Consumers create jobs.

[Oldstyle]

Consumers create DEMAND.

Capitalists respond to DEMAND by creating or increasing the PRODICTIVE CAPACITY to respond to this perceived DEMAND.

Capitalists RESPOND when they see an increased chance of making a profit. This progressive "mantra" about DEMAND is idiotic and explains why our economy is treading water instead of having the usual bounce back that follows a recession.

 

[Oldstyle]

And the quote is?? I am not interested in looking through his text.

And no I did not read his text, dipshit. Apparently you are unaware that there are multiple texts for basic econ. Apparently you have had to little econ experience to know that.

Ah, I already PROVIDED the quote, Einstein. Did you want me to scroll back up through this string and find it for you? Or do you think you could take a moment out of your "trickle down" Google search and do it yourself? Hard to believe...but you've been such an idiot in this string you're starting to make Deanie look intelligent!

Yup. Because you lie a lot. So I would like to see the ACTUAL quote. Or just the message number.
relative to your opinion of me, as you know, it so hurts, because I have SUCH respect for you.

And by the way. You still need to provide your proof for where you say the the term trickle down came from; I gave you definitive proof, which you of course reject. But you have provided none of your own.

So, here is what it looks like to me. You are lying again, wasting every one's time. You want us to believe two things, both obviously bullshit.

One, that trickle down is not a theory. For which, I have provided 15 or so sources saying it is. You have no way of winning that one. A pure attempt to prove something that prove nothing if you could win this one, but there is no possible way. Oh, you will complain about the sources, etc, etc. But you have lost it. And it makes you look like what you are, a liar.
Two, that trickle down was coined by income distributors who were democrats. Again, you have no proof. Because no one that is anything like impartial, and honest, will say what you would like them to say. Even the repubs out there support what Reagan's Budget Director said, which was, and pay attention, now, oldstyle, trickle down was developed to provide support from the not so rich for supply side economics. And, every independent source that wants to talk about it says the same. Most simply refer to Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director for proof. You see, he was there. Then there is the fact that YOU HAVE NO SOURCE FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS. Just you, only you, and you have NO source to back you up. And again, you are a food services guy. Why was it that we were to believe you, oldstyle. Because, you are doing your normal thing. Attacking dems. That is what you always do. And Lying, and Lying, and Lying. And wasting everyone's time.

Ah, I provided the origin of that term also, Einstein. While you're scrolling up looking for the Thomas Sowell quote...you can look for that as well.

Do you ALWAYS have these lapses in memory...or just when you're on here? If so you might want to think about writing your name and address on a piece of paper and pinning it to your chest so folks can help you get home when you forget where you live.

 

[Rshermr]

And then you've got to just LOVE, Robert Reich talking way back in 2008 about the wonders of building a "bottom up" economy and of course using the pejorative "trickle down" theory instead of the proper Supply Side theory. Gee, Robert...how DID that "bottom up" thing turn out for us? You know...the stimulus that you were pushing to be passed back in the Fall of 2008? What a surprise that one of the strongest supporters of income redistribution would lapse into using the term trickle down. But hey, at least you finally named someone who had some background in economics!!!

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

You don't even know who the people ARE that you're citing...you're just Googling trickle down and hoping to find someone that will back up your floundering argument. If you don't realize that one of Robert Reich's favorite topics is income inequality and that he has been preaching for government to step in to make it happen for many years then you don't really know diddly about Robert Reich. But since you don't seem to know diddly about much...why should that surprise?

Well, oldstyle, me boy, income inequality apparently is synonymous in your pea brain with income redistribution. They are two seperate things, dipshit. Most economist are interested in understanding income inequality. Many who look at economies over time, and what causes them to fail, see income inequality as a major factor. But, you are a con. You would not be interested in those studies. Dipshit. And so you, the food services guy, are attacking another well respected economist because you have been told he is bad. dipshit. Income redistribution happens mostly with the help of the gov, and if you had a clue, you would know that has benefited the rich pretty much entirely. Which is why the wealthy are much more so since the 1980's while wage earners have earned a much smaller part of the pie. The pie has grown greatly. Wealthy got about 85% of that growth, the rest went to lower income levels. So, there you go, Income redistribution. Dip shit.
So, you keep saying that everyone, including economists are wrong, but you, the food services guy, have it right. They believe trickle down is a theory, you do not. If you think you can win this one, you are delusional. You are WRONG. Just a con pushing dogma.

 

[Oldstyle]

And you lie and lie and lie. robert did not say anything about income redistribution. that, me poor dumb con, is a repub term. Income redistribution in practice has been increasing income for the wealthy. They have become more wealthy, the middle class and below less so. And, oldstyle, if you would like to argue that point, go ahead, for I will bury you on this one. You simply posted a con dogma statement. Nice try.
by the way, your favorite economist, you say he is your proof that trickle down is not a theory. I think you are lying again. I can find no such statement from him. Are you lying again??? I think so, dipshit. You are again lying.

