Notice that every single libtard response in this thread contains zero intelligent discourse, and is full of name-calling. It's all these guys have.
Notice that they didn't even bring an argument to the table. I'm surprised that they didn't throw the race card in there.
"DDD dddd DDuhhh You're just mentioning that constitution stuff because, umm well because Obama is black."
Notice that every single libtard response in this thread contains zero intelligent discourse, and is full of name-calling. It's all these guys have.
Notice that they didn't even bring an argument to the table. I'm surprised that they didn't throw the race card in there.
"DDD dddd DDuhhh You're just mentioning that constitution stuff because, umm well because Obama is black."
Argument?? The Clueless idiot is making things up, as usual. What exactly would anyone sane argue about in this thread??? It's a given that Wrong Way is wrong. He's creating what he thinks is the "libtrard"(what a stupid, stupid, uncreative word that the fool keeps regurgitating, and now you just parrot??) interpretation of the Constitution???Notice that every single libtard response in this thread contains zero intelligent discourse, and is full of name-calling. It's all these guys have.
Notice that they didn't even bring an argument to the table. I'm surprised that they didn't throw the race card in there.
"DDD dddd DDuhhh You're just mentioning that constitution stuff because, umm well because Obama is black."
Keynesianism is more about sectoral balances, not what the money is spent for. Like he said, you can bury the money in the sand and have people dig it out (obviously an insult to the gold bug crowd). That's what you guys do not comprehend about my argument and how our system works. It is a balance sheet argument, not a social argument. I don't care if they spend it on welfare, the military, infrastructure, etc. I call every President before Obama Keynesians because they maintained the sectoral balances by continuing to increase spending so that the sectoral balances would be well enough to create economic growth. It's a mathematical approach, not a socialist or republican/democrat approach. It's why I knew austerity was going to be a major failure and now the G20 and the IMF have admitted such.
If you understand the various entities in our system including the foreign sector you would understand my argument. But you are more about conjecture than real economic analysis.
I don't really care to join this argument, but the point that many of the fiscal conservative folks here have an issue with what the money is being spent on. That's seems to be the dividing ground perhaps.