Consumers create jobs.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can you two geniuses tell us all your plans to decrease unemployment

very very simple, reverse liberalism!!!!!

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[Rshermr]

Can't come up with a single instance where tax increases in a bad economy improved things...can you?

So why then do you support Barack Obama's calling for a tax increase in THIS economy? Is it because you're totally ignorant when it comes to economics and history...or is it because you're an ideologue who would rather see us commit "economic hari-kari" than pursue an economic strategy that makes sense?

You SAID you wanted to argue economics. Does your calling everyone who disputes your unproven assertions a "clown" constitute your idea of an argument? There's nothing more pathetic than someone who fools themselves. In this case you've fooled yourself into thinking you know something about the economic history of the US when in fact you've demonstrated that you know very little about that subject.

Too easy, clown. And I have told you many times before. so why not give you a hing, now..
Reagan. Clinton. Roosevelt. If you can extract your head, do your own research.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You SAID you wanted to argue economics.

reshermr's too stupid to know he's defeated!! He pulls random economic numbers out of history, claims they somehow represent a scientific experiment that proves liberalism, and then declares himself victorious.

When you ask him a theoretical question like why a stimulus is not a bubble he runs away!!

 

[Rshermr]

your ignorance of economic history is quite staggering. Jfk did not seek tax cuts because the economy was "good"...he raised them because it was anything but good. The following is from kennedy's state of the union address in jan. Of 1961...

"the present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, three and one-half years of slack, seven years of diminished economic growth, and nine years of falling farm income.
Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the great depression. Since 1951 farm income has been squeezed down by 25 percent. Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history. Of some five and one-half million americans who are without jobs, more than one million have been searching for work for more than four months. And during each month, some 150,000 workers are exhausting their already meager jobless benefit rights...."

gee, does that sound "good" to you? Why do you continue to embarrass yourself in this manner? It's quite obvious that you know next to nothing about the history of the us...especially in regards to economics.

As for reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because reagan had the fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control.

if you are saying that kennedy had a tax decrease in 61, perhaps you had better determine who is ignorant. There was no tax decrease in 61. The kennedy admin. Had a tax decrease only once, and it was in 64 well after his death. I know you believe you are an economic genius but you should really check your google results better.
I would expect a person with integrity to apologize for the insults you sent my way based on your flawed information, but obviously i will not expect it from you. By the way, the economy was good in 64.
You should really stop all this chest thumping stuff. You claim to be an economics expert. I do not. I have some background, but there are many out there with much more than i.

So, you said: as for reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because reagan had the fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control. if that were true, you would have to explain why the increase happened when it did, beginning right after the big tax decrease. And why, afterward, reagan borrowed enough to triple the national debt and initiated 11 tax increases. Why all this and the deficit spending if the tax cuts were such a success?? Does not make any sense, obviously. You need to quit with the tortured responses to simple questions. They are obviously wrong, and show that you will do anything to get people to believe your statements, which are wrong.
So, no, i do not feel embarrassed. Do you???

You just finished telling me that Kennedy lowered taxes in a "GOOD" economy and I just showed you that the economy was far from "GOOD" using Kennedy's own words from his first State of the Union address. But you can't admit that...can you? But, of course, you lie. *There was no General tax cut prior to 64. *Unemployment was at 6.6%, not really bad. *So, you turn this into a case where unemployment was bad, and a point tax decrease caused unemployment to decrease. *Sorry, bozo, *You need to prove that one. *However there were strong efforts at stimulus spending. *So no, and I think you will find it extremely unlikely that you will ever see an economist say that there was recovery based on that small tax decrease.
Jere are tax rates for a year at the time of Kennedy's inauguration.
January 1961 - 6.6%
February 1961 - 6.9%
March 1961 - 6.9%
April 1961 - 7%
May 1961 - 7.1%
June 1961 - 6.9%
July 1961 - 7%
August 1961 - 6.6%
September 1961 - 6.7%
October 1961 - 6.5%
November 1961 - 6.1%
December 1961 - 6%

So, what did Kennedy do to pull the economy out of the recession??




The need was to get money into the economy fast. Kennedy directed all Federal agencies to accelerate their procurement and construction. He released over a billion dollars in state highway aid funds ahead of schedule, raised farm price supports and advanced their payment, speeded up the distribution of tax refunds and GI life insurance dividends. He created a "pilot" Food Ste amp program for the needy and expanded US Employment Offices. Finally, he encouraged the Federal Reserve Board to help keep long-term interest rates low through the purchase of long-term bonds.
While most of Kennedy's administrative moves added to the deficit--some by billions of dollars--none of them had to wait for legislation or appropriations. The money was paid out when the economy needed it most. He made clear--and this may have had the most important effect of all--that he would not cut back Federal spending when the recession reduced Federal revenues, or permit a tightening of credit when recovery began.
Source: "Kennedy" by Ted Sorensen, p. 397-398 , Jan 1, 1965
So, Bozo, no. You did not find a time when income tax rates were reduced and unemployment improved in an economy with high unemployment. Good try, but no cigar.