You don't even know who the people ARE that you're citing...you're just Googling trickle down and hoping to find someone that will back up your floundering argument. If you don't realize that one of Robert Reich's favorite topics is income inequality and that he has been preaching for government to step in to make it happen for many years then you don't really know diddly about Robert Reich. But since you don't seem to know diddly about much...why should that surprise?

Well, oldstyle, me boy, income inequality apparently is synonymous in your pea brain with income redistribution. They are two seperate things, dipshit. Most economist are interested in understanding income inequality. Many who look at economies over time, and what causes them to fail, see income inequality as a major factor. But, you are a con. You would not be interested in those studies. Dipshit. And so you, the food services guy, are attacking another well respected economist because you have been told he is bad. dipshit. Income redistribution happens mostly with the help of the gov, and if you had a clue, you would know that has benefited the rich pretty much entirely. Which is why the wealthy are much more so since the 1980's while wage earners have earned a much smaller part of the pie. The pie has grown greatly. Wealthy got about 85% of that growth, the rest went to lower income levels. So, there you go, Income redistribution. Dip shit.
So, you keep saying that everyone, including economists are wrong, but you, the food services guy, have it right. They believe trickle down is a theory, you do not. If you think you can win this one, you are delusional. You are WRONG. Just a con pushing dogma.

No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so.

I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.

 

[Oldstyle]

So I take it you found my Sowell quote?

LOL...had to EAT those "liar" accusations...didn't ya'?

So you went to "dipshit"? Nice fall back strategy!!!

 

[Rshermr]

You don't even know who the people ARE that you're citing...you're just Googling trickle down and hoping to find someone that will back up your floundering argument. If you don't realize that one of Robert Reich's favorite topics is income inequality and that he has been preaching for government to step in to make it happen for many years then you don't really know diddly about Robert Reich. But since you don't seem to know diddly about much...why should that surprise?

Well, oldstyle, me boy, income inequality apparently is synonymous in your pea brain with income redistribution. They are two seperate things, dipshit. Most economist are interested in understanding income inequality. Many who look at economies over time, and what causes them to fail, see income inequality as a major factor. But, you are a con. You would not be interested in those studies. Dipshit. And so you, the food services guy, are attacking another well respected economist because you have been told he is bad. dipshit. Income redistribution happens mostly with the help of the gov, and if you had a clue, you would know that has benefited the rich pretty much entirely. Which is why the wealthy are much more so since the 1980's while wage earners have earned a much smaller part of the pie. The pie has grown greatly. Wealthy got about 85% of that growth, the rest went to lower income levels. So, there you go, Income redistribution. Dip shit.
So, you keep saying that everyone, including economists are wrong, but you, the food services guy, have it right. They believe trickle down is a theory, you do not. If you think you can win this one, you are delusional. You are WRONG. Just a con pushing dogma.

No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so.

I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.

So oldstyle says
:No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. That sentense proves that you should stick to food services. Totally untrue.

Oldstyle, you just said "t "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. So, income redistribution is the means, you say. Want to explain that piece of logical garbage. Dipshit. So, dipshit, that explains why the middle class is decreasing in size and the wealthy are getting more so. Even to you, what you just said must seem stupid. Dipshit.
I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.So you say. I do not see it anywhere but so you say. dipshit.

You know, oldstyle, there are a couple of sources that believe trickle down was a theory. You seem to be unable to besmirch them. So, there you go. At least two, maybe more, even you can not besmirch.

And, I think I understand your concerns about the economic sources that I gave you. They are too liberal, or expouse some liberal viewpoints. As such, they are not independent enough for you. I think you will find a couple who are, but let me know if you need more. At any rate, we should not use sources to far right or too far left. I think that pretty much gets your point.

So, in an effort to be fair, I looked up your source. Thomas Sowell. After doing so, maybe you should not bother. He just does not meet your (our) standards, oldstyle. Turns out he is a far right conservative economist. And a self described libertarian. So, he is worthless as a source. I am so sorry about that, oldstyle. And I am so surprised you did not know.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One, that trickle down is not a theory. For which, I have provided 15 or so sources saying it is.

but you have failed to name even one economist who advocates it. How do you have an economic theory that no economist advocates?

Sowell further has made the case that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Consumers create DEMAND.

well then why don't they???? There are 7 billion consumers on earth!
Does your idiotic theory assume demand is not there because someone took the consumers to Mars?

