No tax cut extension will crash the stock market Obama thinks he revived

[editec]

SO...NOW THAT THE TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES HAVE BEEN EXTENDED?

1. Can we expect to see the market rising significantly, and if so for how long?

2. Can we expect to see the billionaires investing in manufacturing here that will cut down on unemployment?

What do you think, citizens?

Will this SUPPLY SIDER solution work, this time?

You mean tax cuts for the middle class were not extended?

The middle class tax cuts were not points of contention. ergo not relevant to this issue of how tax cuts for billionaires is going to effect the economy.

After all it's you who claims that when the billionaires have more money the market and economy will thrive.

I'm just asking for your opinion about when we can expect it.

I must have missed it.

Well then I'm glad I could be there for you.

Let's put it this way: had the increases gone through the economy would look like Ireland, but without the Guinness to make things better.

Yeah I suppose that is possible.

But they WERE PASSED, so now I am asking you when we can expect to see these billionaries investing in job creation in the USA.

A month you think?

A quarter?

A year?

How long before this solves this crises?

As you know I don't think it will make much difference.

You have told us you think it will.

I think it's fair for me to ask when you think this will happen.

 

[newpolitics]

Poor, poor rich man. Hell, give the bastards another tax break so they can ship some more factories overseas. Yep, that's the Republican ticket.

Letting people keep more of their own money is not "giving" them anything, twit.

Letting which people? The top one percent of our nations wealthholders? Who gives a shit? What about the middle-class, the lower-class... They are FAR greater in number. Why are we coddling the already-coddled???

 

[The Rabbi]

fucking dumbass.

Read what you quoted, Rabbi. Tell me where in that quote I said anything was "self explanatory".

I'll wait for your inevitable apology for being this stupid.

If you cannot read and understand your own posts how is anyone else supposed to?

Well, I certainly expect you to be able to back up fraudulent claims such as your claim I said anything was "self-explanatory".

But you can't. And you won't. Because you are a fraud. Other people in this thread have followed my simply-written posts quite easily.

I already posted that. Sorry if you cannot read your own posts. The only "other people" following your simpleton posts in this thread is that drooling moron RDD1210.

 

[The Rabbi]

SO...NOW THAT THE TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES HAVE BEEN EXTENDED?

1. Can we expect to see the market rising significantly, and if so for how long?

2. Can we expect to see the billionaires investing in manufacturing here that will cut down on unemployment?

What do you think, citizens?

Will this SUPPLY SIDER solution work, this time?

The middle class tax cuts were not points of contention. ergo not relevant to this issue of how tax cuts for billionaires is going to effect the economy.

After all it's you who claims that when the billionaires have more money the market and economy will thrive.

I'm just asking for your opinion about when we can expect it.




Well then I'm glad I could be there for you.

Let's put it this way: had the increases gone through the economy would look like Ireland, but without the Guinness to make things better.

Yeah I suppose that is possible.

But they WERE PASSED, so now I am asking you when we can expect to see these billionaries investing in job creation in the USA.

A month you think?

A quarter?

A year?

How long before this solves this crises?

As you know I don't think it will make much difference.

You have told us you think it will.

I think it's fair for me to ask when you think this will happen.

The whole thing was at issue. Obama and the Dums were refusing to vote for extending the Bush tax cuts. Then they were willing to extend some of them--the ones that would do the least good economically I'll add.
Will it make a difference? Of course it will, in the sense that had they not done that things would have been disaster.
When will the economy improve? After 2012 and Pres Palin takes over with a solid GOP Congress.

 

[8537]

If you cannot read and understand your own posts how is anyone else supposed to?

Well, I certainly expect you to be able to back up fraudulent claims such as your claim I said anything was "self-explanatory".

But you can't. And you won't. Because you are a fraud. Other people in this thread have followed my simply-written posts quite easily.

I already posted that. Sorry if you cannot read your own posts.

Once again, you prove you are a liar and a fraud. It's nice to see you don't even make an effort to cover your own tracks.

Can you quote my comment about being self-explanatory? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Most men would confess they were wrong....which is why I fully expect you to dig in like snivelling little two year old.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, I certainly expect you to be able to back up fraudulent claims such as your claim I said anything was "self-explanatory".

But you can't. And you won't. Because you are a fraud. Other people in this thread have followed my simply-written posts quite easily.

I already posted that. Sorry if you cannot read your own posts.

Once again, you prove you are a liar and a fraud. It's nice to see you don't even make an effort to cover your own tracks.

Can you quote my comment about being self-explanatory? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Most men would confess they were wrong....which is why I fully expect you to dig in like snivelling little two year old.

I've already done that. That you are incapable of understanding your own posts is not my problem. Maybe remedial English would help you?
Now go back to playing with the other boys and leave the adults alone.

 

[8537]

I already posted that. Sorry if you cannot read your own posts.

