Originally Posted by Havakasha
Once again you never do your research. So what was the GDP for July of 2006??? Haaa thats right, GDP was 4.7%. So ether you consider a GDP of 4.7% a bad thing (which would put you in the dumbass catagory).
Maybe you looked at what the unemployment rate was then?????????
Opps I guess not,,,,, that just dropped from 5% to 4.9%.
"According to the latest labour force statistics released today (August 17) by the Census and Statistics Department, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate declined from 5.0% in April - June 2006 to 4.9% (provisional figure) in May - July 2006. The underemployment rate also declined from 2.7% to 2.6% (provisional figure) between the two periods."
Now what was considerd full employment during the Clinton years?????? Ho thats right, 5% wasn't it. So according to your own liberial economist we were not just at full employment we had a better then full employment rate. So according to the Clinton administration the impossible just happen better then full employment.
I just showed you the facts of the economy back when Laffer made his comment. We just had a 4.7% GDP growth rate and better then FULL employment. What else would you call an economy with those two things going for it. By the way those are the main TWO stats that are used to measure the health of the economy. Hey as for the future of 2008 maybe Laffer had figured the democrats would not be that stupid to vote to filibuster a vote to put regulation on Fanny and Freddy to stop all the sub prime mortgages. Then again who in there right mind would have figured Obama and many other democrats would vote to FILIBUSTER the VERY SAME (finanial regulation) bill they will vote for almost 1.5 years later. Can you explain that one????????? some how I dont think so.
Many economists knew the economy was in trouble back then, but not the ideological hack Arthur Laffer. Remember all the talk about housing and stock market bubbles? Of course John has amnesia about all that. Too painful to accept his hero didnt know what he was talking about.
John's HERO Mr. Laffer in August 2006. (THIS IS THE GUY THAT JOHN GOES TO FOR HIS INFORMATION ON TAX POLICY AND ECONOMICS. YOU CANT MAKE THIS STUFF UP. LOL.)
"THE U.S. ECONOMY HAS NEVER BEEN IN BETTER SHAPE". HE THEN PROCEEDS TO BET PETER SCHIFF THAT THE ECONOMY WILL NOT COLLAPSE BY 2008.
HE IS A TOTALLY DISCREDITED ECONOMIST. And Johns favorite. :D
I truly sympathize with your embarassment John. I understand completely
why you want to move on. Its kind of like your statments that the globe is cooling, and that hybrids, plug-ins, and electric cars will "never" be "technologically and economically viable". Its kind of like when you refuse to answer questions i pose on your stock predictions surrounding capital gains rise and tax cuts lapsing. There is nothing you can do but just man up and keep your head high. lol.
John, buck up and embrace that Laffer didn't have the last laugh with Schiff. You will find Schiff to be an "acceptable" economist. In fact, he should be more than acceptable in regards to your conservative view point. Then come on down to the politics thread, and engage in interesting debate with your favorite counterpart. Maybe together we can influence Havakasha that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Monetary policy is indeed the root cause of THIS recession.
Originally Posted by Havakasha
"laffer didnt have the last laugh with Schiff" Way funny. Unforturnately you
dont understand John at all or what the meaning of Laffer's statements imply.
They demonstrates that Laffer had absolutely ZERO understanding of the economic situation at the time he spoke. Yet he is one of Johns's economic gods. To admit he was wrong would be like admitting that supply side economics was vodoo economics (who was it who said that? lol)
I have yet to see John EVER admit to being wrong even when he has been clearly shown to be wrong. But thanks trying to bring him back over to the POLITICS thread. Good luck. LOL.
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
It is not that I dont find schiff acceptable and lets face it if havasucker thinks he is so great then I suppose he believes in all of Schiff's polocies. The point I was making was that first of all that discussion had nothing to do with Laffers "Laffer Curve" and had everything to do with a housing collapse. Art Laffers only mistake was that he did not FOREsee the morgage problem being as big as it was. He may have felt that would have been fixed in time. While I am not sure, what I am sure of is that the "laffer curve" and what it says about lowering taxes was not the cause of this recession. Maybe Havasucker should be asking himself why so many democrats are switching and are now saying, raising taxes on ANYONE at this time is a bad idea. Hummm are these not the very same polocies that the democrats say caused this recession.
Yes here is just another bad stat for havasucker that confirms my post before about small bussinesses. Almost 50% of all small business income comes from small bussiness making over 250,000 dollars. Opps aren't ALL those the ones that will get their taxes raised under what Obama and a dwindeling number of democrats want to do.
Hummm, so is it that hard for dumbasses like havasucker to figure out that if 50% of ALL the income from SMALL businesses will be effected by a tax increase, then at least close to as mush of a percentage of JOBS from small business will be effected.
You see SiriuslyLong, I know you get it but havasucker doesn't get that those small businesses like this site wont be effected by that tax increase the small business YOU work for, probably will be, the small buisinesses Tyler or Charles works for probably will be. Of course that is if you or they work for a small bussiness and not a larger one with more then 500 employees.
P.S. Here is a clue for havasucker so he gets it. We know this site makes at least some money maybe as much as 5,000 to 10,000 a year. That is all added in to the OTHER LOWER 50% income level that wont be effected by a tax increase and why so many jobs will be effected by a tax increase. Here so the dumbass gets it, it is basically only those businesses that are making enough to be effected by the tax increase that are able to employ people to any great extent.
If you guys don't start talking about this stock I'm going to talk about my car. <G>
Stock was up to 1.18 but rotated down now. Why do think this happened?
Who can guess the make and model of my little red car? I actually sold this car in 1995 after owning it for more than 20 years.