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, oldstyle, me boy, income inequality apparently is synonymous in your pea brain with income redistribution. They are two seperate things, dipshit. Most economist are interested in understanding income inequality. Many who look at economies over time, and what causes them to fail, see income inequality as a major factor. But, you are a con. You would not be interested in those studies. Dipshit. And so you, the food services guy, are attacking another well respected economist because you have been told he is bad. dipshit. Income redistribution happens mostly with the help of the gov, and if you had a clue, you would know that has benefited the rich pretty much entirely. Which is why the wealthy are much more so since the 1980's while wage earners have earned a much smaller part of the pie. The pie has grown greatly. Wealthy got about 85% of that growth, the rest went to lower income levels. So, there you go, Income redistribution. Dip shit.
So, you keep saying that everyone, including economists are wrong, but you, the food services guy, have it right. They believe trickle down is a theory, you do not. If you think you can win this one, you are delusional. You are WRONG. Just a con pushing dogma.

No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so.

I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.

So oldstyle says
:No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. That sentense proves that you should stick to food services. Totally untrue.

Oldstyle, you just said "t "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. So, income redistribution is the means, you say. Want to explain that piece of logical garbage. Dipshit. So, dipshit, that explains why the middle class is decreasing in size and the wealthy are getting more so. Even to you, what you just said must seem stupid. Dipshit.
I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.So you say. I do not see it anywhere but so you say. dipshit.

You know, oldstyle, there are a couple of sources that believe trickle down was a theory. You seem to be unable to besmirch them. So, there you go. At least two, maybe more, even you can not besmirch.

And, I think I understand your concerns about the economic sources that I gave you. They are too liberal, or expouse some liberal viewpoints. As such, they are not independent enough for you. I think you will find a couple who are, but let me know if you need more. At any rate, we should not use sources to far right or too far left. I think that pretty much gets your point.

So, in an effort to be fair, I looked up your source. Thomas Sowell. After doing so, maybe you should not bother. He just does not meet your (our) standards, oldstyle. Turns out he is a far right conservative economist. And a self described libertarian. So, he is worthless as a source. I am so sorry about that, oldstyle. And I am so surprised you did not know.

I could have told you that Thomas Sowell is considered a conservative economist AND a libertarian. He was one of my college professors and a noted economist. Why that makes him "worthless as a source" YOU'LL have to explain. Sowell actually IS an economist, unlike most of the "sources" that you provided. What's amusing is that after DAYS of arguing against Sowell you just now looked him up. Here's a hint for ya, Sparky...if someone uses a source you're unfamiliar with (although how an Econ major wouldn't be very familiar with Thomas Sowell is beyond me!) you might want to use Google and familiarize yourself with who they are. Or is that too much work for you?

As for my ability to "besmirch" your sources? Dude, two of them weren't even economists like you said they were. Another was a blogger debate site! Another was a guy that doesn't seem to exist except for one article that he wrote on trickle down theory. Irwin Shishko? Who the hell IS Irwin Shishko? He could be the freaking janitor at some school for all you know. Besmirch your sources? LOL Heck, I didn't besmirch them... I ***** slapped them into oblivion.

 

[Rshermr]

No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so.

I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.

So oldstyle says
:No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. That sentense proves that you should stick to food services. Totally untrue.

Oldstyle, you just said "t "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. So, income redistribution is the means, you say. Want to explain that piece of logical garbage. Dipshit. So, dipshit, that explains why the middle class is decreasing in size and the wealthy are getting more so. Even to you, what you just said must seem stupid. Dipshit.
I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.So you say. I do not see it anywhere but so you say. dipshit.

You know, oldstyle, there are a couple of sources that believe trickle down was a theory. You seem to be unable to besmirch them. So, there you go. At least two, maybe more, even you can not besmirch.

And, I think I understand your concerns about the economic sources that I gave you. They are too liberal, or expouse some liberal viewpoints. As such, they are not independent enough for you. I think you will find a couple who are, but let me know if you need more. At any rate, we should not use sources to far right or too far left. I think that pretty much gets your point.

So, in an effort to be fair, I looked up your source. Thomas Sowell. After doing so, maybe you should not bother. He just does not meet your (our) standards, oldstyle. Turns out he is a far right conservative economist. And a self described libertarian. So, he is worthless as a source. I am so sorry about that, oldstyle. And I am so surprised you did not know.

I could have told you that Thomas Sowell is considered a conservative economist AND a libertarian. He was one of my college professors and a noted economist. Why that makes him "worthless as a source" YOU'LL have to explain. Sowell actually IS an economist, unlike most of the "sources" that you provided. What's amusing is that after DAYS of arguing against Sowell you just now looked him up. Here's a hint for ya, Sparky...if someone uses a source you're unfamiliar with (although how an Econ major wouldn't be very familiar with Thomas Sowell is beyond me!) you might want to use Google and familiarize yourself with who they are. Or is that too much work for you?

As for my ability to "besmirch" your sources? Dude, two of them weren't even economists like you said they were. Another was a blogger debate site! Another was a guy that doesn't seem to exist except for one article that he wrote on trickle down theory. Irwin Shishko? Who the hell IS Irwin Shishko? He could be the freaking janitor at some school for all you know. Besmirch your sources? LOL Heck, I didn't besmirch them... I ***** slapped them into oblivion.