Here is some info on how Kennedy

Kennedy's tax cuts didn't go until after his assassination. Nor, of course, did I suggest that his death changed anything. But nice try to say I did. anges the reasons why he ought them, nor does it change the fact that a Democratic administration successfully used tax cuts to stimulate a weak economy. So again, you are trying to be dishonest, and get away with it. You seem unable to remember the question, which was when did a president use a tax cut to reduce the unemployment rate during a bad unemployment economy. Try to keep that in mind. Which again is why 1964 is irrelevant. Because the unemployment rate in 64 was about 5,1%, and trending down from the beginning of the year, and ranging from 4.8 to 5.6%, the 64 tax cut does not answer a question relative to how such a decrease would affect unemployment in bad economic times.

let's talk about Reagan..says bozo..




Reagan's "big tax decrease" did not happen at the same time as he tightened up the money supply. Ah, but it did. As I told you before, Reagan chose to attack the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him by first addressing inflation...which he did by tightening up the money supply and THEN he cut taxes. The increase in unemployment was brought on by the increased costs toy, borrow money that tightening up the money supply created. That's basic economics but you don't understand basic economics...do you? Yes, I do indeed. *And what you just said is pure bs. It is the new Oldstyle theory. And we should all believe you because you are such an economic expert. Show me some proof. Which of course you can not. His economy went south as a result of tax cuts initiated in 82. Easy to read about in impartial economic writings, should you wish to. But then, it does not agree with your supply side economics, so you try the "tightening the money supply" angle.

As for why Reagan initiated 11 tax increases during his eight year period in office? If you'll look at when those tax increases occurred you'll find that they were in the latter part of his administration, when the economy had recovered and was growing rapidly. ]Sorry, you are wrong again. Maybe lying again, or maybe just ignorant. His tax increases started in 81 with the first major increase in mid 82, As I said before, Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economics better as a supply-sider than Barack Obama does as (supposedly) a Keynesian. Wow, it’s the my pop is tougher than your pop argument. *No proof needed, just need to be adolescent.

What both Reagan and Kennedy prove is that the proper time to cut taxes is in an economic downturn but of course reagans tax decrease failed miserably and Kennedys only overall tax cut was during a good economy and the proper time to raise them is when the economy is booming. But you still can't admit that...can you? By the way, I never claimed to be an economics "expert" but I do claim to understand the subject because I took it in college and actually learned something in the process. You on the other hand don't even seem to grasp the basics of Keynesian economics even though you like to use Keynesian principles as the basis for demanding additional spending by the Federal Government. Again, I will keep your criticism in mind, since I respect your opinion so much!!! Problem is, I taught students like you and recognize the mental anguish you face when having to look at actual economic occurrences. My condolences. Must be tough.

So, you have admitted that Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. *Good for you. Admission can be cathartic. Problem is, you do not say why. Why did he do it, if tax decreases were the answer? So, here is the conundrum. If he used tax increases, then he is admitting that tax decreases are not the answer.

Then, the other part of my question that you decided to ignore, was why did he triple the national debt by borrowing more money than all the prior presidents combined?? The answer is easy, he did it for the same reason he raised taxes. To bring money into the gov. Because tax cuts did not work. So, since the national debt expanded by three times, where did the money go?? So, easy enough. The size of the gov was increased during reagans reign. Reagan used the money from borrowing Not to pay off gov debt, but to stimulate the economy. I know you are proud that he understood keynsian econ, but then, most rational people do. But, what it also showed was that he could not get the bad economy resulting from his tax cuts back in line without using stimulus spending. Which was a very good thing. And fully supported by the congress at the time.

 

[dblack]

Sorry... started to read this but gave up. All the crazy bolding is distracting and unnecessary. Here - I'll unbold the quote above and try reading it again.

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009. Bush’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 cut taxes by $1.35 trillion over 10 years by making many changes. Did not create one job but cause Government $1.35 trillion in lost revenue, resulting in Government jobs lost. Especially in government that create jobs. If big and small businesses did not pay any taxes at all they still would not create any jobs. 11 years after Bush’s tax cuts unemployment is at 8.2% down because of Obama’s stimulus and because tax cuts do not create jobs. Like it or not, Radical Right Wing Extremists, government spending and government created jobs got us out of the great depression and will get us out of this recession. Stimulus money lowered unemployment down to 8.2%. If not for the stimulus ti would be well over 8.2%. But RRWE have cut government spending and cut Government jobs.