Once again, you prove you are a liar and a fraud. It's nice to see you don't even make an effort to cover your own tracks.

Can you quote my comment about being self-explanatory? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Most men would confess they were wrong....which is why I fully expect you to dig in like snivelling little two year old.

I've already done that. That you are incapable of understanding your own posts is not my problem. Maybe remedial English would help you?
Now go back to playing with the other boys and leave the adults alone.

Rabbi - can you quote me saying that anything is self-explanatory? Contrary to your endless babbling, you have done no such thing.

Of course you can't, so you simply claim you already have and dig your hole deeper like the petulant three-year old who doesn't want to lose his blankey.

 

[The Rabbi]

Once again, you prove you are a liar and a fraud. It's nice to see you don't even make an effort to cover your own tracks.

Can you quote my comment about being self-explanatory? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Most men would confess they were wrong....which is why I fully expect you to dig in like snivelling little two year old.

I've already done that. That you are incapable of understanding your own posts is not my problem. Maybe remedial English would help you?
Now go back to playing with the other boys and leave the adults alone.

Rabbi - can you quote me saying that anything is self-explanatory? Contrary to your endless babbling, you have done no such thing.

Of course you can't, so you simply claim you already have and dig your hole deeper like the petulant three-year old who doesn't want to lose his blankey.

 

[RDD_1210]

I've already done that. That you are incapable of understanding your own posts is not my problem. Maybe remedial English would help you?
Now go back to playing with the other boys and leave the adults alone.

Rabbi - can you quote me saying that anything is self-explanatory? Contrary to your endless babbling, you have done no such thing.

Of course you can't, so you simply claim you already have and dig your hole deeper like the petulant three-year old who doesn't want to lose his blankey.

And there it is. His end game. No response so he posts pictures.

EASILY the most pathetic member of this entire site. That's saying something. Be proud you've finally achieved something with your life.

 

[The Rabbi]

And there it is. His end game. No response so he posts pictures.

EASILY the most pathetic member of this entire site. That's saying something. Be proud you've finally achieved something with your life.

Hey asshole. Go ahead and explain how potential output influences stock prices. Failing that explain the percentage difference between 85 and 90.
This is only the third or fourth time I've asked these easy questions and you deflect every time. So man up. Go ahead and stick your neck out so the rest of us will be impressed with your vast knowledge.

 

[8537]

And there it is. His end game. No response so he posts pictures.

EASILY the most pathetic member of this entire site. That's saying something. Be proud you've finally achieved something with your life.

Hey asshole. Go ahead and explain how potential output influences stock prices. Failing that explain the percentage difference between 85 and 90.
This is only the third or fourth time I've asked these easy questions and you deflect every time. So man up. Go ahead and stick your neck out so the rest of us will be impressed with your vast knowledge.

Instead of admitting you are wrong, that I never said any comment about something being self-explanatory, you dodge and weave.

I've already explained - twice - the relation between potential output and stock prices. Why would you ask another poster to do so when he isn't the one who made the comment.?

The "percentage difference between 85 and 90" is 5.8823529% - presuming you mean "by what percentage must 85 be increased in order to equal 90". Of course, your question as stated makes no sense because it fails to establish whether 85 or 90 is the base for the calculation.

Man up and admit you're wrong. Go ahead and stick your next out.

 

[The Rabbi]

And there it is. His end game. No response so he posts pictures.

EASILY the most pathetic member of this entire site. That's saying something. Be proud you've finally achieved something with your life.

Hey asshole. Go ahead and explain how potential output influences stock prices. Failing that explain the percentage difference between 85 and 90.
This is only the third or fourth time I've asked these easy questions and you deflect every time. So man up. Go ahead and stick your neck out so the rest of us will be impressed with your vast knowledge.

Instead of admitting you are wrong, that I never said any comment about something being self-explanatory, you dodge and weave.

I've already explained - twice - the relation between potential output and stock prices. Why would you ask another poster to do so when he isn't the one who made the comment.?

The "percentage difference between 85 and 90" is 5.8823529% - presuming you mean "by what percentage must 85 be increased in order to equal 90". Of course, your question as stated makes no sense because it fails to establish whether 85 or 90 is the base for the calculation.

Man up and admit you're wrong. Go ahead and stick your next out.

I've already posted where you wrote that. The fact that you don't understand your own posts is not my problem. I have reiterated that point about half a dozen times as well. This is my last.

Why would I ask another poster? To see if anyone else understood your point.

You are exactly right on the calculation. The answer is about 5%. Thank you for that. I hope your camp follow/butt boy RDD now believes you and shuts the fuck up.

 

[8537]

Hey asshole. Go ahead and explain how potential output influences stock prices. Failing that explain the percentage difference between 85 and 90.
This is only the third or fourth time I've asked these easy questions and you deflect every time. So man up. Go ahead and stick your neck out so the rest of us will be impressed with your vast knowledge.