So oldstyle says
:No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. That sentense proves that you should stick to food services. Totally untrue.

Oldstyle, you just said "t "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. So, income redistribution is the means, you say. Want to explain that piece of logical garbage. Dipshit. So, dipshit, that explains why the middle class is decreasing in size and the wealthy are getting more so. Even to you, what you just said must seem stupid. Dipshit.
I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.So you say. I do not see it anywhere but so you say. dipshit.

You know, oldstyle, there are a couple of sources that believe trickle down was a theory. You seem to be unable to besmirch them. So, there you go. At least two, maybe more, even you can not besmirch.

And, I think I understand your concerns about the economic sources that I gave you. They are too liberal, or expouse some liberal viewpoints. As such, they are not independent enough for you. I think you will find a couple who are, but let me know if you need more. At any rate, we should not use sources to far right or too far left. I think that pretty much gets your point.

So, in an effort to be fair, I looked up your source. Thomas Sowell. After doing so, maybe you should not bother. He just does not meet your (our) standards, oldstyle. Turns out he is a far right conservative economist. And a self described libertarian. So, he is worthless as a source. I am so sorry about that, oldstyle. And I am so surprised you did not know.

So, Oldstyle says:

I could have told you that Thomas Sowell is considered a conservative economist AND a libertarian. He was one of my college professors and a noted economist.Really. What college and when??? I have his full biography, all the schools he admits to having taught in, and I do not see the one I believe you said you graduated from. Sorry to question your word, but you do lie a lot. Why that makes him "worthless as a source" YOU'LL have to explain. Sowell actually IS an economist, unlike most of the "sources" that you provided. Please, oldstyle. You can not ask that question with a straight face. You take really well known economic sources that I provide for you and do not want to believe them because they may be too liberal, or some such. And you are trying to get me to believe a libertarian. A ******* libertarian. That is how you know you have a nut case. He admits he is a libertarian. You know why, dipshit.
What's amusing is that after DAYS of arguing against Sowell you just now looked him up. Here's a hint for ya, Sparky...if someone uses a source you're unfamiliar with (although how an Econ major wouldn't be very familiar with Thomas Sowell is beyond me!) you might want to use Google and familiarize yourself with who they are. Or is that too much work for you? You are getting desperate. I did not check him out simply because I do not take you seriously. You are a food services guy who worships a ******* libertarian. Further proof that you are stupid. Most men stop believing in libertarian economics by the time they reach puberty. And although you believe your ex proff to be really important, I stopped reading stuff from libertarians over 40 years ago. And authors of basic econ books and the books themselves are long past of interest to me. I know to you he is a prince. To me he is an idiot. Libertarian!!! As soon as you show me a libertarian economy in any nation that has succeeded, I may show some interest. But of course, that is a major topic on google. And no one can find one. Several attempts, but all ended as garbage heaps. Libertarian. Dipshit.

As for my ability to "besmirch" your sources? Dude, two of them weren't even economists like you said they were. Ah, but you lie. I told you no such thing. You lie because you can not make a point without it.Another was a blogger debate site! Another was a guy that doesn't seem to exist except for one article that he wrote on trickle down theory. Irwin Shishko? Who the hell IS Irwin Shishko? He could be the freaking janitor at some school for all you know.Or...;Or a food services guy like you. Who has now explained why he is a con dogma pusher. Because he is a ******* libertarian. Besmirch your sources? LOL Heck, I didn't besmirch them... I ***** slapped them into oblivion. ***** slapped??? You are truly delusional. Into Oblivion. You have to be kidding. You could not ***** slap anything. You are a ******* libertarian. I can not stop laughing. A ******* libertarian.

Funny. Just heard Clinton say, in his speach at the demo convention, that we can not afford any more trickle down. You know, that thing that you are trying to say is not a theory. I bet you don't see the humor in that, eh, oldstyle.

So, here is your problem, or should I say one of your problems. You still have shown me no proof from you libertarian economist. ******* libertarian. I can not believe it. Any way, so, you do not even have that. Not that it matters. You eliminated what you consider partial sources. and god know, he is partial. so you have nothing. You are just a lying libertarian supporting con, with no game.

 

[Rshermr]

One, that trickle down is not a theory. For which, I have provided 15 or so sources saying it is.

but you have failed to name even one economist who advocates it. How do you have an economic theory that no economist advocates?

Sowell further has made the case that no economist has ever advocated a "trickle-down" theory of economics, which is rather a misnomer attributed to certain economic ideas by political critics.

But, he is a libertarian. Like you. Which makes him an idiot. Like you.

 

[Rshermr]

Consumers create DEMAND.

well then why don't they???? There are 7 billion consumers on earth!
Does your idiotic theory assume demand is not there because someone took the consumers to Mars?