Government spending and government jobs will put people to work, create revenue and the employed will spend money on products and services and business will sell more products and services and will need to hire more people. Result. A growing economy out of the recession. A 5th grader figured this out.

Government can create jobs because Government do not have to make an immediate profit. Profit will come later in the form of taxes that will pay for the jobs Government create.
Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses. Bush tax cut create this recession by cutting tax revenue by $1.35 trillion. It took money out of the hands of government and Government had to cut spending and cut government jobs, cutting more revenue and taking money out of the hands of consumers. Consumers having no money to buy big and small business’s products and services caused businesses to lay of employees and some went bankrupt. Results in no money in anyone’s hands. Resulting in a great recession.
Private sector cannot create jobs without consumers.

If RRWE know how to create jobs and healthcare for all, they had 10 years of Bush to do it and they didn’t.

Hmmm didn't help much. Driving us all onto the consumerism treadmill is not what I want government for. Buzz off.

 

[Oldstyle]

Can't come up with a single instance where tax increases in a bad economy improved things...can you?

So why then do you support Barack Obama's calling for a tax increase in THIS economy? Is it because you're totally ignorant when it comes to economics and history...or is it because you're an ideologue who would rather see us commit "economic hari-kari" than pursue an economic strategy that makes sense?

You SAID you wanted to argue economics. Does your calling everyone who disputes your unproven assertions a "clown" constitute your idea of an argument? There's nothing more pathetic than someone who fools themselves. In this case you've fooled yourself into thinking you know something about the economic history of the US when in fact you've demonstrated that you know very little about that subject.

Too easy, clown. And I have told you many times before. so why not give you a hing, now..
Reagan. Clinton. Roosevelt. If you can extract your head, do your own research.

Not looking for a "hing" (whatever THAT is!)...what I'm looking for is a single example of where a tax increase in a bad economy, stimulated said economy.

Why don't you just save us all a lot of trouble and admit that you can't find any such thing? Then when you've finished doing that you can admit that you don't know diddly about economics nor the economic history of this country and simply parrot what you hear from talking heads on MSNBC and ThinkProgress!

God, for your sake I hope you don't get embarrassed like this in all the strings you jump into. Seriously, Dude...you need to educate yourself before you try and discuss complicated things like the economy. Right now you're in the same "intellectual strata" as TruthMatters and Deanie and trust me...that's NOT where you want to be.

 

[Oldstyle]

if you are saying that kennedy had a tax decrease in 61, perhaps you had better determine who is ignorant. There was no tax decrease in 61. The kennedy admin. Had a tax decrease only once, and it was in 64 well after his death. I know you believe you are an economic genius but you should really check your google results better.
I would expect a person with integrity to apologize for the insults you sent my way based on your flawed information, but obviously i will not expect it from you. By the way, the economy was good in 64.
You should really stop all this chest thumping stuff. You claim to be an economics expert. I do not. I have some background, but there are many out there with much more than i.

So, you said: as for reagan? The reason that unemployment went to 10% wasn't because of supply side economics...it was because reagan had the fed tighten up the money supply in order to get inflation under control. if that were true, you would have to explain why the increase happened when it did, beginning right after the big tax decrease. And why, afterward, reagan borrowed enough to triple the national debt and initiated 11 tax increases. Why all this and the deficit spending if the tax cuts were such a success?? Does not make any sense, obviously. You need to quit with the tortured responses to simple questions. They are obviously wrong, and show that you will do anything to get people to believe your statements, which are wrong.
So, no, i do not feel embarrassed. Do you???

You just finished telling me that Kennedy lowered taxes in a "GOOD" economy and I just showed you that the economy was far from "GOOD" using Kennedy's own words from his first State of the Union address. But you can't admit that...can you? But, of course, you lie. *There was no General tax cut prior to 64. *Unemployment was at 6.6%, not really bad. *So, you turn this into a case where unemployment was bad, and a point tax decrease caused unemployment to decrease. *Sorry, bozo, *You need to prove that one. *However there were strong efforts at stimulus spending. *So no, and I think you will find it extremely unlikely that you will ever see an economist say that there was recovery based on that small tax decrease. * *
Jere are tax rates for a year at the time of Kennedy's inauguration.
January 1961 - 6.6%
February 1961 - 6.9%
March 1961 - 6.9%
April 1961 - 7%
May 1961 - 7.1%
June 1961 - 6.9%
July 1961 - 7%
August 1961 - 6.6%
September 1961 - 6.7%
October 1961 - 6.5%
November 1961 - 6.1%
December 1961 - 6%
*
So, what did Kennedy do to pull the economy out of the recession??*




