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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're the guy who taught college courses in economics.

I believe it, to teach in college you have know that choking a man will help him breath and taxing an economy will help it grow!!

Further, to teach college economics you have to know that taxing money away from Steve Jobs and giving it to libturd soviet make-work bureacrats to invest in Solyndra, Fiskar, Abound Solar, Range Fuels, and A123 Systems will stimulate the economy!!

Funny. I have a graduate degree and never once in my years in college was I taught that choking a man would help him breath.

Damn. Now I have to go after my doctorate and find out if there is any truth to that.

but did they teach you that taxing an economy will help it grow??

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I believe it, to teach in college you have know that choking a man will help him breath and taxing an economy will help it grow!!

Further, to teach college economics you have to know that taxing money away from Steve Jobs and giving it to libturd soviet make-work bureacrats to invest in Solyndra, Fiskar, Abound Solar, Range Fuels, and A123 Systems will stimulate the economy!!

Funny. I have a graduate degree and never once in my years in college was I taught that choking a man would help him breath.

Damn. Now I have to go after my doctorate and find out if there is any truth to that.

but did they teach you that taxing an economy will help it grow??

No. Most concepts about things that the government could do to encourage growth involved spending, not taxing. Again, since we're talking about infrastructure, that's a perfect example. Research the Interstate Highway System and you'll see a place where federal spending applied in the right place spurred economic growth.

Keep in mind, however, my education is in business, and while I disagree with certain aspects of Keynesian doctrine, most business education tends to focus on governmental spending that IS an investment in economic growth and not a drag. Did some of my professors get it wrong in my opinion? Some did, yes. Most, however, observed fairly solid economic theory.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Funny. I have a graduate degree and never once in my years in college was I taught that choking a man would help him breath.

Damn. Now I have to go after my doctorate and find out if there is any truth to that.

but did they teach you that taxing an economy will help it grow??

No. Most concepts about things that the government could do to encourage growth involved spending, not taxing. Again, since we're talking about infrastructure, that's a perfect example. Research the Interstate Highway System and you'll see a place where federal spending applied in the right place spurred economic growth.

Keep in mind, however, my education is in business, and while I disagree with certain aspects of Keynesian doctrine, most business education tends to focus on governmental spending that IS an investment in economic growth and not a drag. Did some of my professors get it wrong in my opinion? Some did, yes. Most, however, observed fairly solid economic theory.

lets see, one guy builds a road, one guy picks up garbage, and one invents the Iphone. Which guy "spurs" growth????????? The road guy and the garbage guy and the guy who cleans toilets merely provide ancillary services but don't spur growth!!
Jobs invented the Iphone, and, he obviously knew he needed a road to get to work! Should he get credit for knowing he needed a road or for inventing the iphone??? Even communist societies figured out that they needed roads!! You're 100% captured by the libturd Keynesians based on your langauge.

In fact, railroads are what Keynes recommended to FDR, not Iphones. Do you remember that that Great Depression lasted for 10 years?? Now you know why.

 

[Rshermr]

Con tools and dogma. That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. That and a propensity to "embellish" who you are.

You're the guy who taught college courses in economics but is a little vague on basic Keynesian principles and has the grammar skills of a sixth grader but only because your "secretary" always proofed your correspondence.

You're just another internet "Tommy Flanagan", little buddy...trying to impress with bullshit rather than substance.

Well, Oldstylle, that would be your opinion. And again, you know how much I value your opinion. What is not opinion, dipshit, is that:
1, You lie a lot, and get caught at it, then run from the lie, never to return.
2. Every single statement that you make is exactly as it is stated in the many, many con web site. But you are unable to find an impartial site to prove your statements. Odd, eh Oldstyle?
3, You are very impressed that I taught some economics in college.
4. Apparently, based on 3 above, you have very, very little in your life to be impressed with.
5. And, oldstyle, it is not I that is posting personal insults and bullshit, I am simply responding to you doing so. Because, Oldstyle, you are running from your lies that I challenged you to discuss.
6. You are so weak in your ability to argue any points that you actually have Ed helping you. That, my poor weak minded con, pretty much says all that needs to be said about your ability to discuss economic issues.
7. You, as an admitted dishwasher, with all of two classes in economics behind you, actually believe that you can make any statements about my ability to understand economics, including Keynes. And proves that you are delusional. A guy who says he has a degree in history, but has to wash dishes for a living.
8. It is your delusional belief in the con dogma that you read and regurgitate that finalizes the understanding of anyone who has listend to your drivel.
9. And your continuing sidestepping of the lies that you have told, and been caught at, that shows how much integrity that you have.

