Rshermr
VIP Member
Ah. So you are an economist?
Ok, so you admit ....
.....that Boehner said there were 46.
Yes, indeed. But I say there were 0.
Ah. So you are an economist?
As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Example? You have a high impression of your economic knowledge. My impression that you are just a con tool, posting con talking points.
Obama does not claim to be an economist. . But he has many that work for him. Do you?
So, you suggest doing as was done in the great Republican Depression of 1929, right
No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
Did you happen to notice that we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month, dipshit. Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of work? That has to be the stupidest idea you have yet come up with.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus. So, you do not believe the cbo when they disagreed with you, saying that tax cuts did little at all?
Or you could copy Reagan, and lower taxes. Except after he saw the ue rate going through the roof
Why did unemployment increase under Reagan?
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components, and a few million people ended up loosing their jobs.
Did you think that several million workers just decided to quit, dipshit?
You seem very familiar with gay pirates.
Just you.
Nope. You do not know me. Has to be other people who are gay pirates. Well, maybe they are not actually pirates.
As much as Obama is. Actually, based on his idiotic comments, more than he is.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
So, you are a con tool. We all understand that con tools, like you, criticize dem presidents and other dems 24/7. That is what you do. Rationality is not one of your strong suits.
So, you are not an economist. And you have no economists working for you. And you have no impartial economists agreeing with you.
So, you just have con talking points. Which, as I keep saying, means you are of no rational value.
Example?
Derp!
What is the deal with derp, dipshit. You have indigestion. Or are you just 12.
No, I suggest cutting taxes and regulations.
Yes, as do the con talking points. What a surprise that you AGAIN suggest what the Con Talking Points tell you to believe.
Now, most would suggest you would find a situation where a similar economic process was utilized during a major Aggregate Demand based recession was the problem, I would like to see it. Assuming that it worked.
But you can not. You only post con talking points.
And no stimulus, as there was none in the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
I agree, raising taxes during the Great Depression was stupid.
But you are a simple con tool. The period, me boy, from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%. Stimulus brought it down, by more than at any time in the history of the United States. But, being a con tool, you will not believe that. Because con tools believe what they are told to believe, what they want to believe, and what all other cons believe. Sad.
I am sure you actually know that income taxes were very low when the great republican depression of 1929 occurred. Corporate rates max was 11%, and individual rates topped at 24%. And I am sure you know that the gov was financed with tarriffs. Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922, and again in 1929.
But republicans resisted any tax increases, and spending programs as the ue rate went to 29%. At which time, even Hoover proposed and sent to congress bills to increase taxes greatly. And as they were introduced, and as spending increased, the ue rate started down FAST.
But by then, for over 3 years, republicans did NOTHING. And americans suffered like at no time in the history of the US. Which is, of course, of no concern to con tools. Dipshit. Ass hole. Those people suffered, and you just try to push your favorite con talking points. Asshole.
Did you think that providing a tax decrease would make a difference to people who were out of wor
Yes. Do you think raising taxes helps people who are out of work?
No, but it allows SPENDING, which each time it has been tried, in times of major Aggregate Demand based recessions, has worked. Which is obvious to all but con tools.
Did you happen to notice that tax cuts were part of the Stimulus, me boy. About 40% of the stimulus.
I've said before that temporary tax cuts don't help the economy very much. You need permanent cuts.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov. Which is why you can show no time where it has ever worked in an aggregate demand recession. Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Now, to test your rather stupid idea, consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts, had terrible results with the second highest ue rate in US history. In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest. He raised taxes 11 times and most importantly SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR. Spent more than all previous presidents combined, and tripled the national debt. And ended his recession quickly. Even Reagan used the policies that Obama suggests to end his mess.
Because, as I keep telling you, the budget was decreased for non military economic components,
Which areas do you think he cut? I have told you. Look it up, if you do not believe it. By how much? It varies, me boy. As any person capable of thinking would know. Why were those supposed cuts a bigger deal that his larger increases elsewhere in the budget? They were not supposed. There were no supposed cuts. Except in your imagination.
Perhaps you can show where he ever said he was an economist.
He's economically illiterate.
That is you, me boy. A con tool is, by definition, illiterate. And people who insult any president are ignorant, as well as classless.
from 1929 to 1933 saw ue rates go from 4% to 25%.
And huge tax hikes in 1932.
Did you have a point, me con tool.
By 1932, prior to the tax increase, the ue rate had risen by about 19 points. By 1934, two years after the "huge tax increases", the ue rate had dropped about 2% points, and was on it's way down. So, I assume you are saying that the tax increase was helpful in decreasing unemployment?
Taxes were reduced greatly in 1922,
And the economy boomed. Weird.
Was already booming. But it was a well documented run up to the great depressions.
and again in 1929.
Nope, 1925.
So, no one suggests that tax decreases are a bad thing. Especially during times when the economy is booming.
No, but it allows SPENDING
Obama had huge spending without tax hikes until 2012.
Thank god. If we had followed your blueprint, we would have ended up in the Great Republican Depression of 2008 instead of the Great Republican Recession.
Temporaty, or permanent, it cuts revenues to the us gov.
Yes. Without helping economic growth.
Fully depends. It is never as simple as con talking points try to make it.
Which for most people tells one that tax cuts are not a stimulus.
Not in an Aggregate demand recession. Reagan tried it in 1981, and watched ue rates go from 7.5% to 10.8%. But he started spending like a sailor in early 1982 and the ue rate dropped in 1983.
- Permanent rate cuts are a stimulus.
consider that Reagan tried permanent tax cuts
Yes, and employment and GDP boomed.
You are lying like a typical con tool. Tax cuts saw no decrease in ue rates. By late 1981, and continuing through 1982, Reagan was as popular as a fart in church. Until he started spending like a sailor, and his earlier spending in the defense industry, turned the economy around.
In response, he did not cut taxes as you suggest
Individual tax rates were lower in 1982 than in 1981.
Lower in 1983 than in 1982.
Lower in 1984 than in 1983.
You are missing what I said. On purpose, I am sure. He set income taxes at lower rates in 1981. But his Recession was in late 1981 through 1982. And he raised taxes several times from 1982 forward. But the important point was that Reagan Spent heavily and that helped drop the ue rate over the period after it reached it's high point at the end of 1982. His tax cuts did nothing, but his spending stimulated the economy, while tripling the national debt and increasing the size of the federal government greatly.