The need was to get money into the economy fast. Kennedy directed all Federal agencies to accelerate their procurement and construction. He released over a billion dollars in state highway aid funds ahead of schedule, raised farm price supports and advanced their payment, speeded up the distribution of tax refunds and GI life insurance dividends. He created a "pilot" Food Ste amp program for the needy and expanded US Employment Offices. Finally, he encouraged the Federal Reserve Board to help keep long-term interest rates low through the purchase of long-term bonds.
While most of Kennedy's administrative moves added to the deficit--some by billions of dollars--none of them had to wait for legislation or appropriations. The money was paid out when the economy needed it most. He made clear--and this may have had the most important effect of all--that he would not cut back Federal spending when the recession reduced Federal revenues, or permit a tightening of credit when recovery began.
Source: "Kennedy" by Ted Sorensen, p. 397-398 , Jan 1, 1965
So, Bozo, no. *You did not find a time when income tax rates were reduced and unemployment improved in an economy with high unemployment. *Good try, but no cigar.




Here is some info on how Kennedy *




Kennedy's tax cuts didn't go until after his assassination. Nor, of course, did I suggest that his death changed anything. *But nice try to say I did. *anges the reasons why he ought them, nor does it change the fact that a Democratic administration successfully used tax cuts to stimulate a weak economy. *So again, you are trying to be dishonest, and get away with it. *You seem unable to remember the question, which was when did a president use a tax cut to reduce the unemployment rate during a bad *unemployment economy. *Try to keep that in mind. *Which again is why 1964 is irrelevant. *Because the unemployment rate in 64 was about 5,1%, and trending down from the beginning of the year, and ranging from 4.8 to 5.6%, the 64 tax cut does not answer a question relative to how such a decrease would affect unemployment in bad economic times.

let's talk about Reagan..says bozo..




Reagan's "big tax decrease" did not happen at the same time as he tightened up the money supply. Ah, but it did. *As I told you before, Reagan chose to attack the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him by first addressing inflation...which he did by tightening up the money supply and THEN he cut taxes. The increase in unemployment was brought on by the increased costs toy, borrow money that tightening up the money supply created. That's basic economics but you don't understand basic economics...do you? *Yes, I do indeed. *And what you just said is pure bs. It is the new Oldstyle theory. *And we should all believe you because you are such an economic expert. * Show me some proof. *Which of course you can not. *His economy went south as a result of tax cuts initiated in 82. *Easy to read about in impartial economic writings, should you wish to. *But then, it does not agree with your supply side economics, so you try the "tightening the money supply" angle. **

As for why Reagan initiated 11 tax increases during his eight year period in office? If you'll look at when those tax increases occurred you'll find that they were in the latter part of his administration, when the economy had recovered and was growing rapidly. Sorry, you are wrong again. *Mybe lying again, or maybe just ignorant. *His tax increases started in 81 with the first major increase in mid 82As I said before, Ronald Reagan understood Keynesian economics better as a supply-sider than Barack Obama does as (supposedly) a Keynesian. *Wow, it’s the my pop is tougher than your pop argument. *No proof needed, just need to be adolescent.




What both Reagan and Kennedy prove is that the proper time to cut taxes is in an economic downturn but of course reagans tax decrease failed miserably and Kennedys only overall tax cut was during a good economy and the proper time to raise them is when the economy is booming. But you still can't admit that...can you? By the way, I never claimed to be an economics "expert" but I do claim to understand the subject because I took it in college and actually learned something in the process. You on the other hand don't even seem to grasp the basics of Keynesian economics even though you like to use Keynesian principles as the basis for demanding additional spending by the Federal Government. *Again, I will keep your criticism in mind, since I respect your opinion so much!!! *Problem is, I taught students like you and recognize the mental anguish you face when having to look at actual economic occurrences. *My condolences. *Must be tough.

So, you have admitted that Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. *Good for you. *Admission can be cathartic. *Problem is, you do not say why. *Why did he do it, if tax decreases were the answer? *So, here is the conundrum. *If he used tax increases, then he is admitting that tax decreases are not the answer. *

Then, the other part of my question that you decided to ignore, was why did he triple the national debt by borrowing more money than all the prior presidents combined?? *The answer is easy, he did it for the same reason he raised taxes. *To bring money into the gov. *Because tax cuts did not work. *So, since the national debt expanded by three times, where did the money go?? *So, easy enough. *The size of the gov was increased during reagans reign. *Reagan used the money from borrowing Not to pay off gov debt, but to stimulate the economy. *I know you are proud that he understood keynsian econ, but then, most rational people do. *But, what it also showed was that he could not get the bad economy resulting from his tax cuts back in line without using stimulus spending. *Which was a very good thing. *And fully supported by the congress at the time.