By the way, oldstyle, want to talk about why Reagan did not lower taxes, in true supply side methodology, after he had driven the ue rate to 10.8% again?
Want to talk again about how he raised taxes and borrowed like a drunken sailor and engaged in stimulus spending?
Want to talk about why you lied when you said the "technology bubble" (What you really meant was the dot com bubble) was happening when Clinton raised taxes and utilized stimulative spending?
Want to talk about your assertion that stimulus did not work for Clinton?

I didn't think so, Oldstyle. Because those are all points that you argued from the con side of the ledger, and had shoved back down your throat. And you ran and ran. And now you have nothing left but personal attacks. Poor little man.

 

[Rshermr]

Funny. I have a graduate degree and never once in my years in college was I taught that choking a man would help him breath.

Damn. Now I have to go after my doctorate and find out if there is any truth to that.

but did they teach you that taxing an economy will help it grow??

No. Most concepts about things that the government could do to encourage growth involved spending, not taxing. Again, since we're talking about infrastructure, that's a perfect example. Research the Interstate Highway System and you'll see a place where federal spending applied in the right place spurred economic growth.

Keep in mind, however, my education is in business, and while I disagree with certain aspects of Keynesian doctrine, most business education tends to focus on governmental spending that IS an investment in economic growth and not a drag. Did some of my professors get it wrong in my opinion? Some did, yes. Most, however, observed fairly solid economic theory.

Ed, of course, is lying. He tends to do that a lot. What I said was quite different than what Ed is trying to make it sound like I said. Which is why we all know that ed has no, as in zero, integrity.
What I did argue is that in todays economy, the only way to get unemployment down is stimulative spending. And that the only way to do that without borrowing, which would increase the national debt and saddle our youth with that debt, is to increase taxes. And in order to do that in a way that does not hurt the economy, you must tax the wealthy, because that has been proven, over and over, to not do so.

So, what you see is ed being ed. That is, a liar. And, of course, but stupid.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ever notice that the people who lie the most are always the ones quick to accuse others of being a liar?

Gee the "only" way to get unemployment down is stimulative spending? So something like the Dot Com Boom wouldn't do that...right? Nah, it HAS TO BE GOVERNMENT SPENDING or "Tommy" can't see it bringing down unemployment. In his myopic view, the Private Sector is incapable of hiring.

Our resident "economic genius" thinks the solution is a tax on the wealthy? Gee, "Tommy"...the tax you progressives were looking for would pay to run our government for a little over a week which means you're not going to have diddly for stimulus spending. Couple that with the economic damper a tax puts on the economy and you're going to get an even more anemic growth rate than the paltry one we have now. Then as the cherry on the cake, bring in ObamaCare and the job layoffs THAT is going to engender and we're most likely looking at a 1% or less rate of growth in the economy and millions of Americans continuing to be unemployed or underemployed.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, coming back for another try, says:

Ever notice that the people who lie the most are always the ones quick to accuse others of being a liar?

No. And I never lie, oldstyle I do not need to. You see, I have the truth, and proof of it, on my side. And, you see, I can prove you are lying. On several instances. But, oldstyle, you call me a liar with NO proof. If you have it, bring it on. I like to make you look like the con with no integrity that you are.

Gee the "only" way to get unemployment down is stimulative spending? So something like the Dot Com Boom wouldn't do that...right? Nah, it HAS TO BE GOVERNMENT SPENDING or "Tommy" can't see it bringing down unemployment. In his myopic view, the Private Sector is incapable of hiring.

I am not really sure whether you are lying, or just stupid. Because I never, ever said that private activities can not bring down unemployment. Which is why, oldstyle, you can not show where I did say that. Now, again, Oldstyle, pay attention this time. If unemployment is bad and getting no better, or getting worse, nothing that the gov can do is going to help in a meaningfull way except stimulus spending. Now, the gov could just hang around and wait, and hope a economic bubble comes along. Or, if you wait for many years, things will get better for some reason. WWIII for instance. But, Oldstyle, when the economy is bad you need to increase demand. And NOTHING outside of stimulative spending will do that. So, again, Oldstyle, that is why you have been completely incapable of showing a case where any other gov activity except stimulus has helped.
And it has helped, in pretty much every single case where it has been used.
So, what was it, oldstyle. A complete lie, or just your total inability to learn?