Yes, ed. You may find it in libertarian economic circles. It is called the Mars theory. that is just about as stupid a question as I have ever seen asked.
You do not know what economic demand is. Because you are an idiot. A flipping libertarian idiot. You want to tell me what libertarian country exists, or has existed, successfully? there are non, of course, but break your pick and see what you or your libertarian friends can come up with. Call the head of CATO, Charles Koch. You know, of the Koch bros. They should be able to help you. They are libertarians, so they tell us all. So they should be leading you to some economy that has had success somewhere. dipshit. go read Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged and live in fantasy.

 

[Rshermr]

So I take it you found my Sowell quote?

LOL...had to EAT those "liar" accusations...didn't ya'?

So you went to "dipshit"? Nice fall back strategy!!!

No. But then if you are not going to provide the post number, I will not bother. He is a libertarian. A fuckin libertarian. So, at any rate, as we have established (you have established, really) we can not consider the words of sources who are not impartial. A libertarian. A ******* libertarian. I am still laughing.

 

[Rshermr]

Consumers create DEMAND.

Capitalists respond to DEMAND by creating or increasing the PRODICTIVE CAPACITY to respond to this perceived DEMAND.

Capitalists RESPOND when they see an increased chance of making a profit. This progressive "mantra" about DEMAND is idiotic and explains why our economy is treading water instead of having the usual bounce back that follows a recession.

Yes. Yes oldstyle. Like when Reagan raised taxes and drove the unemployment rate from 7% to almost 11%. Yup, that supply side stuff really worked. But what did work was stimulus, which reagan financed by borrowing enough to triple the national debt. And raising taxes 11 times. His stimulus decreased unemployment. So, we should immediatly try supply side, so that the low level folks can benefit from the resultant trickle down that reagans folks told us all about. yes indeed, those capitalists sure responded. Economy went in the tank. But if you like the tank, you would love it. And, of course, in no other case where the economy has been bad has supply side ever worked. Which is why, as opposed to the 1980's, almost no schools spend any time on supply side econ. Just old discredited economists like Sowell, or something similar. But what the hell, it was a good try. Pushing that good old far right dogma, which has made a lot of wealth people much more wealthy. You know, decreasing tax rates for the wealthy (gov intervention) has redistributed the wealth to the wealthy. Dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

So oldstyle says
:No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. That sentense proves that you should stick to food services. Totally untrue.

Oldstyle, you just said "t "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. So, income redistribution is the means, you say. Want to explain that piece of logical garbage. Dipshit. So, dipshit, that explains why the middle class is decreasing in size and the wealthy are getting more so. Even to you, what you just said must seem stupid. Dipshit.
I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.So you say. I do not see it anywhere but so you say. dipshit.

You know, oldstyle, there are a couple of sources that believe trickle down was a theory. You seem to be unable to besmirch them. So, there you go. At least two, maybe more, even you can not besmirch.

And, I think I understand your concerns about the economic sources that I gave you. They are too liberal, or expouse some liberal viewpoints. As such, they are not independent enough for you. I think you will find a couple who are, but let me know if you need more. At any rate, we should not use sources to far right or too far left. I think that pretty much gets your point.

So, in an effort to be fair, I looked up your source. Thomas Sowell. After doing so, maybe you should not bother. He just does not meet your (our) standards, oldstyle. Turns out he is a far right conservative economist. And a self described libertarian. So, he is worthless as a source. I am so sorry about that, oldstyle. And I am so surprised you did not know.

I could have told you that Thomas Sowell is considered a conservative economist AND a libertarian. He was one of my college professors and a noted economist. Why that makes him "worthless as a source" YOU'LL have to explain. Sowell actually IS an economist, unlike most of the "sources" that you provided. What's amusing is that after DAYS of arguing against Sowell you just now looked him up. Here's a hint for ya, Sparky...if someone uses a source you're unfamiliar with (although how an Econ major wouldn't be very familiar with Thomas Sowell is beyond me!) you might want to use Google and familiarize yourself with who they are. Or is that too much work for you?

As for my ability to "besmirch" your sources? Dude, two of them weren't even economists like you said they were. Another was a blogger debate site! Another was a guy that doesn't seem to exist except for one article that he wrote on trickle down theory. Irwin Shishko? Who the hell IS Irwin Shishko? He could be the freaking janitor at some school for all you know. Besmirch your sources? LOL Heck, I didn't besmirch them... I ***** slapped them into oblivion.

So oldstyle says
:No, I fully understand that a perceived "income inequality" is the REASON that progressives seek higher taxes on the wealthy and that "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. That sentense proves that you should stick to food services. Totally untrue.

Oldstyle, you just said "t "income redistribution" is their Means of doing so. So, income redistribution is the means, you say. Want to explain that piece of logical garbage. Dipshit. So, dipshit, that explains why the middle class is decreasing in size and the wealthy are getting more so. Even to you, what you just said must seem stupid. Dipshit.
I don't believe that "trickle down" is an actual economic theory...it is a derogatory political term used by progressives to describe Supply Side theory...a view that is not held by just myself but also by Thomas Sowell.So you say. I do not see it anywhere but so you say. dipshit.

