Who knew that libtards supported Trickle Down Economics

hazlnut said:
Fair enough:

First, define what you mean by "Uncle Bens monetary policy" - because none of your posts indicate you actually understand what the continued quantitative easing policy actually means.

Then, explain what you mean by "negatively impacting elderly people" -- negative how? Is there going to be a run on prune juice futures?

Ya see, sport, all you've said this entire thread is the equivalent of: I will not eat green eggs and ham. Sam I am. And you want me to explain why you will not eat them in a box. I have no f-ing clue what's going on in your head or how you tangled up and completely misunderstood a current economic issue. That's all you bud. In order to solve your riddle of idiocy, I have to separate my brain from my education, turn off all critical thinking, and reject reason.

Let's review:

**You start out implying a continued fed policy designed to stimulate hiring is negative or bad because it only helps the wealthy people at the top. And Democrats who are not screaming objections are somehow agreeing with "Trickle-Down" economics which, according to you, is their term.
**But you also imply that this Fed policy is bad because it doesn't help the underclass and somehow negatively impacts the elderly, ergo, the Dems are screwing over the people they supposedly stand up for. ((Which implies Bernanke is a Dem. See how that works, tiger?)

The whole premise of your OP seems to be "Ah-ha, I caught you Dems liking something you're not supposed to like." Bully for you.:rolleyes:

Basically, you're wrong because you haven't said anything right. You're connecting the dots on two different puzzles. You copy/pasted something you read about QE3, then later in the thread, rambled on about low, low, low interest loans. You jump from buying up of assets to the discount window, to rich people benefiting and grandma getting the shaft. We all know that you're copy/pasting bits and pieces of some conservative blog, trying very desperately to sound intelligent. We know these are not your words or your own understanding of the issue because when you go off book and try to paraphrase, you sound like an idiot. And, like the failed Governor of Alaska, you just start making shit up. If I were to guess, I think you've got it in your head that retired people are hurt by supply-side theory because they don't have jobs. But we could speculate all night on how you got lost. Bottom line, you started for the airport, and drove off a pier.

Moron.

You are a imbecile. Your attempt to sound smart is pathetic, and I've just made you my bitch.

How's it feel up there, nancy?
Click to expand...
I agree with his comment about the elderly, although the premise of this thread is bullshit.

The longer we keep interest rates artificially low, seniors who rely on savings interest, or tax free bond interest as their sole income investment will continue to earn almost nothing on their money.

Meanwhile, banks once again dump their paper on the govt, and become liquid again.

Does anyone here really believe that this will jump start construction?

There are millions of new houses sitting vacant.
 
Althea said:
This is nothing more than another handout to Wall St.

Bernanke ain't no Liberal, so your premise is...as usual...bullshit.
Click to expand...

Go back and read my OP again. I did not make and any claims about Bernanke's ideological leanings. That was a red herring thrown out by Howies reincarnation.

If you would read my OP with an open mind, you would see that you agree with me. This is a handout to Wall St, yet the president sits by. Left wingers sit by. Many left wingers came here cheering the action.

Please read what I write and not what Howie claims I wrote
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Go back and read my OP again. I did not make and any claims about Bernanke's ideological leanings. That was a red herring thrown out by Howies reincarnation.

If you would read my OP with an open mind, you would see that you agree with me. This is a handout to Wall St, yet the president sits by. Left wingers sit by. Many left wingers came here cheering the action.

Please read what I write and not what Howie claims I wrote
Click to expand...
Is it your belief that the Fed answers to the POTUS?

Bush appointed Bernanke.

You generalize about libtards, but there are no liberals that I've seen on t.v supporting this idea. Quite the contrary.
 
Althea said:
Is it your belief that the Fed answers to the POTUS?

Bush appointed Bernanke.

You generalize about libtards, but there are no liberals that I've seen on t.v supporting this idea. Quite the contrary.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep inserting things I never said. I never claimed Bernanke was being partisan. That is a straw man by you left wingers.

I don't care who appointed him. I care about the policy. Blurting out who appointed him is a child like response.

Tell you what, find the threads started after Uncle Bens announcement of JPP libtards ciriticizing this fed policy. I can show you some applauding it. That was my point. If it is lost on you, that is not my problem. Improve your reading comprehension
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Yes sirree. That is the fact Jack.

Let's look at Chairman Bernanke's moves last week announcing QE3 and the subsequent cheering from the leftwads on this message board.

What is Bernanke counting on with QE3 and buying of mortgage backed securities? He is hoping that inflating asset classes such as real estate and stock market prices will create a wealth effect which will spur spending which will in turn spur economic growth which will in turn increase hiring.

But, who benefits from Benny Boy buying mortgage backed securities? Is it the single mom renting an apartment who is barely struggling to get buy? Is it the woman who wonders where she is going to get the money for her third abortion?

No, they aren't going to benefit. Those who own stocks (the top 10%) and those who are already current in their mortgages will benefit. So Benny Boy is hoping that giving money to the top 10% will trickle down to everyone else. And guess what? The libturds cheer it on.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

FactsRStubborn said:
Go back and read my OP again. I did not make and any claims about Bernanke's ideological leanings. That was a red herring thrown out by Howies reincarnation.

