Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

Wow...now THAT was some serious BS you're laying down there, "Tommy"! You didn't say they lied...you just don't believe what they say? Really?

You believe politicians when they talk? Really?
do you have any thing of value to say, or simply more of this kind of drivel?

You take what the CBO says as gospel, even though the data they're given comes from politicians.

Idiot.

Daveman, the idiot, calling others idiots. Funny, eh.
So, as a con tool, you believe that the CBO gets its information from politicians. No proof of any kind. I posted proof that is a lie. But, Daveman, being an idiot, posts that that the CBO gets its information from politicians.

That is the problem with con tools. They simply take what they want to believe, post it, and believe it. Sad existence.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You believe politicians when they talk? Really?
do you have any thing of value to say, or simply more of this kind of drivel?

You take what the CBO says as gospel, even though the data they're given comes from politicians.

Idiot.

Daveman, the idiot, calling others idiots. Funny, eh.
So, as a con tool, you believe that the CBO gets its information from politicians. No proof of any kind. I posted proof that is a lie. But, Daveman, being an idiot, posts that that the CBO gets its information from politicians.

That is the problem with con tools. They simply take what they want to believe, post it, and believe it. Sad existence.

Daveman is right of course. CBO is very limited by what politicians give them. If Barry says to CBO, will affordable care act pay for itself with 10 years of revenue and 6 years of expenditures the CBO will say yes but will not be able to say that with 10 years of revenue and 10 years of expenditures it is a huge loser.

In this way liberals politicians are able to use the CBO to help them with their lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says:

To be honest with you, Rshermr...I don't know what a "con tool" is. You use the term like it's a concrete description like black or white. Am I a fiscal conservative? Yes. Very much so. But since I'm also pro-choice, have zero problem with same sex marriage, would like to see a ban on the sale of assault weapons and am an agnostic who believes strongly in the separation of church and state, then I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and say that I'm NOT your stereotypical "con". Ignorant people resort to stereotyping because they're not intelligent enough to do otherwise.

Oh, I think you do indeed know. And your first problem is that you say "to be honest with you, Honesty, oldstyle, is not one of your strong suits. So, you say you do not agree with some of the repub social issues. So you say. but you tend to lie a lot, oldstyle, so who knows.
So, for the hell of it, here is what" a con tool is based on:
1. Money ownes politics, and pretty much completely ownes the republican party. Also too many of the democratic party.
2. That money ownes the right wing in a variety of ways, including tv (Fox, the only political channel set out to continually attack dems and support the ideas of corporatism. Dogma, Oldstyle, anything that helps the Koch bros is what they support.
3. Hundreds of well funded web sites, which have grown in numbers and size since the 1970's. Sites funded and supported by big money.
4. Think tanks that are not think tanks. Set up to support the right wing, corporatist ideas.
5. Talking points developed by right wing think tanks and right wing paid "consultants" to further the right wing ideals.
6. Orgainizations set up to support, with tons of money, right wing candidates.
7. A whole base of support for things good for corporations with no interest in what is good for the middle class.
8. An educational process based on psychological techniques, to make the followers true believers by making them angry and ignorant.

So, I am sure you will believe none of this, because no con tool does. Makes them to much of a tool, to little of a free thinker. But you see, oldstyle, I have studied the phenomonon for years. My best friend is a con tool. Finally admits it, saying that he prefers to believe what he wants to believe. And I know many others. And I see you quite clearly as another of the many. Not a majority of people, by any means, somewhere under 20% of the population by all studies.
So, I see you as out to help the insurance companies because you are a con tool. Marching in lock step with the corporate masters who provide you the information you need and make you angry because you actually like being angry. And keeping you from being open minded, looking at information openly. Keeping your mind closed to any opposing views.

And, Oldstyle, many of the con tools are paid to post dogma on sites all over the world. Money flows. Professors are paid big time, by the far right organizations, to support their dogma in articles. If you have a higher degree in economics, the best way to make big bucks is to work for CATO. As an economics PHD who posts on this blog said recently, CATO is the Birch Society today. Which is rational enough, as it was founded and run by the Koch brothers, who's father was a founding member of the John Birch Society.
So, there you go in a nutshell. I could talk for hours on the subject. Because there is a lot of data out there. But you have to be impartial to get to that data. So you would not know.