You know, oldstyle, there are a couple of sources that believe trickle down was a theory. You seem to be unable to besmirch them. So, there you go. At least two, maybe more, even you can not besmirch.

And, I think I understand your concerns about the economic sources that I gave you. They are too liberal, or expouse some liberal viewpoints. As such, they are not independent enough for you. I think you will find a couple who are, but let me know if you need more. At any rate, we should not use sources to far right or too far left. I think that pretty much gets your point.

So, in an effort to be fair, I looked up your source. Thomas Sowell. After doing so, maybe you should not bother. He just does not meet your (our) standards, oldstyle. Turns out he is a far right conservative economist. And a self described libertarian. So, he is worthless as a source. I am so sorry about that, oldstyle. And I am so surprised you did not know.

So, Oldstyle says:

I could have told you that Thomas Sowell is considered a conservative economist AND a libertarian. He was one of my college professors and a noted economist.Really. What college and when??? I have his full biography, all the schools he admits to having taught in, and I do not see the one I believe you said you graduated from. Sorry to question your word, but you do lie a lot. Why that makes him "worthless as a source" YOU'LL have to explain. Sowell actually IS an economist, unlike most of the "sources" that you provided. Please, oldstyle. You can not ask that question with a straight face. You take really well known economic sources that I provide for you and do not want to believe them because they may be too liberal, or some such. And you are trying to get me to believe a libertarian. A ******* libertarian. That is how you know you have a nut case. He admits he is a libertarian. You know why, dipshit.
What's amusing is that after DAYS of arguing against Sowell you just now looked him up. Here's a hint for ya, Sparky...if someone uses a source you're unfamiliar with (although how an Econ major wouldn't be very familiar with Thomas Sowell is beyond me!) you might want to use Google and familiarize yourself with who they are. Or is that too much work for you? You are getting desperate. I did not check him out simply because I do not take you seriously. You are a food services guy who worships a ******* libertarian. Further proof that you are stupid. Most men stop believing in libertarian economics by the time they reach puberty. And although you believe your ex proff to be really important, I stopped reading stuff from libertarians over 40 years ago. And authors of basic econ books and the books themselves are long past of interest to me. I know to you he is a prince. To me he is an idiot. Libertarian!!! As soon as you show me a libertarian economy in any nation that has succeeded, I may show some interest. But of course, that is a major topic on google. And no one can find one. Several attempts, but all ended as garbage heaps. Libertarian. Dipshit.

As for my ability to "besmirch" your sources? Dude, two of them weren't even economists like you said they were. Ah, but you lie. I told you no such thing. You lie because you can not make a point without it.Another was a blogger debate site! Another was a guy that doesn't seem to exist except for one article that he wrote on trickle down theory. Irwin Shishko? Who the hell IS Irwin Shishko? He could be the freaking janitor at some school for all you know.Or...;Or a food services guy like you. Who has now explained why he is a con dogma pusher. Because he is a ******* libertarian. Besmirch your sources? LOL Heck, I didn't besmirch them... I ***** slapped them into oblivion. ***** slapped??? You are truly delusional. Into Oblivion. You have to be kidding. You could not ***** slap anything. You are a ******* libertarian. I can not stop laughing. A ******* libertarian.

Funny. Just heard Clinton say, in his speach at the demo convention, that we can not afford any more trickle down. You know, that thing that you are trying to say is not a theory. I bet you don't see the humor in that, eh, oldstyle.

So, here is your problem, or should I say one of your problems. You still have shown me no proof from you libertarian economist. ******* libertarian. I can not believe it. Any way, so, you do not even have that. Not that it matters. You eliminated what you consider partial sources. and god know, he is partial. so you have nothing. You are just a lying libertarian supporting con, with no game.

Thomas Sowell taught at Amherst College. I went to UMass. Under the 5 Colleges Program students at Amherst, UMass, Smith, Mt. Holyoke and Hampshire College could sign up for classes at the other schools. I believe that was in either 1977 or '76. I don't remember if I was a sophomore or a junior when i took the class. Happy now? By the way...your disparaging remarks about Sowell make me smile...Thomas Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College...got his Masters from Columbia and his Doctorate from the the University of Chicago. Now WHO else was associated with those institutions of higher learning and is seen as brilliant by you progressives? Duh?
As for what you heard Bill Clinton say at the DNC? If you're not intelligent enough to understand that Slick Willie was up there on stage tonight shoveling it like he's never shoveled it before then you're not very bright. This is the same man who only a short while ago said that he didn't think now was a time to raise taxes on anyone. Then he got his marching orders from the White House and changed his tune to something "more appropriate" to the message the Obama reelection campaign is putting out. If you LISTEN you'll hear people like Clinton and Christina Romer admit the truth about this Administration's policies...right before they hastily backtrack and get into lockstep with the progressive "sound machine". I think Bill Clinton is a brilliant politician and was a pretty sharp President...he's got the morals of crack addict though...only Billy's drug of choice is political power, not cocaine.