Instead of admitting you are wrong, that I never said any comment about something being self-explanatory, you dodge and weave.

I've already explained - twice - the relation between potential output and stock prices. Why would you ask another poster to do so when he isn't the one who made the comment.?

The "percentage difference between 85 and 90" is 5.8823529% - presuming you mean "by what percentage must 85 be increased in order to equal 90". Of course, your question as stated makes no sense because it fails to establish whether 85 or 90 is the base for the calculation.

Man up and admit you're wrong. Go ahead and stick your next out.

I've already posted where you wrote that.

No you haven't. You've claimed to do so, repeatedly, but you haven't done so. Because you are a fraud and a liar...and exposed as such. And instead of being a man and admitting you are wrong, you dodge like a two year old afraid of losing his candy.

You are exactly right on the calculation. The answer is about 5%.

if you're going to round, the answer is about 6%.

 

[The Rabbi]

Instead of admitting you are wrong, that I never said any comment about something being self-explanatory, you dodge and weave.

I've already explained - twice - the relation between potential output and stock prices. Why would you ask another poster to do so when he isn't the one who made the comment.?

The "percentage difference between 85 and 90" is 5.8823529% - presuming you mean "by what percentage must 85 be increased in order to equal 90". Of course, your question as stated makes no sense because it fails to establish whether 85 or 90 is the base for the calculation.

Man up and admit you're wrong. Go ahead and stick your next out.

I've already posted where you wrote that.

No you haven't. You've claimed to do so, repeatedly, but you haven't done so. Because you are a fraud and a liar...and exposed as such. And instead of being a man and admitting you are wrong, you dodge like a two year old afraid of losing his candy.

.

When you want to get serious and actually explain what you mean--assuming you actually can--let me know.
Otherwise I'm done. Send this thread to RomperRoom.

 

[RDD_1210]

Instead of admitting you are wrong, that I never said any comment about something being self-explanatory, you dodge and weave.

I've already explained - twice - the relation between potential output and stock prices. Why would you ask another poster to do so when he isn't the one who made the comment.?

The "percentage difference between 85 and 90" is 5.8823529% - presuming you mean "by what percentage must 85 be increased in order to equal 90". Of course, your question as stated makes no sense because it fails to establish whether 85 or 90 is the base for the calculation.

Man up and admit you're wrong. Go ahead and stick your next out.

I've already posted where you wrote that.

No you haven't. You've claimed to do so, repeatedly, but you haven't done so. Because you are a fraud and a liar...and exposed as such. And instead of being a man and admitting you are wrong, you dodge like a two year old afraid of losing his candy.

You are exactly right on the calculation. The answer is about 5%.

if you're going to round, the answer is about 6%.

What Rabbi is leaving out is THAT wasn't my question. My question is here, which I reposted a link to already in this thread and other threads and he ignores repeatedly.

Rabbi will ignore this question

He likes to change my question and then pretend like that's what I asked him when he full well knows he's completely full of shit. Watch him ignore the link I just posted, AGAIN.

 

[8537]

What Rabbi is leaving out is THAT wasn't my question. My question is here, which I reposted a link to already in this thread and other threads and he ignores repeatedly.

Rabbi will ignore this question

He likes to change my question and then pretend like that's what I asked him when he full well knows he's completely full of shit. Watch him ignore the link I just posted, AGAIN.

Rabbi's a fraud. Anyone who has had any discussion with him knows this. He's pathologically incapable of being honest in his answers, and incapable of admitting when he is wrong. No matter how much you explain something to him, he is either unable or unwilling to accept any explanation that challenges his rightwing, simpleton description of how the world is supposed to work.

Instead of admitting he is wrong, he attempts to change the subject or move the goalposts. "Debating" him is a form of mild entertainment akin to playing hide-and-go-seek with a five year old.

of course, you warned me of all of this long ago...

 

[RDD_1210]

What Rabbi is leaving out is THAT wasn't my question. My question is here, which I reposted a link to already in this thread and other threads and he ignores repeatedly.

Rabbi will ignore this question

He likes to change my question and then pretend like that's what I asked him when he full well knows he's completely full of shit. Watch him ignore the link I just posted, AGAIN.

Rabbi's a fraud. Anyone who has had any discussion with him knows this. He's pathologically incapable of being honest in his answers, and incapable of admitting when he is wrong. No matter how much you explain something to him, he is either unable or unwilling to accept any explanation that challenges his rightwing, simpleton description of how the world is supposed to work.

Instead of admitting he is wrong, he attempts to change the subject or move the goalposts. "Debating" him is a form of mild entertainment akin to playing hide-and-go-seek with a five year old.

of course, you warned me of all of this long ago...

Spot on....couldn't have said it any better.

And even though I may have warned you, I can't even follow my own advice. I keep coming back even though deep down I know it won't get anywhere. LOL.