I think the word you're looking for is "owns". You must have been so busy teaching economics that you didn't have time to take any English courses in college...right, Rshrermr? I hate to point out the glaringly obvious here but for someone who continually blows his own horn about how intelligent HE is and how stupid others are...you sure do regularly post some ignorant stuff.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle says:

To be honest with you, Rshermr...I don't know what a "con tool" is. You use the term like it's a concrete description like black or white. Am I a fiscal conservative? Yes. Very much so. But since I'm also pro-choice, have zero problem with same sex marriage, would like to see a ban on the sale of assault weapons and am an agnostic who believes strongly in the separation of church and state, then I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and say that I'm NOT your stereotypical "con". Ignorant people resort to stereotyping because they're not intelligent enough to do otherwise.

Oh, I think you do indeed know. And your first problem is that you say "to be honest with you, Honesty, oldstyle, is not one of your strong suits. So, you say you do not agree with some of the repub social issues. So you say. but you tend to lie a lot, oldstyle, so who knows.
So, for the hell of it, here is what" a con tool is based on:
1. Money ownes politics, and pretty much completely ownes the republican party. Also too many of the democratic party.
2. That money ownes the right wing in a variety of ways, including tv (Fox, the only political channel set out to continually attack dems and support the ideas of corporatism. Dogma, Oldstyle, anything that helps the Koch bros is what they support.
3. Hundreds of well funded web sites, which have grown in numbers and size since the 1970's. Sites funded and supported by big money.
4. Think tanks that are not think tanks. Set up to support the right wing, corporatist ideas.
5. Talking points developed by right wing think tanks and right wing paid "consultants" to further the right wing ideals.
6. Orgainizations set up to support, with tons of money, right wing candidates.
7. A whole base of support for things good for corporations with no interest in what is good for the middle class.
8. An educational process based on psychological techniques, to make the followers true believers by making them angry and ignorant.

So, I am sure you will believe none of this, because no con tool does. Makes them to much of a tool, to little of a free thinker. But you see, oldstyle, I have studied the phenomonon for years. My best friend is a con tool. Finally admits it, saying that he prefers to believe what he wants to believe. And I know many others. And I see you quite clearly as another of the many. Not a majority of people, by any means, somewhere under 20% of the population by all studies.
So, I see you as out to help the insurance companies because you are a con tool. Marching in lock step with the corporate masters who provide you the information you need and make you angry because you actually like being angry. And keeping you from being open minded, looking at information openly. Keeping your mind closed to any opposing views.

And, Oldstyle, many of the con tools are paid to post dogma on sites all over the world. Money flows. Professors are paid big time, by the far right organizations, to support their dogma in articles. If you have a higher degree in economics, the best way to make big bucks is to work for CATO. As an economics PHD who posts on this blog said recently, CATO is the Birch Society today. Which is rational enough, as it was founded and run by the Koch brothers, who's father was a founding member of the John Birch Society.
So, there you go in a nutshell. I could talk for hours on the subject. Because there is a lot of data out there. But you have to be impartial to get to that data. So you would not know.

I think the word you're looking for is "owns". You must have been so busy teaching economics that you didn't have time to take any English courses in college...right, Rshrermr? I hate to point out the glaringly obvious here but for someone who continually blows his own horn about how intelligent HE is and how stupid others are...you sure do regularly post some ignorant stuff.

Your opinion again, oldstyle. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Gee, thanks a lot. Used to have a low paid secretary, who was worth well more than she was paid, to do the menial stuff. Nice to have you taking up the slack.

So, apparently you are done with any substantive posts relative to this thread. Just personal attacks, now. Typical of you, oldstyle. You have not said anything of substance for the past several posts. And obviously accepted my answer relative to keynsian theory. Good for you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And obviously accepted my answer relative to keynsian theory. .

why not tell us exactly what your thoughts on Keynesian theory are?? ????

 

[Rshermr]

And obviously accepted my answer relative to keynsian theory. .

why not tell us exactly what your thoughts on Keynesian theory are?? ????