And just for your information...I am not a "libertarian"...I'm a registered Republican. Do I think some of the libertarian ideals are worthy? Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle Says: Thomas Sowell taught at Amherst College. I went to UMass. Under the 5 Colleges Program students at Amherst, UMass, Smith, Mt. Holyoke and Hampshire College could sign up for classes at the other schools. I believe that was in either 1977 or '76. I don't remember if I was a sophomore or a junior when i took the class. Happy now? By the way...your disparaging remarks about Sowell make me smile...Thomas Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College...got his Masters from Columbia and his Doctorate from the the University of Chicago. Now WHO else was associated with those institutions of higher learning and is seen as brilliant by you progressives? Duh?Yes, dipshit. We all know that you believe that your LIBERTARIAN proff is the most brilliant person ever. But then, oldstyle, me boy, you are a food services guy. So what weight to you think your opinion has. As to what other economists have equal credentials, there are many. But that has nothing to do with anything. You seem to believe that we need economists to weigh in on whether trickle down is a theory. Which we do not. Even I, a non economist, can read the data and understand that it is. And is part and parcel of Supply Side economics. And another economist, Stockman, who was Budget Director under REAGAN would know better than anyone, what the origination of trickle down, as used in relation to supply side economics, was. But you really do not care, you are simply posting dogma. You want to blame the origination of trickle down on dems. Which is stupid.
As for what you heard Bill Clinton say at the DNC? If you're not intelligent enough to understand that Slick Willie was up there on stage tonight shoveling it like he's never shoveled it before then you're not very bright. This is the same man who only a short while ago said that he didn't think now was a time to raise taxes on anyone. Then he got his marching orders from the White House and changed his tune to something "more appropriate" to the message the Obama reelection campaign is putting out. If you LISTEN you'll hear people like Clinton and Christina Romer admit the truth about this Administration's policies...right before they hastily backtrack and get into lockstep with the progressive "sound machine". I think Bill Clinton is a brilliant politician and was a pretty sharp President...he's got the morals of crack addict though...only Billy's drug of choice is political power, not cocaine.Yup, and had an economy good enough to balance the budget. So perhaps you could name some of the repub presidents over the past 0 years or so that accomplished that. Oh, yeah. Thats a problem, eh oldstyle, They did not. Pretty much all simply increased the national debt. But we should believe your opinion of clinton, because you are, after all, a food services guy.

And just for your information...I am not a "libertarian"...I'm a registered Republican. Do I think some of the libertarian ideals are worthy? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. You need to read the document I keep sending you about why conservatives are stupid. Jesus, do you fit the mold.

Oldstyle, you are dishonest. You provide info on what you want people to believe, straight from con web sites, and have no proof at all, Non. Nada. Zip. Just your word. Straight from a right wing web site. So, I think it obvious that we can take Stockmans word, since he was the highest level official there. And that is, yes, trickle down was originated by repubs to justify supply side economic policies. And yes, trickle down is a theory, for christ sake. Isn't it time for you to go post some new right wing dogma and waste peoples time proving you wrong???

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle Says: Thomas Sowell taught at Amherst College. I went to UMass. Under the 5 Colleges Program students at Amherst, UMass, Smith, Mt. Holyoke and Hampshire College could sign up for classes at the other schools. I believe that was in either 1977 or '76. I don't remember if I was a sophomore or a junior when i took the class. Happy now? By the way...your disparaging remarks about Sowell make me smile...Thomas Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College...got his Masters from Columbia and his Doctorate from the the University of Chicago. Now WHO else was associated with those institutions of higher learning and is seen as brilliant by you progressives? Duh?Yes, dipshit. We all know that you believe that your LIBERTARIAN proff is the most brilliant person ever. But then, oldstyle, me boy, you are a food services guy. So what weight to you think your opinion has. As to what other economists have equal credentials, there are many. But that has nothing to do with anything. You seem to believe that we need economists to weigh in on whether trickle down is a theory. Which we do not. Even I, a non economist, can read the data and understand that it is. And is part and parcel of Supply Side economics. And another economist, Stockman, who was Budget Director under REAGAN would know better than anyone, what the origination of trickle down, as used in relation to supply side economics, was. But you really do not care, you are simply posting dogma. You want to blame the origination of trickle down on dems. Which is stupid.
As for what you heard Bill Clinton say at the DNC? If you're not intelligent enough to understand that Slick Willie was up there on stage tonight shoveling it like he's never shoveled it before then you're not very bright. This is the same man who only a short while ago said that he didn't think now was a time to raise taxes on anyone. Then he got his marching orders from the White House and changed his tune to something "more appropriate" to the message the Obama reelection campaign is putting out. If you LISTEN you'll hear people like Clinton and Christina Romer admit the truth about this Administration's policies...right before they hastily backtrack and get into lockstep with the progressive "sound machine". I think Bill Clinton is a brilliant politician and was a pretty sharp President...he's got the morals of crack addict though...only Billy's drug of choice is political power, not cocaine.Yup, and had an economy good enough to balance the budget. So perhaps you could name some of the repub presidents over the past 0 years or so that accomplished that. Oh, yeah. Thats a problem, eh oldstyle, They did not. Pretty much all simply increased the national debt. But we should believe your opinion of clinton, because you are, after all, a food services guy.