You're claiming to be a teacher now? Seriously? What in God's name did someone as ignorant as yourself teach?

People like you continue to dig themselves deeper with claims like that one. If you're a teacher then our education system is well and truly FUBARED!!!

 

[Rshermr]

You're claiming to be a teacher now? Seriously? What in God's name did someone as ignorant as yourself teach?

People like you continue to dig themselves deeper with claims like that one. If you're a teacher then our education system is well and truly FUBARED!!![/QUOTE]
Well, Oldstyle, it is obvious that you have a bit of a problem with the queens english.
Here is part of my sentense: Problem is, I taught students like you...
Taught, you see, would indicate to anyone who knows english that it was in the past tense. I taught beginning econ at a 4 year college for a year, while I was a student there. Not at all bragging, or complaining. It was a long time ago, and I worked with a econ prof that liked me. Saw all sorts of people who did not want to believe what their politics wanted them to not believe.
But after that I got my MBA and spent the next 40 years in business.
But I will keep your insultive comments in mind. After all, I do so cherish your opinion.

 

[ccravens]

Wow rshermr, your lack of knowledge of history is, well, quite frankly, embarrassing.

RR's tax increaases were not MEANT to be stimulative. His tax cuts did that. There was something going on at the time called the Cold War, which he was concerned about, and thought we neededd more military spending on.

Read about it.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're claiming to be a teacher now? Seriously? What in God's name did someone as ignorant as yourself teach?

People like you continue to dig themselves deeper with claims like that one. If you're a teacher then our education system is well and truly FUBARED!!!

Well, Oldstyle, it is obvious that you have a bit of a problem with the queens english.
Here is part of my sentense: Problem is, I taught students like you...
Taught, you see, would indicate to anyone who knows english that it was in the past tense. I taught beginning econ at a 4 year college for a year, while I was a student there. Not at all bragging, or complaining. It was a long time ago, and I worked with a econ prof that liked me. Saw all sorts of people who did not want to believe what their politics wanted them to not believe.
But after that I got my MBA and spent the next 40 years in business.
But I will keep your insultive comments in mind. After all, I do so cherish your opinion.[/QUOTE]

"You" taught college level economics? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. How could you possibly have taught economics when you don't understand basic Keynesian economics? It's like claiming that you're a doctor but not knowing how to perform a suture!

As for my having a problem with English? I worked as a copy editor when I got out of college. My "problem" isn't with English comprehension...my "problem" is that I'm having a hard time believing "you" would have been allowed to teach economics at the Junior High level let alone at a four year college. What bastion of higher learning was this?

 

[Rshermr]

Wow rshermr, your lack of knowledge of history is, well, quite frankly, embarrassing.

RR's tax increaases were not MEANT to be stimulative. His tax cuts did that. There was something going on at the time called the Cold War, which he was concerned about, and thought we neededd more military spending on.

Read about it.

Yeah, that must be is. He lowered taxes , the economy went in the shitter, he then taxed and borrowed, and then the economy began to recover.
Next you will be telling me to go watch Reagans War.
This is truly trying go rewrite history. And does not pass the giggle test.
Get a clue.

 

[Rshermr]

You're claiming to be a teacher now? Seriously? What in God's name did someone as ignorant as yourself teach?

People like you continue to dig themselves deeper with claims like that one. If you're a teacher then our education system is well and truly FUBARED!!!

Well, Oldstyle, it is obvious that you have a bit of a problem with the queens english.
Here is part of my sentense: Problem is, I taught students like you...
Taught, you see, would indicate to anyone who knows english that it was in the past tense. I taught beginning econ at a 4 year college for a year, while I was a student there. Not at all bragging, or complaining. It was a long time ago, and I worked with a econ prof that liked me. Saw all sorts of people who did not want to believe what their politics wanted them to not believe.
But after that I got my MBA and spent the next 40 years in business.
But I will keep your insultive comments in mind. After all, I do so cherish your opinion.

"You" taught college level economics? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. How could you possibly have taught economics when you don't understand basic Keynesian economics? It's like claiming that you're a doctor but not knowing how to perform a suture!