Years ago they set up ratings for movies, based on age. For economic topics, there should be an intelligence rating. If they would do that, you would be restricted to nothing beyond basic comic books. Sorry, economic topics are way to advanced for you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And obviously accepted my answer relative to keynsian theory. .

why not tell us exactly what your thoughts on Keynesian theory are?? ????

Years ago they set up ratings for movies, based on age. For economic topics, there should be an intelligence rating. If they would do that, you would be restricted to nothing beyond basic comic books. Sorry, economic topics are way to advanced for you.

if true you would not be so afraid to provide your best example so the whole world would see what you mean.

What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ??

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, the con tool. says:

So let me see if I've got this straight...me calling Barack Obama by the name he went by for years...Barry... shows a lack of "class" but your calling me "dipshit" and "shithead" is perfectly acceptable and oh so classy? Just want to make sure I understand how things work in your strange little world!

So, oldstyle, here is a news flash. You are NOT a sitting president. If you were, I would not call you a shithead. But you are not. What you tell me, and I accept, is that you are a food services professional. And you are a con tool. And so you spend a lot of time posting bullshit, and wasting my time. So yes, in my opinion, you are a shithead. And, because you are a con tool, you are a shithead. But, if you can just get elected president, by the majority of the people in this country, I will not call you my pet name.

Just so you know, Rshermr? One of the great things about living in America is that we don't bow down to our President. He works for us...not the other way around. I don't have to kiss his ring...I don't have to genuflect in his direction and I don't have to refer to him as "Mr. President" unless I choose to do so. I refer to Barack Obama as Barry in a tongue in cheek way because of the way so many of you grovel at the feet of someone who's performance AS President has been underwhelming at best.

Jesus, that was a really stupid and ignorant paragraph. No, you do not. But your opinion is your opinion, dipshit. And nothing more. And your actions are your actions. And you own them. And no, Oldstyle, this pres does not and has not gone by Barry in his adult life. And you know why you call him by that name. And so does everyone else who reads your posts. So, you own your actions. And you have no class. In fact you could care less about class. You are just a con tool who works as a food services guy in a position so trivial that you can post during your working day. But we should care about your opinion. Got it.

So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is "better" than his fellow citizens and should be treated in a different manner? I'm sorry, Rshermr...but I humbly disagree. He's my President...he's not my King. He answers to me and if I don't care for those answers then I have the right as a citizen of the United States of America to call him names much more vile than "Barry". The same right that YOU have to call me "shithead" allows me to call Barack Obama whatever I care to. I call him Barry to poke fun at his inflated ego. People like Barry NEED to have their inflated egos poked from time to time. If he were only half as good as "he" and most of his supporters THINK he is, the country would be in much better shape.

Damn, Oldstyle, that whole Time Magazine award thing must have your jaw tighter than a tick. Odd that they seem to be classy enough not to call him by a pet name. Yeah, I know, all bullshit in your tiny mind. Funny as hell to think about your attitude about him, and having it again shoved down your throat.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle says:



Oh, I think you do indeed know. And your first problem is that you say "to be honest with you, Honesty, oldstyle, is not one of your strong suits. So, you say you do not agree with some of the repub social issues. So you say. but you tend to lie a lot, oldstyle, so who knows.
So, for the hell of it, here is what" a con tool is based on:
1. Money ownes politics, and pretty much completely ownes the republican party. Also too many of the democratic party.
2. That money ownes the right wing in a variety of ways, including tv (Fox, the only political channel set out to continually attack dems and support the ideas of corporatism. Dogma, Oldstyle, anything that helps the Koch bros is what they support.
3. Hundreds of well funded web sites, which have grown in numbers and size since the 1970's. Sites funded and supported by big money.
4. Think tanks that are not think tanks. Set up to support the right wing, corporatist ideas.
5. Talking points developed by right wing think tanks and right wing paid "consultants" to further the right wing ideals.
6. Orgainizations set up to support, with tons of money, right wing candidates.
7. A whole base of support for things good for corporations with no interest in what is good for the middle class.
8. An educational process based on psychological techniques, to make the followers true believers by making them angry and ignorant.