And just for your information...I am not a "libertarian"...I'm a registered Republican. Do I think some of the libertarian ideals are worthy? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. You need to read the document I keep sending you about why conservatives are stupid. Jesus, do you fit the mold.

Oldstyle, you are dishonest. You provide info on what you want people to believe, straight from con web sites, and have no proof at all, Non. Nada. Zip. Just your word. Straight from a right wing web site. So, I think it obvious that we can take Stockmans word, since he was the highest level official there. And that is, yes, trickle down was originated by repubs to justify supply side economic policies. And yes, trickle down is a theory, for christ sake. Isn't it time for you to go post some new right wing dogma and waste peoples time proving you wrong???

Actually I graduated with a degree in History...I got into the Food & Beverage Industry because I found teaching to be boring.

As for Stockman's "word" that the Republicans "originated" the term trickle down? How can that be when Will Rogers was using the term back during the Great Depression. I'm always amused at the weight that you progressives put on one rather poorly worded comment that Stockman made while testifying. Stockman was a true believer in Supply Side economics. His disillusion came over the refusal of Republicans to cut spending...not on tax cuts.

"Even I, a non economist, can read the data and understand that it is."

An interesting comment. You supposedly graduated with a degree in Economics...you supposedly taught the subject at the college level...but you don't consider yourself to be an economist. What HAVE you been doing? Working at the local 7-11? Nah, I take that back...what kind of person denigrates someone else over the job they have!

 

[Oldstyle]

"Oldstyle, you are dishonest. You provide info on what you want people to believe, straight from con web sites, and have no proof at all, Non. Nada. Zip. Just your word. Straight from a right wing web site. So, I think it obvious that we can take Stockmans word, since he was the highest level official there. And that is, yes, trickle down was originated by repubs to justify supply side economic policies. And yes, trickle down is a theory, for christ sake."

And we KNOW this because Irwin Shishko says so!!!! LOL

 

[Rshermr]

"Oldstyle, you are dishonest. You provide info on what you want people to believe, straight from con web sites, and have no proof at all, Non. Nada. Zip. Just your word. Straight from a right wing web site. So, I think it obvious that we can take Stockmans word, since he was the highest level official there. And that is, yes, trickle down was originated by repubs to justify supply side economic policies. And yes, trickle down is a theory, for christ sake."

And we KNOW this because Irwin Shishko says so!!!! LOL

Oldstyle, I gave you over 15 references. You are attacking one. That leaves, according to my math, 14. You provide none. Zero. Nothing but your word as a food services employee. On balance, ... Well why should I try. Go believe what you want to believe.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Oldstyle, you are dishonest. You provide info on what you want people to believe, straight from con web sites, and have no proof at all, Non. Nada. Zip. Just your word. Straight from a right wing web site. So, I think it obvious that we can take Stockmans word, since he was the highest level official there. And that is, yes, trickle down was originated by repubs to justify supply side economic policies. And yes, trickle down is a theory, for christ sake."

And we KNOW this because Irwin Shishko says so!!!! LOL

Oldstyle, I gave you over 15 references. You are attacking one. That leaves, according to my math, 14. You provide none. Zero. Nothing but your word as a food services employee. On balance, ... Well why should I try. Go believe what you want to believe.

What you "did" was Google trickle down theory and then regurgitate everything you found there...here. Which is why we GOT references like the renowned (eye roll) Irwin Shishko and two anonymous guys debating the pros and cons of trickle down theory on Debate.com. People like you armed with a Google search app actually think you're presenting an intelligent rebuttal. In the meantime you can't formulate an original thought that counters someone else's contention. Do you know WHY you have to denigrate Thomas Sowell's contention that it's impossible to have "trickle down" occurring when it is workers that get paid BEFORE business owners? Because you can't refute what he's saying. It's such a common sense concept that you don't have a come back for it other than to accuse him of (gasp!) being a libertarian!!! Oh, and by the way...my cite wasn't from a "right wing site"...it actually came out of a book sitting on my lap. You see unlike you...I actually read things like economics text books and get my information from sources like THAT instead of Wikipedia.

So what am I this time, Rshermr...a liar or a dip-shit?

You can always tell the person who's getting their ass handed to them in an argument on this board. They are the one who has to resort to name calling.