Obama Fails ECON 101

[Wretched Excess]

this is straight out of Demand Side Economics for Dummies (if such a thing exists), or some similar children's version of an economic text. 

what a retard.  first of all, if demand side economics worked, then cash for clunkers would have worked, and the tax credit to buy a house would have worked . . . hell, the stimulus would have worked.  but his intellectually arrested economic views totally ignore some pretty obvious facts, the most undeniable of which is that demand side economics has never, in the history of money, ever worked.  not once.  never.

and it ignores the abject failure of his current economic policies.  history has proven that it leads to inflation, deficits, turmoil, and failure.

(and if obama had his way, and we set real world economic policy according to something he read in a high school text book, no one would have ever invented the flat screen TV in the first place)

it's just a gawddamned infant-like thing to say.

“I don’t know any economist - including, I think, Martin - who would argue that we are more likely to get a bump…from $700 billion of borrowed money going to people like those of us around this table who I suspect if we want a flat-screen TV can afford one right now and are going out and buying one.”

--Obama remarks to the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board--

More

[true_blood]

That's why the imposter = FAIL!!
Socialism failed, communism failed and now the imposter occupying the White House failed.

[NHSparky]

Judging by the last 20 months or so, I'd say he bombed a lot of 100-level courses.

Which is probably why he (still) hasn't released his college transcripts.

[Carl]

I have asked over and over various "demand side" proponents how it supposedly leads to a sustaining economy and not just a short jump in the numbers.

I have never yet received an answer.

[Wretched Excess]

I didn't think this could get any dumber, but it did.  I found an unedited quote . . . he is pulling out big wordz to show off his skilz, but "aggregate demand" doesn't even make sense in this paragraph from a keyesian perspective.   it's a big, mindless sqiush.

he doesn't understand what he is talking about.  he isn't even close.  he is simulating knowledge.

“I don’t know of any economist, including I think Martin, who would argue that we are more likely to get a bump in aggregate demand from $700 billion of borrowed money going to people like those of us around this table who, I suspect, if we want a flat screen TV can afford one right now and are going out and buying one,” he said.

More

[NHSparky]

I didn't think this could get any dumber, but it did.  I found an unedited quote . . . he is pulling out big wordz to show off his skilz, but "aggregate demand" doesn't even make sense in this paragraph from a keyesian perspective.   it's a big, mindless sqiush.

he doesn't understand what he is talking about.  he isn't even close.  he is simulating knowledge.

In a way, he kind of reminds me of Don King--making up words to THINK he SOUNDS smart, when in reality you just look like a buffoon.

But to give Don King credit, at least he DOES have street smarts.

[DumbAss Tanker]

He's a clueless urban bumpkin with a Harvard degree.  It's disheartening that he is really so clueless that he can't conceive of wealth being used for any purpose beyond buying some high-end consumer goods, for instance venture capital or reinvestment in an existing business, either of which would generate jobs.