumbag like Baghdad Jim
Do you think that name calling helps your argument?
It’s the CBO director who said that the ACA would reduce unemployment, due to increased demand for labor. You’re referring to something else, the projected loss of labor supply (to the tune of 80 million worker-hours/week).
Unemployment refers to people not working despite not wanting to; people choosing to work less has no effect on unemployment.
That’s an odd thing to say. Even in a totally free, undistorted market, people have to choose how to spend the money they have.
That’s what I said.
I never said it was a zero sum game. I said that growing the economy with Keynesian ideas is wrong.
Jim, I asked my question, and I’m sure Jon can scroll up and see that I absolutely wrote nothing suggesting any accuracy about the CBO report. The actual report actually simply says the previous report in May of 2013 is wrong. Many of us have argued with you, Jim, that most CBO reports are garbage, and I see no reason to change that assessment. But since you quoted the CBO Director as an authority argument, perhaps you noted that in just one year, the ACA is now expected to leave an additional 1 million people uninsured. What again was the purpose of this crap law?
And good riddance to the whole f##king lot of these commie, racist, corrupt scum. They have done massive work in destroying America and moving us towards dictatorship.
“And good riddance to the whole f##king lot of these commie, racist, corrupt scum. ”
Don’t celebrate too soon…..
They will be replaced by other, younger, newer, commie, racist, corrupt scum. This is because:
1) There are always commie, racist, corrupt scum who use those tools to amass power for themselves, and…..
2) Witless, unthinking, useful idiots who slurp up the lies and distortions coming from the commie, racist, corrupt scum. Lenin rejoiced in their numbers.
The Democratic Class of 1974 isn’t quite gone; there’s still Pat Leahy.
Hey Jim, you think Pat Leahy read the new CBO report on Obamacare and its effect on unemployment?
I don’t know. The report states that the ACA, by increasing demand for goods and services, will increase labor demand. The CBO director testified yesterday to a House committee that this increase in labor demand will reduce unemployment.
Keynes used to throw bathroom towels on the floor and claimed he was creating jobs.
You are using the broken window fallacy. Creating jobs under the ACA means that the money has to come from somewhere else. Doctors now getting more cash means a tailor somewhere doesn’t get to make a suit.
You are using the broken window fallacy
I’m just quoting the CBO report.
Doctors now getting more cash means a tailor somewhere doesn’t get to make a suit.
Do you really believe that there’s a fixed amount of money, that any growth in one sector of the economy is offset by losses elsewhere?
A lot of the increase in health care goods and services will merely offset the decrease in demand caused by prior seat-belt, airbag, and drunk driving laws. It would certainly be simpler and more economically beneficial to simply repeal those laws and encourage drivers to crash into each other.
Why should he bother? The Party tells Pat which way to vote, and as long as there’s booze and bribes in it for him, that’s the way Pat Leahy votes. Reading bills is for suckers.
I’m just quoting the CBO report.
That’s the problem. Let’s use an analogy. I’m a hippie who listens to physicists like Fred Allen Wolf talk about consciousness and quantum mechanics. To me, Wolf is a physicist (he has a PhD). But he’s also talking about an interpretation of the wave equation. To many physicists, he’s a nut job, but since I (as a hippie) agree with Wolf’s ideas, I think he’s great. So when someone tells me that I’m crazy because I believe that my mind creates reality…
I simply say, “I’m just quoting physicists.”
Does that sound familiar?
Do you really believe that there’s a fixed amount of money
I separated your sentence because you conflated two ideas. When you distort markets (such as controlling America’s health care system), you are forcing people to make choices with their “fixed” income. In that case, there is a fixed amount of money.
that any growth in one sector of the economy is offset by losses elsewhere?
Economies grow quite well without printing up truckloads of cash. Deflation is supposed to be part of the equation, but we got rid of that with silly money printing.
By including deflation, you can see that there is no loss to any sectors. It is your misbelief that printing money somehow lifts everyone to higher levels of prosperity. The truth is, printing money has a natural amount of inflation that must be kept to a minimum. This inflation adds up over time, and even will lead to expensive products, that you think need to be rectified by more government intervention.
And, this inflation is mentioned in every textbook on Macroeconomics 101.
That’s the problem.
No, I don’t think that’s the problem. Leland asked whether Leahy had read the CBO report, implying that he should, because Leland seemed to think the report said something negative about the ACA and unemployment. I replied that the report says that the ACA will lower unemployment. That’s when you jumped in to say that I was using the broken window fallacy.
Now if you think the CBO is wrong about the effect of the ACA on unemployment, then it would be reasonable to take that up with Leland, who brought it up in the first place. If you think the CBO is relying on the broken window fallacy, feel free to make that case. The CBO’s economic analysis is pretty run of the mill, mainstream stuff.
When you distort markets (such as controlling America’s health care system), you are forcing people to make choices with their “fixed” income
That’s an odd thing to say. Even in a totally free, undistorted market, people have to choose how to spend the money they have. And even though at any point in time each individual has a fixed amount of money to spend, as a whole the economy can (and usually does) grow. It isn’t a zero-sum game, and good news for one sector of the economy does not imply bad news for all the rest.
Only a scumbag like Baghdad Jim would call an estimated 2 million FTEs dropping out of the workforce “a decrease in the unemployment rate.”
Only a scumbag like Baghdad Jim
Do you think that name calling helps your argument?
It’s the CBO director who said that the ACA would reduce unemployment, due to increased demand for labor. You’re referring to something else, the projected loss of labor supply (to the tune of 80 million worker-hours/week).
Unemployment refers to people not working despite not wanting to; people choosing to work less has no effect on unemployment.
That’s an odd thing to say. Even in a totally free, undistorted market, people have to choose how to spend the money they have.
That’s what I said.
I never said it was a zero sum game. I said that growing the economy with Keynesian ideas is wrong.
Jim, I asked my question, and I’m sure Jon can scroll up and see that I absolutely wrote nothing suggesting any accuracy about the CBO report. The actual report actually simply says the previous report in May of 2013 is wrong. Many of us have argued with you, Jim, that most CBO reports are garbage, and I see no reason to change that assessment. But since you quoted the CBO Director as an authority argument, perhaps you noted that in just one year, the ACA is now expected to leave an additional 1 million people uninsured. What again was the purpose of this crap law?