So, I am sure you will believe none of this, because no con tool does. Makes them to much of a tool, to little of a free thinker. But you see, oldstyle, I have studied the phenomonon for years. My best friend is a con tool. Finally admits it, saying that he prefers to believe what he wants to believe. And I know many others. And I see you quite clearly as another of the many. Not a majority of people, by any means, somewhere under 20% of the population by all studies.
So, I see you as out to help the insurance companies because you are a con tool. Marching in lock step with the corporate masters who provide you the information you need and make you angry because you actually like being angry. And keeping you from being open minded, looking at information openly. Keeping your mind closed to any opposing views.

And, Oldstyle, many of the con tools are paid to post dogma on sites all over the world. Money flows. Professors are paid big time, by the far right organizations, to support their dogma in articles. If you have a higher degree in economics, the best way to make big bucks is to work for CATO. As an economics PHD who posts on this blog said recently, CATO is the Birch Society today. Which is rational enough, as it was founded and run by the Koch brothers, who's father was a founding member of the John Birch Society.
So, there you go in a nutshell. I could talk for hours on the subject. Because there is a lot of data out there. But you have to be impartial to get to that data. So you would not know.

I think the word you're looking for is "owns". You must have been so busy teaching economics that you didn't have time to take any English courses in college...right, Rshrermr? I hate to point out the glaringly obvious here but for someone who continually blows his own horn about how intelligent HE is and how stupid others are...you sure do regularly post some ignorant stuff.

Your opinion again, oldstyle. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Gee, thanks a lot. Used to have a low paid secretary, who was worth well more than she was paid, to do the menial stuff. Nice to have you taking up the slack.

So, apparently you are done with any substantive posts relative to this thread. Just personal attacks, now. Typical of you, oldstyle. You have not said anything of substance for the past several posts. And obviously accepted my answer relative to keynsian theory. Good for you.

You mean this question?

"Fine then...let's discuss your backing of Obama's tax raises on the wealthy. Since liberals are supposedly working from a Keynesian fiscal model would you care to point out to me where it is that Keynes advocated for tax raises in a weak economy? It's my belief that the Obama Administration's fiscal policy of calling for tax increases at this time is based solely on sating the far left of their party and has nothing to do with sound Keynesian economic policy.[/QUOTE]" Oldstyle.


"Sure. Neither this president, not the liberals that you seem to think you know, base their policies strictly on keynsian models. So, that would be your answer.
Beyond that, what you just asked was a very, very, very naive question. So, why don't you show to me the last time we saw tax decreases work in a bad economy with high unemployment. Remember, you tried this before, and failed miserably." Rshermr.

This was your reply. I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from? With your VAST knowledge of economics I'm sure you know that right off the top of your head so I eagerly await your explanation. Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

 

[Oldstyle]

As for your "secretary"? You do realize that you're basically admitting that you're borderline illiterate and had to have someone correct whatever you wrote so the rest of the world didn't find out? Gee, at the University that "I" went to...they forced us to take core classes in things like English so we wouldn't NEED to hire someone like that. Of course at my school the classes were taught by real Professors and not clueless undergrads...which probably explains WHY you're borderline illiterate!

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, the con tool. says:


So, oldstyle, here is a news flash. You are NOT a sitting president. If you were, I would not call you a shithead. But you are not. What you tell me, and I accept, is that you are a food services professional. And you are a con tool. And so you spend a lot of time posting bullshit, and wasting my time. So yes, in my opinion, you are a shithead. And, because you are a con tool, you are a shithead. But, if you can just get elected president, by the majority of the people in this country, I will not call you my pet name.




Jesus, that was a really stupid and ignorant paragraph. No, you do not. But your opinion is your opinion, dipshit. And nothing more. And your actions are your actions. And you own them. And no, Oldstyle, this pres does not and has not gone by Barry in his adult life. And you know why you call him by that name. And so does everyone else who reads your posts. So, you own your actions. And you have no class. In fact you could care less about class. You are just a con tool who works as a food services guy in a position so trivial that you can post during your working day. But we should care about your opinion. Got it.