As for my having a problem with English? I worked as a copy editor when I got out of college. My "problem" isn't with English comprehension...my "problem" is that I'm having a hard time believing "you" would have been allowed to teach economics at the Junior High level let alone at a four year college. What bastion of higher learning was this?[/QUOTE]

Well, me boy, that is because you are stupid. You believe, because you are stupid. you see, stupid people can take information that YOU WANT to believe and make it true in their mind. So, you believe completely, think you are very smart, and believe anyone who does not believe as you do is the stupid one. I am sure you have been to tea party gatherings. Look around.
I have studied the malady for years. It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons. It is because you get the information you need easily. And then you feel really, really good, being so smart.
One might wonder about your english skills because I said taught, and you took it to mean that I was currently a teacher. Any other stupid questions?
So, again, I will keep your criticism in mind, dipshit. Because I have such respect for your opinion.
Oldtime, you remind me of a turd. You know, walk through a lawn and step on one, and it is hard to shake off.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're claiming to be a teacher now? Seriously? What in God's name did someone as ignorant as yourself teach?

People like you continue to dig themselves deeper with claims like that one. If you're a teacher then our education system is well and truly FUBARED!!!

Well, Oldstyle, it is obvious that you have a bit of a problem with the queens english.
Here is part of my sentense: Problem is, I taught students like you...
Taught, you see, would indicate to anyone who knows english that it was in the past tense. I taught beginning econ at a 4 year college for a year, while I was a student there. Not at all bragging, or complaining. It was a long time ago, and I worked with a econ prof that liked me. Saw all sorts of people who did not want to believe what their politics wanted them to not believe.
But after that I got my MBA and spent the next 40 years in business.
But I will keep your insultive comments in mind. After all, I do so cherish your opinion.

"You" taught college level economics? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. How could you possibly have taught economics when you don't understand basic Keynesian economics? It's like claiming that you're a doctor but not knowing how to perform a suture!

As for my having a problem with English? I worked as a copy editor when I got out of college. My "problem" isn't with English comprehension...my "problem" is that I'm having a hard time believing "you" would have been allowed to teach economics at the Junior High level let alone at a four year college. What bastion of higher learning was this?

Well, me boy, that is because you are stupid. You believe, because you are stupid. you see, stupid people can take information that YOU WANT to believe and make it true in their mind. So, you believe completely, think you are very smart, and believe anyone who does not believe as you do is the stupid one. I am sure you have been to tea party gatherings. Look around.
I have studied the malady for years. It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons. It is because you get the information you need easily. And then you feel really, really good, being so smart.
One might wonder about your english skills because I said taught, and you took it to mean that I was currently a teacher. Any other stupid questions?
So, again, I will keep your criticism in mind, dipshit. Because I have such respect for your opinion.
Oldtime, you remind me of a turd. You know, walk through a lawn and step on one, and it is hard to shake off.[/QUOTE]

You resort to insults because you can't validate your contentions. Why? Because you don't understand economics nor do you have a clue about the economic history of this country. For you to come here and say that the Reagan tax cuts made the US economy go "in the shitter" is laughable. The Reagan tax cuts touched off the longest period of economic growth without a recession that this country has ever seen. How does THAT fit the description of putting the economy "in the shitter"?

How can someone who "supposedly" taught economics at the college level not know that? If you really were a teacher of economics then you would know what Reagan did (whether you agreed with his policies or not...) but you are so totally off base with your descriptions of what Reagan did and when he did it that I can only assume that you gleaned all of your information from some progressive site.

You're a fraud, Rshermr...you're one of those pitiful little people who gets on the internet and tries to pass themselves off as something they're not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons.

IF Jefferson and Friedman were dumb for thinking freedom worked best please say exactly why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Rshermr]

It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons.

IF Jefferson and Friedman were dumb for thinking freedom worked best please say exactly why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Ed, me boy. Only you would turn a statement that cons are stupid to each and every con is stupid. You, ed me boy, help to prove what the studies find.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, Oldstyle, it is obvious that you have a bit of a problem with the queens english.
Here is part of my sentense: Problem is, I taught students like you...
Taught, you see, would indicate to anyone who knows english that it was in the past tense. I taught beginning econ at a 4 year college for a year, while I was a student there. Not at all bragging, or complaining. It was a long time ago, and I worked with a econ prof that liked me. Saw all sorts of people who did not want to believe what their politics wanted them to not believe.
But after that I got my MBA and spent the next 40 years in business.
But I will keep your insultive comments in mind. After all, I do so cherish your opinion.

"You" taught college level economics? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. How could you possibly have taught economics when you don't understand basic Keynesian economics? It's like claiming that you're a doctor but not knowing how to perform a suture!

