- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,173
- Reaction score
- 14,269
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That is your opinion as there is nothing to back up that claim at all.
What are you referring to? The fact that you constantly resort to the use of fallacies because you cannot articulate your point in a compelling manner? Your post history is my "evidence".
Why you claim to be a Libertarian is beyond me.
Another fallacy.
No Libertarian supports this massive healthcare program.
And another; better read up on that site i previously posted.
The private sector given the proper incentive has not only the means but the ability to alleviate the recession. Happens every time except with more liberal social engineering.
How long are you willing to wait? You see, i have quite a bit of assets in equity markets. Watching them fall to 1/8 their purchased price is not something I, nor anyone who has any sort of wealth is willing to do.
As for the question, i was against the TARP bailout but understood it, further it was basically a loan and most of it has been paid back. There is no way of knowing what would have happened without the bailout but we do know what has happened with the Obama Stimulus, 4 million more unemployed and 3.5 trillion added to the debt creating very low economic growth
Lets do a simple example to get the point across.
GDP = Y
Y= C + I + G + NX
Assume in year one, C= 100, I= 20, G= 20, and NX= 0; Y= 140
Now a demand shock comes along and pushes consumption and investment down by 10% each.
C= 90, I= 18, and G (well lets just leave G constant)= 20; Y= 128
Now assume government can run a deficit and increase G to 30
C= 90, I= 18, G= 30, and Y now equals 138.
Where would the economy be better off, when GDP is 128 or 138?