Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Romney has no plan to fix the economy. He says if he wins it will boost itself. But he says he may b

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by JBA2848
 


That is a pretty overinflated ego. He thinks markets will come back for no other reason than he would be president.


Corporations have a higher share of cash on their balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring.

online.wsj.com...
www.cnbc.com...
No, it's a fact. Obama creates an air of uncertainty. In uncertain times people and companies hoard cash. As soon as Obama is gone Romney can allay corporate fears and get the money moving. THAT will spur the economy most likely. As Romney said, there are no guarantees, only good plans and bad plans. His is a good one.


President Mitt Romney has a great plan.

-- Undo everything Obama has done. --

-- Lower the price of gas to $2 a gallon --


Here's the Electoral Map for November 7, 2012:




Hey Euriko,

That map is more imaginative than Star Wars ~




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


The map is stupid. Doesn't take away that Romney's plan is the one that works while Obama's puts us in debt with doing nothing. I have supplied quite a few sources in my posts that support that position. Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Because you just making things up and saying they are true do not make it so.
ATS is so full of empty, baseless claims that NEVER get backed up.

Suppose you have the "script?" Know where it comes from exactly? Have anything resembling a factual statement you can offer?

This place is nothing like the reputation it carries. There is just as much just saying things you hope are true without even trying to back them up in reality as on GLP.


OK, let's keep it simple then.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

We are on like #9 of getting fooled now.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
We are on like #9 of getting fooled now.


We?
I guess you do not read my posts and just respond like another poster.
I am not even to number 1 yet.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


Well if you believe anything the Obama campaign says you are fooled. So I suppose you simply don't believe anything they say? If so, I am with you.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


The map is stupid. Doesn't take away that Romney's plan is the one that works while Obama's puts us in debt with doing nothing. I have supplied quite a few sources in my posts that support that position. Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.


Romney does not have a plan, you don't even know his position because it switches it based upon
who he is talking to.

America has been bringing back manufacturing to the US since Obama has been in office,

www.industryweek.com...

And Exports are well up

www.npr.org...

Obama is doing right by America

Romney will reverse this progress and return to the outsource and to convert to sales positions
strategy he and his millionaire buddies know and love.

He can kiss a big hairy buttocks



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.


Worked fine in the 50's when America was booming

Worked fine in the 80's when Reagan was leading the same Keynesian economy

worked fine in the late 90's

...



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.


Worked fine in the 50's when America was booming

Worked fine in the 80's when Reagan was leading the same Keynesian economy

worked fine in the late 90's

...


Well the argument over whether Reagan practiced Keynesian economics will hijack the thread. For the sake of moving forward, demand side Keynesian economics has never worked. Name a country that is successfuly practicing Keynesian economics on the demand side right now.

ETA: Just wanted to say thank you for saying Reagan's economic policies (trickle down economics) worked fine.
edit on 22-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


Well if you believe anything the Obama campaign says you are fooled. So I suppose you simply don't believe anything they say? If so, I am with you.


Just once, just once I would like to be able to discuss one candidate's peccadilloes at a time without someone coming in with this empty "Yeah well you think the other guys is better?" crap.

When it comes to all of this, I actually do. If you want to discuss that, start a thread about it.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.


Worked fine in the 50's when America was booming

Worked fine in the 80's when Reagan was leading the same Keynesian economy

worked fine in the late 90's

...


Well the argument over whether Reagan practiced Keynesian economics will hijack the thread. For the sake of moving forward, demand side Keynesian economics has never worked. Name a country that is successfuly practicing Keynesian economics on the demand side right now.


You are mental if you think Reagan had a different economy -

He drove the National Debt up 180%, more % then Bush and Obama combined.

Demand side is where it is at. If you make sure that the people who create demand can buy things,
they will buy.

We have been trying this Supply Side model for 30 + years and subsequently it has also coincided
with the decline of wages, the outsourcing of jobs and the death of the middle class.

It does not take a genius to realize that if you make the rich richer, you will make everyone else that much
poorer. And the rich have become the richest IN HISTORY

has it trickled down? Because we should all be swimming in money if supply side worked.

But we are not, the billionaires are doing GREAT however

it is not rocket science.

Pandering to Wall Mart, kills Main st.

Pandering to Main St., grows the whole town



edit on 23-9-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator
You are mental if you think Reagan had a different economy -

No, you are. Show me any expert saying Reagan practiced demand side economics.


He drove the National Debt up 180%, more % then Bush and Obama combined.

I'm confused, last post you said he was successful with his economic policies. Now you talk about raising debt. Are you saying raising debt is the measure of success? Please clarify your position regarding Reagan being successful and debt.


Demand side is where it is at. If you make sure that the people who create demand can buy things,
they will buy.