As for my having a problem with English? I worked as a copy editor when I got out of college. My "problem" isn't with English comprehension...my "problem" is that I'm having a hard time believing "you" would have been allowed to teach economics at the Junior High level let alone at a four year college. What bastion of higher learning was this?

Well, me boy, that is because you are stupid. You believe, because you are stupid. you see, stupid people can take information that YOU WANT to believe and make it true in their mind. So, you believe completely, think you are very smart, and believe anyone who does not believe as you do is the stupid one. I am sure you have been to tea party gatherings. Look around.
I have studied the malady for years. It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons. It is because you get the information you need easily. And then you feel really, really good, being so smart.
One might wonder about your english skills because I said taught, and you took it to mean that I was currently a teacher. Any other stupid questions?
So, again, I will keep your criticism in mind, dipshit. Because I have such respect for your opinion.
Oldtime, you remind me of a turd. You know, walk through a lawn and step on one, and it is hard to shake off.

You resort to insults because you can't validate your contentions. Why? Because you don't understand economics nor do you have a clue about the economic history of this country. For you to come here and say that the Reagan tax cuts made the US economy go "in the shitter" is laughablewere. Not really, oldstyle me boy. His tax cuts were signed into law in Feb, 1981. Got that, oldstyle. By Nov and Dec of 1982, the unemployment rate had risen from 7.5%% to 10.8%, Now, that would be:
The highest tax rate outside of the great depression of 29.
The top rates from a progression started in April of 81.
The beginning of borrowing that would tripple the national debt.
The beginning of 11 tax cuts.
The beginning of deficit spending to stimulate the economy using revenues generated from tax increases and borrowing.
But then I have been over all this with you and you at least admitted that reagan increased taxes 11 times.

The Reagan tax cuts touched off the longest period of economic growth without a recession that this country has ever seen. How does THAT fit the description of putting the economy "in the shitter"? See above, and understand that in my humble but correct opinion, 10.8% unemployment is indeed IN THE SHITTER. As were the obama rates in the shitter. Sorry you have a problem with that. But, perhaps we can put your theory of what you believe happened into the economic knowledge base and call it the oldtyme theory.

Here are the rates for 1981 when reagan took charge. Remember the tax cut was in Feb.
January 1981 - 7.5%
February 1981 - 7.4%
March 1981 - 7.4%
April 1981 - 7.2%
May 1981 - 7.5%
June 1981 - 7.5%
July 1981 - 7.2%
August 1981 - 7.4%
September 1981 - 7.6%
October 1981 - 7.9%
November 1981 - 8.3%
December 1981 - 8.5%
Here are the rates in 1982. As cuts in gov projects and resultant magnification of job losses were seen.
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%
The above from: http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php


How can someone who "supposedly" taught economics at the college level not know that? If you really were a teacher of economics then you would know what Reagan did (whether you agreed with his policies or not...) but you are so totally off base with your descriptions of what Reagan did and when he did it that I can only assume that you gleaned all of your information from some progressive site.No, actually I did not. Sorry, Oldtime, me boy. My information is very easy to prove. And I have as you have asked for it. You admitted he raised taxes. And have not questioned his raising the national debt.If you doubt it, check out this site, with numbers straight off of the gov sites. http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php
If you look closely over the years, you will see that the national debt, prior to Obama, was about 88% from repub admins. Why, oldtime. Only during the obama admin has much been added to the national debt. Why is that? Thought repubs used that good old supply side econ to keep the national debt low. They used supply side principles, decreasing taxes every time they could, but look at the results. Tell you anything at all??

So, oldtime, why did reagan raise taxes and the national debt? Ya think he put it in his back pocket?? No, he used it to deficit spend. Just the opposite of Supply Side econ. Because his economy was in trouble. Do some reading, and stop just posting con dogma. Maybe it will tell you why he raised taxes and increased borrowing and spending INSTEAD of lower lowering taxes again when the economy had high unemployment. Then, let me know why

You're a fraud, Rshermr...you're one of those pitiful little people who gets on the internet and tries to pass themselves off as something they're not.[/QUOTE]
Fraud, says oldstle. Who is a pitiful little man who is proud of having corrected text after leaving college. What a huge accomplishment. And, you took a whole econ class in college, and paid attention. Great, oldstyle, really, really impressive.
So, you think that your criticism of me is of any import?? You are a fool if you do, as you are just a simple little person.
What I said that I did, I indeed did. Funny thing is, you act like it was some huge accomplishment. Which it was not. So, I know, you keep saying I do not understand econ. Again, I will keep your opinion in mind as I have such high respect for your opinion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons.