So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is "better" than his fellow citizens and should be treated in a different manner? I'm sorry, Rshermr...but I humbly disagree. He's my President...he's not my King. He answers to me and if I don't care for those answers then I have the right as a citizen of the United States of America to call him names much more vile than "Barry". The same right that YOU have to call me "shithead" allows me to call Barack Obama whatever I care to. I call him Barry to poke fun at his inflated ego. People like Barry NEED to have their inflated egos poked from time to time. If he were only half as good as "he" and most of his supporters THINK he is, the country would be in much better shape.

Damn, Oldstyle, that whole Time Magazine award thing must have your jaw tighter than a tick. Odd that they seem to be classy enough not to call him by a pet name. Yeah, I know, all bullshit in your tiny mind. Funny as hell to think about your attitude about him, and having it again shoved down your throat.

There was a time when the Time Magazine award meant something because Time was a widely read and respected periodical. NOW it's an afterthought. I care about THIS award just about as much as I care about People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" award...which is to say...not at all.

 

[Rshermr]

As for your "secretary"? You do realize that you're basically admitting that you're borderline illiterate and had to have someone correct whatever you wrote so the rest of the world didn't find out? Gee, at the University that "I" went to...they forced us to take core classes in things like English so we wouldn't NEED to hire someone like that. Of course at my school the classes were taught by real Professors and not clueless undergrads...which probably explains WHY you're borderline illiterate!

Well, Oldstyle, good for you. I am so proud of you. So, I got used to having someone clean up typos and misspellings. Because, you see, i had an important enough job that I was very, very busy. That is why I had secretaries. But then, you would not understand about that, would you, Oldstyle. You have a menial enough job that you can post on this blog all day. See the difference.

 

[Rshermr]

So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is "better" than his fellow citizens and should be treated in a different manner? I'm sorry, Rshermr...but I humbly disagree. He's my President...he's not my King. He answers to me and if I don't care for those answers then I have the right as a citizen of the United States of America to call him names much more vile than "Barry". The same right that YOU have to call me "shithead" allows me to call Barack Obama whatever I care to. I call him Barry to poke fun at his inflated ego. People like Barry NEED to have their inflated egos poked from time to time. If he were only half as good as "he" and most of his supporters THINK he is, the country would be in much better shape.

Damn, Oldstyle, that whole Time Magazine award thing must have your jaw tighter than a tick. Odd that they seem to be classy enough not to call him by a pet name. Yeah, I know, all bullshit in your tiny mind. Funny as hell to think about your attitude about him, and having it again shoved down your throat.

There was a time when the Time Magazine award meant something because Time was a widely read and respected periodical. NOW it's an afterthought. I care about THIS award just about as much as I care about People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" award...which is to say...not at all.

Yeah. Sure, Oldstyle. I know you are really, really not affected.............. Right.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says the following.

You mean this question?

"Fine then...let's discuss your backing of Obama's tax raises on the wealthy. Since liberals are supposedly working from a Keynesian fiscal model would you care to point out to me where it is that Keynes advocated for tax raises in a weak economy? It's my belief that the Obama Administration's fiscal policy of calling for tax increases at this time is based solely on sating the far left of their party and has nothing to do with sound Keynesian economic policy.[/QUOTE]" Oldstyle.


"Sure. Neither this president, not the liberals that you seem to think you know, base their policies strictly on keynsian models. So, that would be your answer.
Beyond that, what you just asked was a very, very, very naive question. So, why don't you show to me the last time we saw tax decreases work in a bad economy with high unemployment. Remember, you tried this before, and failed miserably." Rshermr.

This was your reply. I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from?

So, this will be difficult for you to understand. But, in general, the problem with any economic model is that it is static. And, things change. For instance, income distribution changes. And politics change. And cash on hand changes. So, you would be a complete fool to follow any one economic model, assuming that your purpose is to grow the economy, while keeping unemployment low and inflation low.
Now, if your purpose is to redistribute income, as it is for the republican party, you can use a single economic model. In their case, supply side economics. That basically moves money from the middle class to the wealthy. Which has worked extremely well.

With your VAST knowledge of economics I'm sure you know that right off the top of your head so I eagerly await your explanation.

Glad you noticed.

Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending. So, in general, tax manipulation is more complex than you would like to make it. The study of tax manipulation in bad economies shows the obvious. That is that decreasing taxes to the wealthy is of no value. The Bush tax cuts are an example. Those tax cuts were mostly to the wealthy. And theimpact was nearly nothing at all. And the reason is quite simple. That reason is that given a tax cut, the wealthy will always spend very little of it. And, since demand is not increased by their lack of spending, the desired effects are not seen. Another way of looking at it is that if you have a high taxable income, you will not hire simply because you get more dollars. Because you are not selling more, as demand has not increased.

Now, if you are decreasing taxes on the middle class, then the money will be spent. They have insufficient income to save or invest, and they nearly always spend. So reducing taxes on the middle class will be stimulative. Further, because they spend a very high percentage of their wages, the relative multiplier is quite high.

So, the basic model is the Keynesian model. But that is only the underlying model. The Keynesian model assumes stimulus spending, and the intent is to increase demand. It is demand based, whereas supply side economics is exactly what its name implies. But, the problem with the Keynesian model is that it does not take into account the income distribution as it is today. Nor the politics. Nor the deficits we have today.

So, you need to raise money to do stimulus spending, and that would happen with today's deficits in one of two ways. One, increase the deficits and borrow. Two, raise taxes, as much as possible on the wealthy. Then target your spending on the best stimulative opportunities.

Much easier to be a republican. Just lower taxes, always, and shrink the government. However, that model works like flushing a toilet. where the economy was the water in the bowl. Which is why you can never show a case where it has worked.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle says the following.

You mean this question?

"Fine then...let's discuss your backing of Obama's tax raises on the wealthy. Since liberals are supposedly working from a Keynesian fiscal model would you care to point out to me where it is that Keynes advocated for tax raises in a weak economy? It's my belief that the Obama Administration's fiscal policy of calling for tax increases at this time is based solely on sating the far left of their party and has nothing to do with sound Keynesian economic policy.

" Oldstyle.


"Sure. Neither this president, not the liberals that you seem to think you know, base their policies strictly on keynsian models. So, that would be your answer.
Beyond that, what you just asked was a very, very, very naive question. So, why don't you show to me the last time we saw tax decreases work in a bad economy with high unemployment. Remember, you tried this before, and failed miserably." Rshermr.

This was your reply. I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from?

So, this will be difficult for you to understand. But, in general, the problem with any economic model is that it is static. And, things change. For instance, income distribution changes. And politics change. And cash on hand changes. So, you would be a complete fool to follow any one economic model, assuming that your purpose is to grow the economy, while keeping unemployment low and inflation low.
Now, if your purpose is to redistribute income, as it is for the republican party, you can use a single economic model. In their case, supply side economics. That basically moves money from the middle class to the wealthy. Which has worked extremely well.

With your VAST knowledge of economics I'm sure you know that right off the top of your head so I eagerly await your explanation.

Glad you noticed.

Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending. So, in general, tax manipulation is more complex than you would like to make it. The study of tax manipulation in bad economies shows the obvious. That is that decreasing taxes to the wealthy is of no value. The Bush tax cuts are an example. Those tax cuts were mostly to the wealthy. And theimpact was nearly nothing at all. And the reason is quite simple. That reason is that given a tax cut, the wealthy will always spend very little of it. And, since demand is not increased by their lack of spending, the desired effects are not seen. Another way of looking at it is that if you have a high taxable income, you will not hire simply because you get more dollars. Because you are not selling more, as demand has not increased.

Now, if you are decreasing taxes on the middle class, then the money will be spent. They have insufficient income to save or invest, and they nearly always spend. So reducing taxes on the middle class will be stimulative. Further, because they spend a very high percentage of their wages, the relative multiplier is quite high.

So, the basic model is the Keynesian model. But that is only the underlying model. The Keynesian model assumes stimulus spending, and the intent is to increase demand. It is demand based, whereas supply side economics is exactly what its name implies. But, the problem with the Keynesian model is that it does not take into account the income distribution as it is today. Nor the politics. Nor the deficits we have today.

So, you need to raise money to do stimulus spending, and that would happen with today's deficits in one of two ways. One, increase the deficits and borrow. Two, raise taxes, as much as possible on the wealthy. Then target your spending on the best stimulative opportunities.

