That's fine - if you are interested in having a conversation with yourself, which I am coming to realize is exactly what you want.
We do NOT need to agree. I can make my points and you can make your points, and no need to pursue the matter further.
So your job is simply to read what I write supporting my assertions, then just say "nuhn'uh!" I am starting to understand your rhetorical style.
Sounds like you are oversimplifying again, and I have NO need to persuade you - especially if we each believe that we made our points, and then the discussion gets diverted into whether one style or another is preferable... Thereafter, we may NOT even recall what was being discussed.
Uhm, could you at least share the logic that led you to this conclusion? I stated an example of a multiplier that fits the context, and you conclude from that one quite valid example that I have a "limited knowledge of the concept of the multiplier effect"? How exactly does that follow logically?
Apparently, we are not discussing matters on the same level. I have repeated that we should consider that there are various ways to spend tax dollars and some ways have a larger affect than others depending upon who gets the money.. and those kinds of multiplier effects should be taken into account when we decide how to allocate our tax dollars.
I can't make any sense of your 'attempt to link Obama performance' at all. I didn't attempt anything. I presented an example. If you think that example is specifically a bad reflection on President Obama, that is a conclusion that your have reached on your own. I just presented another example of this nonsense Keynesian notion that government spending of money they steal from people who would have spent it themselves, probably more wisely, somehow "multiplies" the effectiveness of that spending. Richard Nixon made even stupider economic moves when he was president, i.e. wage and price controls... Jimmy Carter did some very smart economic things as president, i.e. deregulation of the transportation industries. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong no matter who does it. And the stimulus bill was stupid and wrong. And there is NO example of any such spending resulting in such a multiplier effect that you can point to with evidence to back it up. It has never happened. Not in the US. Not in the world. Not in history. Not ever. It sounded good when Keynes wrote it, but in practice it just doesn't happen.
At least in theory it sounds as if you understand the concept of multiplier effect, and I dont really need to come up with any details b/c you seem to want to argue just for the sake of argument.
I will just mention, though, that government investment in transportation was good and can be very good for the economy. Also government investment in the social security system can be good and has been good for the economy.. the same is true if we were to invest in meaningful single payer healthcare... all good for society and the economy and with good multiplier effects Devil is in the details, though in terms of where to draw the line exactly... b/c those are community decisions and NO place for me to be saying the exact applications.
Not indications of wealth. Indications of being better off than someone who DOES NOT have those things. Yes, that is a narrow definition of 'better off', but I don't think any of us here are qualified to judge every facet of the quality of anyone's life, so we have pick something as an indicator. If you have an indicator that negates mine, please present it.
I presented several ideas already including how many hours people are working and how much they are being paid and are they receiving health care ...
All of these have deteriorated in the past 25 years or more.... so quality of life has gone down in the last 25 years or so. We do NOT need to agree or argue about this.
If you believe that they have NOT gone down, then you can live with that perspective, I am NOT going to stop you from thinking that we are continuously progressing, if that is what you want to believe.
You are not making your case more persuasively by turning this into some ad hominem attack, or an attempt to paint me a some political caricature you feel superior to. I might be right in my beliefs, or I may be wrong - but I am just as well-read and educated on the subjects at hand as you are. I may disagree with you, but I will respect you and your opinions as long as you afford me the same respect.
I suggested that you may be relying too much on Fox news reports, and I doubt that is a personal attack to suggest that your information sources may be less than adequate.
I have no idea whether you are smarter than me, and I dont really care, and we have NO real way of knowing by reading some random thread posts whether one person is smarter than another or whether one person or another has better and more logical conclusions.
I do believe people are better off in general than they were 25 years ago, certainly in terms of material wealth - although, as Richie_T pointed out, that is mitigated somewhat by the fact that we do have to work longer hours now - and we ALL have to work too. Single income families are not really viable now like they once were.
Yep.. both of those examples show, in my thinking, that we are NOT better off now as compared with 25 years ago.. but you can go on thinking that we are better off, and I will go on thinking that we are NOT better off, and we do NOT need to resolve those kinds of questions here.
Poll
