SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Oeconomicus who wrote (54240)1/2/2007 10:22:36 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
You are trying to educate a person who when faced with irrefutable evidence will deny the logical conclusion. It is a cause worth pursuing for those who enjoy beating their heads against walls. Thanks for taking it on.

If you need to borrow a hammer for those intervals when you cannot reach a wall just let me know. <g>



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (54240)1/7/2007 8:33:35 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 90947
 
1) It is disingenuous at best (and I'm being generous), to draw conclusions about the effects of the tax cuts based on employment gains of the first two years of the recovery when no material tax cuts had taken effect. In fact, delayed implementation of tax cuts tend to dampen rather than stimulate economic activity in the interim.

Not any more disingenuous than claiming tax cuts generate revenue.

2) Your source completely ignores the well-known discrepancy between the establishment survey - i.e. non-farm payrolls - and the household survey, which showed job gains of 2.2 million during the first two years of the recovery. As any honest economist will tell you, the establishment survey substantially misses job creation in smaller businesses and among the self-employed.

He compares the current one with past recoveries........the same conditions apply to them as well as the current one.

3) Troll alert.

What you really mean is that you are getting info that flies in the face of what you want to believe even though its well supported by facts. Its that kind of thinking that got the GOP decimated during the last election. ;-)



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (54240)1/7/2007 8:34:41 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 90947
 
Three recommendations? Pathetic.



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (54240)1/7/2007 8:36:07 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Some more links for your education:

dev.siliconinvestor.com
dev.siliconinvestor.com
dev.siliconinvestor.com