IF Jefferson and Friedman were dumb for thinking freedom worked best please say exactly why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Ed, me boy. Only you would turn a statement that cons are stupid to each and every con is stupid. You, ed me boy, help to prove what the studies find.

so if Jefferson and Friedman were smart you must agree with them???
if those who follow them follow people who are smart they are least smart enough to make the right choice for their country.

Also, you will notice that in most states where Republicans have the majority they are trying to restrict voting to those with the IQ to get ID's, and Democrats are screaming bloody murder because those who lack the IQ to get Id's are their natural constituency.

 

[Oldstyle]

"You" taught college level economics? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. How could you possibly have taught economics when you don't understand basic Keynesian economics? It's like claiming that you're a doctor but not knowing how to perform a suture!

As for my having a problem with English? I worked as a copy editor when I got out of college. My "problem" isn't with English comprehension...my "problem" is that I'm having a hard time believing "you" would have been allowed to teach economics at the Junior High level let alone at a four year college. What bastion of higher learning was this?

Well, me boy, that is because you are stupid. You believe, because you are stupid. you see, stupid people can take information that YOU WANT to believe and make it true in their mind. So, you believe completely, think you are very smart, and believe anyone who does not believe as you do is the stupid one. I am sure you have been to tea party gatherings. Look around.
I have studied the malady for years. It is why all studies say the dumbest people are cons. It is because you get the information you need easily. And then you feel really, really good, being so smart.
One might wonder about your english skills because I said taught, and you took it to mean that I was currently a teacher. Any other stupid questions?
So, again, I will keep your criticism in mind, dipshit. Because I have such respect for your opinion.
Oldtime, you remind me of a turd. You know, walk through a lawn and step on one, and it is hard to shake off.

You resort to insults because you can't validate your contentions. Why? Because you don't understand economics nor do you have a clue about the economic history of this country. For you to come here and say that the Reagan tax cuts made the US economy go "in the shitter" is laughable. The Reagan tax cuts touched off the longest period of economic growth without a recession that this country has ever seen. How does THAT fit the description of putting the economy "in the shitter"?

How can someone who "supposedly" taught economics at the college level not know that? If you really were a teacher of economics then you would know what Reagan did (whether you agreed with his policies or not...) but you are so totally off base with your descriptions of what Reagan did and when he did it that I can only assume that you gleaned all of your information from some progressive site.

You're a fraud, Rshermr...you're one of those pitiful little people who gets on the internet and tries to pass themselves off as something they're not.

Fraud, says oldstle. Who is a pitiful little man who is proud of having corrected text after leaving college. What a huge accomplishment. And, you took a whole econ class in college, and paid attention. Great, oldstyle, really, really impressive.
So, you somehow think that your criticism of me is of any import?? You are a fool if you do, as you are just a simple little person.
So, relative to reagan:[/QUOTE]

Working as a copy editor was my first job after finishing college. It was an interesting if slightly boring job that I held for a year. I don't count it as a "huge accomplishment" but I do count it as a reference when someone like you accuses me of not having a grasp of the English language.

In college I took Macro Economics and Micro Economics...and YES, I did pay attention. I learned about John Maynard Keynes and his economic principles. My question for you is...what were you doing when you SHOULD have been paying attention? I'm assuming if you were allowed to instruct students at the college level that you were well versed in economics? Took many upper level classes and excelled? Yet you admit that you aren't an expert when it comes to the subject. The truth is...you've demonstrated an incredible ignorance of Keynesian economics and economic history in general. How you could have taught economics and be THAT ignorant is a wonder!!! What seat of higher learning allowed "you" to teach paying students? They should be sued in court for "failure to deliver".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Consumers create jobs????

Actually Republican supply-siders supply the goods and services that create jobs.

Imagine you're back in the stone age, everyone is starving to death, and you're waiting for consumers to create jobs!! How dumb is that???

Real jobs come only after Republicans invent or supply things that improve the standard of living.

The world sat still for centuries until Republican supply siders became productive. Now as then we need to encourage them in every way possible and for exactly the same reasons!

 

[Rshermr]

IF Jefferson and Friedman were dumb for thinking freedom worked best please say exactly why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Ed, me boy. Only you would turn a statement that cons are stupid to each and every con is stupid. You, ed me boy, help to prove what the studies find.

so if Jefferson and Friedman were smart you must agree with them???
if those who follow them follow people who are smart they are least smart enough to make the right choice for their country.

Also, you will notice that in most states where Republicans have the majority they are trying to restrict voting to those with the IQ to get ID's, and Democrats are screaming bloody murder because those who lack the IQ to get Id's are their natural constituency.

Wow, ed. What a profound post. Again, you continue to prove that you have nothing to contribute except con dogma.