Much easier to be a republican. Just lower taxes, always, and shrink the government. However, that model works like flushing a toilet. where the economy was the water in the bowl. Which is why you can never show a case where it has worked.[/QUOTE]




All that verbal diarrhea and yet you can't give me the economic school that asks for tax increases in a slow economy? You say that economics isn't "static" so you can't use just one school of thought? So what schools WOULD you use? What NEW school is this Administration using when it calls for tax increases in the midst of a weak economy?

Why don't you just admit that you have no more of an idea about economics then you do about brain surgery? Your "explanations" are so simplistic as to be useless. What does income distribution have to do with Keynesian economic policies not working? Because you read in one of your progressive sites that income distribution is now the problem for EVERYTHING that's wrong in America?

The Bush tax cuts were hardly just for the wealthy. If they were then the Democrats wouldn't be screaming to the heaven's that the Republican's are holding the Middle Class "hostage" because they aren't willing to extend those unless the Democrats extend them for the wealthy.

As for where Supply Side Economics has worked? Did you somehow "miss" the longest sustained period of wealth creation this country has ever seen following Reagan? Did you miss the economic surge that JFK engendered with HIS tax cuts? I know that the progressive "mantra" is that Supply Side didn't work but the truth is that Supply Side economics combined with out of control governmental growth is what didn't work. Reagan proved that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level because of a growing economy. He also proved that SPENDING all of that revenue and then some is bad fiscal policy.

 

[daveman]

You believe politicians when they talk? Really?
do you have any thing of value to say, or simply more of this kind of drivel?

You take what the CBO says as gospel, even though the data they're given comes from politicians.

Idiot.

Daveman, the idiot, calling others idiots. Funny, eh.
So, as a con tool, you believe that the CBO gets its information from politicians. No proof of any kind. I posted proof that is a lie. But, Daveman, being an idiot, posts that that the CBO gets its information from politicians.

That is the problem with con tools. They simply take what they want to believe, post it, and believe it. Sad existence.

Oh, you mean exactly like you do with your progressive circle-jerk studies "proving" conservatives are dumb?

Run along, kid. You're hopelessly outmatched.

 

[daveman]

There was a time when the Time Magazine award meant something because Time was a widely read and respected periodical. NOW it's an afterthought. I care about THIS award just about as much as I care about People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" award...which is to say...not at all.

Sore subject. Rshermr's pissed that Obama didn't win that one, too.

 

[daveman]

I thought you opposed corporate welfare...?

You really mean to tell me that King Arthur couldn't have gotten their own high-speed connection to the internet?

Sucker!!

Probably not. Small, struggling companies don't have the capital to build infrastructure. Especially if they are out in the boonies. That's why we have government. Are you retarded? Seriously, it would explain so much.

A hundred bucks a month.

HughesNet Plans and Pricing, High Speed Rural Satellite Internet

More government is not the answer to every problem. You cannot understand this, being a Statist useful idiot.

Derp? Where'd you go?

 

[Oldstyle]

There was a time when the Time Magazine award meant something because Time was a widely read and respected periodical. NOW it's an afterthought. I care about THIS award just about as much as I care about People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" award...which is to say...not at all.

Sore subject. Rshermr's pissed that Obama didn't win that one, too.

Didn't you hear? This years "Sexiest Man Alive" went to Tommy Flanagan. Yeah, that's the ticket! Bet you didn't know that Rshermr's wife is Morgan Fairchild...did ya?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/10387

 

[Oldstyle]

This guy is a hoot. One minute he's teaching college level economic classes but the next he can't remember basic Keynesian economic theory and has to have his "secretary" proof all his correspondence so he doesn't come across as illiterate. Asked a question ABOUT economics that someone who majored in the subject should be able to answer easily and he responds by essentially telling the questioner that they aren't smart enough to understand economics so therefore he's not going to reply.

"Economics? I...ah...I TAUGHT economics in college. I taught economics as ah...as an undergraduate for my Professor...who was Morgan Fairchild! And she was so impressed that she married me! Yeah, That's the ticket!!!"