If you would read my OP with an open mind, you would see that you agree with me. This is a handout to Wall St, yet the president sits by. Left wingers sit by. Many left wingers came here cheering the action.

Please read what I write and not what Howie claims I wrote
Click to expand...
I've already read what you wrote. You go beyond the left wingers on this board, and make the case that liberals support this move.

Bernanke supports trickle down economics, but your title suggests that he must be a liberal, because he's the one who came up with this latest handout to Wall St.

FactsRStubborn said:
Why do you keep inserting things I never said. I never claimed Bernanke was being partisan. That is a straw man by you left wingers.

I don't care who appointed him. I care about the policy. Blurting out who appointed him is a child like response.

Tell you what, find the threads started after Uncle Bens announcement of JPP libtards ciriticizing this fed policy. I can show you some applauding it. That was my point. If it is lost on you, that is not my problem. Improve your reading comprehension
Click to expand...

Nope...you went much further than speaking about the liberals on this board. If you want to refine your classification of who is supporting this, then you won't need to be corrected again.

And what exactly do you think the president can do, but 'sit by'? Do you know of some magical powers he has over the Fed?
 
Althea said:
I agree with his comment about the elderly, although the premise of this thread is bullshit.

The longer we keep interest rates artificially low, seniors who rely on savings interest, or tax free bond interest as their sole income investment will continue to earn almost nothing on their money.
Click to expand...

Pension funds, 401(k)s, and IRA's benefit from a stable market -- which has been in part due to the easing.

His notion that Bernanke's continued policy somehow directly "hurts" seniors is false.

If a senior keeps his life savings in a BofA savings account as opposed to some type of retirement fund, then he is limiting the growth of his savings, but even that is not necessarily 'hurting' him.


Meanwhile, banks once again dump their paper on the govt, and become liquid again.

Does anyone here really believe that this will jump start construction?

There are millions of new houses sitting vacant.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Economists have raised those concerns.
 
Althea said:
I've already read what you wrote. You go beyond the left wingers on this board, and make the case that liberals support this move.

Bernanke supports trickle down economics, but your title suggests that he must be a liberal, because he's the one who came up with this latest handout to Wall St.



Nope...you went much further than speaking about the liberals on this board. If you want to refine your classification of who is supporting this, then you won't need to be corrected again.

And what exactly do you think the president can do, but 'sit by'? Do you know of some magical powers he has over the Fed?
Click to expand...

Wow. I have never seen anyone try so hard to miss the point. Not surprising.

Repeat after me: "must defend OWEbama at all costs"
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Yes sirree. That is the fact Jack.

Let's look at Chairman Bernanke's moves last week announcing QE3 and the subsequent cheering from the leftwads on this message board.

What is Bernanke counting on with QE3 and buying of mortgage backed securities? He is hoping that inflating asset classes such as real estate and stock market prices will create a wealth effect which will spur spending which will in turn spur economic growth which will in turn increase hiring.

But, who benefits from Benny Boy buying mortgage backed securities? Is it the single mom renting an apartment who is barely struggling to get buy? Is it the woman who wonders where she is going to get the money for her third abortion?

No, they aren't going to benefit. Those who own stocks (the top 10%) and those who are already current in their mortgages will benefit. So Benny Boy is hoping that giving money to the top 10% will trickle down to everyone else. And guess what? The libturds cheer it on.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

They will benefit when it stimulates the economy and helps them get a job. The direct beneficiaries are not the primary purpose of expansionary money policy.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
So you couldn't find anything in my post calling Uncle Ben a partisan? So you created another straw man?

I don't mind slapping you around. It is fun. Like some rape victims, you are asking for it :)

So how is Uncle Benny giving money to the top 10%? Simple, he is printing it and lending it to the banks at low, low, low, low rates. Who do you think are going to get those loans? Do you think it is the poor woman trying to pay for her third abortion? Is it the 18 year old figuring out how to fund his next tattoo?

Nope, it is going to be people who can already afford to refinance.

Who gets punished by this policy? That would be savers like the elderly. But, judging by your responses, you are either economically ignorant or support this policy. Now given your reading comprehension thus far, it is looking like the former.

as for your "people on both sides of the aisle" comment, I was talking about this board. If you can find a libturd (including yourself) who opposes this fed policy by all means post it. In fact, some of the libturds came here applauding it.

Now go get some ice for that hand print I just left across your pock marked face

PWND
Click to expand...

Again, the purpose of the policy isn't wealth redistribution. If QE3 did nothing but help people who are trying to get loans, it would be a failure. If it did nothing but help single mothers who are trying to finance their third abortion, it would be a failure. That's not really the purpose.
 
Sigmund Freud said:
They will benefit when it stimulates the economy and helps them get a job. The direct beneficiaries are not the primary purpose of expansionary money policy.
Click to expand...

So please use all of your economic brilliance and explain why there is even a QE3? Doesn't that imply that QE1 and subsequently QE2 were failures? So why did they fail? And if you say that they weren't big enough, then why weren't they big enough? Why didn't Uncle Benny know how big to make it? Isn't he supposed to be one of the Wizards of Smart that we are all supposed to trust?
 
There is a certain word being way over used on the forum, lately and I would ask all to please refrain, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top