Great, more opinions, you're full of them. Show me ANY country using demand side keynesian economics that is sucessful.


We have been trying this Supply Side model for 30 + years and subsequently it has also coincided
with the decline of wages, the outsourcing of jobs and the death of the middle class.

Reagan did supply side, you said he was good. I'm confused.


It does not take a genius to realize that if you make the rich richer, you will make everyone else that much
poorer. And the rich have become the richest IN HISTORY

Well, right now we are using demand side economics. So I suppose that is an indicator demand side doesn't work?


has it trickled down? Because we should all be swimming in money if supply side worked.

I'm confused again, last post you said trickle down ecomics practiced by Reagan worked well. Now you're saying it doesn't work. Can you make up your mind?

So in short, please provide evidence and give us sources we can read. Your opinions are noted, and as I told you earlier, are without merit. Please provide some actual information and stop contradicting yourself.
edit on 23-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


Here is my thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If my post wasn't following the topic of what you replied to I apologize. Anyway I sent you a link to a post, feel free to read and add your thoughts.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
 


Here is my thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yep, there it is. It is nothing like the thread I just suggested you start though. It is a completely different topic yet again. So you need to talk about Obama, fine. You asked me if his plans were any better. Your thread is not about that. Stop trolling this one if you have nothing to say about the topic.


If my post wasn't following the topic of what you replied to I apologize. Anyway I sent you a link to a post, feel free to read and add your thoughts.


No it was not following anything. You just wanted to bring up Obama instead of discussing Romney and this thread is about Romney.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

No, you are. Show me any expert saying Reagan practiced demand side economics.


Did I say that? No, I said that Reagan's policies were done in a Keynesian economy.
He spent Federal Money and it enriched private industry, who in turn created jobs.



I'm confused, last post you said he was successful with his economic policies. Now you talk about raising debt. Are you saying raising debt is the measure of success? Please clarify your position regarding Reagan being successful and debt.


HE was great at being a Keynesian, who pretended that he was a free marketeer. He was
great at spending tax money and directing at his rich buddies.

You are defending Reagan? Yet you say Keynesian monetary policy doesn't work?

Reagan injected LOADS into the US eceonomy




Great, more opinions, you're full of them. Show me ANY country using demand side keynesian economics that is sucessful.


All the Scandinavian countries. Hopefully America

How about you name one first world nation that has a weak centralized government???

Or name a First world nation that has a truly free market economy?

be my guest




Reagan did supply side, you said he was good. I'm confused.


Reagan infused the economy with more debt spending than ALL the presidents before him combined.




Well, right now we are using demand side economics. So I suppose that is an indicator demand side doesn't work?


We are not using Demand side as a practice, but it is coming back and we will watch it work.



I'm confused again, last post you said trickle down ecomics practiced by Reagan worked well. Now you're saying it doesn't work. Can you make up your mind?


It is clear you are confused, I was alluding to Keynesian economics... they worked fine for Reagan.

Supply Side did not work for the middle class.



So in short, please provide evidence and give us sources we can read. Your opinions are noted, and as I told you earlier, are without merit. Please provide some actual information and stop contradicting yourself.


I have not contradicted myself, you have attempted to conflate supply side economics and Keynesian economics, both can exist in the same space at the same time. They are not the same.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 


Here is a list of me discussing Romney on this thread. So no, that is not the case.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are mor that is enough though. I have sources cited as well.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


As always you can't form a coherent argument and supply lots of opinion with zero facts and no sources. Get back to me when you can make coherent claims and then back up your claims with sources. Have a good night.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


As always you can't form a coherent argument and supply lots of opinion with zero facts and no sources. Get back to me when you can make coherent claims and then back up your claims with sources. Have a good night.


Don't be all sad now.

I answered you point for point,

America has been using a Keynesian system for over 80 years,
Reagan used that Keynesian system, stimulated the meta economy,
but unfortunately shifted the private economy into the supply side realm,
which gouged out the middle class and facilitated the era of outsourcing.

Pretty simply

Put on some butt hurt cream and get back in the game.


Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will.

edit on 23-9-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)


They worked for Ronnie, says you
edit on 23-9-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by campanionator
 


The map is stupid. Doesn't take away that Romney's plan is the one that works while Obama's puts us in debt with doing nothing. I have supplied quite a few sources in my posts that support that position. Keynesian economics don't work. Never have never will. Ask Greece.


Oh goody. I cannot wait to hear what Romney's plan is.
He said he is gonna hope for change.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Are you 12? Why are you talking about being sad? This is a discussion nothing more. You contradicted yourself in 3 consecutive posts. I don't have any desire to engage in a debate with someone who constantly changes their story. As I said. Be consistent, supply facts not opinions, cite sources, and we can talk. Until then ... don't be sad and butthurt I suppose?





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join