Our resident "economic genius" thinks the solution is a tax on the wealthy? Gee, "Tommy"...the tax you progressives were looking for would pay to run our government for a little over a week which means you're not going to have diddly for stimulus spending.

Now, Oldstyle, this sentence proves you to be economically ignorant. Not your fault. You just do not understand.
So, pay attention. The tax needs to be earmarked for stimulus. And needs not be spent on other normal activities. Just like all stimulus' in the past that were funded by taxes. Like Clintons. Like reagan's, at least partially. Like Roosevelt's. And the stimulus spending goes a long ways if used properly. Like Reagans, for instance. So, several past examples. You seem, however, to not want to understand.

Couple that with the economic damper a tax puts on the economy and you're going to get an even more anemic growth rate than the paltry one we have now.

You mean like the damper it put on in the three cases mentioned above? I can show you plenty of proof you are wrong, and have done so in this thread. So, your up. Lets see proof that taxing the wealthy is going to hurt the economy. From an actual impartial source.

Then as the cherry on the cake, bring in ObamaCare and the job layoffs THAT is going to engender and we're most likely looking at a 1% or less rate of growth in the economy and millions of Americans continuing to be unemployed or underemployed.

And more ignorance. Or is this one just a plain old lie. The cons just went to the CBO, in the past 6 months, to get a reading on what would happen if they successfully killed the ACA. (I know you are a con, and prefer to call it Obamacare. But the real name is Affordable Care Act. Should you actually care) The net was that the effect of killing the ACA would be to increase the deficit. Now, Oldstyle, you need to understand that increasing the deficit is BAD. I know that is a bit complex for you, but it is true.

Perhaps you should find a link that shows what you say will happen actually would happen. Because, Oldstyle, I have seen no such analysis. All that I have seen, from non partisan sites, is that the economic effect will be between negligible additional cost and decreased cost.
But, Oldstyle, this is in your normal pattern. Quoting conservative talking points without any proof. Kind of like a con tool, eh, Oldstyle.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, coming back for another try, says:

Ever notice that the people who lie the most are always the ones quick to accuse others of being a liar?

No. And I never lie, oldstyle I do not need to. You see, I have the truth, and proof of it, on my side. And, you see, I can prove you are lying. On several instances. But, oldstyle, you call me a liar with NO proof. If you have it, bring it on. I like to make you look like the con with no integrity that you are.

Gee the "only" way to get unemployment down is stimulative spending? So something like the Dot Com Boom wouldn't do that...right? Nah, it HAS TO BE GOVERNMENT SPENDING or "Tommy" can't see it bringing down unemployment. In his myopic view, the Private Sector is incapable of hiring.

I am not really sure whether you are lying, or just stupid. Because I never, ever said that private activities can not bring down unemployment. Which is why, oldstyle, you can not show where I did say that. Now, again, Oldstyle, pay attention this time. If unemployment is bad and getting no better, or getting worse, nothing that the gov can do is going to help in a meaningfull way except stimulus spending. Now, the gov could just hang around and wait, and hope a economic bubble comes along. Or, if you wait for many years, things will get better for some reason. WWIII for instance. But, Oldstyle, when the economy is bad you need to increase demand. And NOTHING outside of stimulative spending will do that. So, again, Oldstyle, that is why you have been completely incapable of showing a case where any other gov activity except stimulus has helped.
And it has helped, in pretty much every single case where it has been used.
So, what was it, oldstyle. A complete lie, or just your total inability to learn?



Now, Oldstyle, this sentence proves you to be economically ignorant. Not your fault. You just do not understand.
So, pay attention. The tax needs to be earmarked for stimulus. And needs not be spent on other normal activities. Just like all stimulus' in the past that were funded by taxes. Like Clintons. Like reagan's, at least partially. Like Roosevelt's. And the stimulus spending goes a long ways if used properly. Like Reagans, for instance. So, several past examples. You seem, however, to not want to understand.

Couple that with the economic damper a tax puts on the economy and you're going to get an even more anemic growth rate than the paltry one we have now.

You mean like the damper it put on in the three cases mentioned above? I can show you plenty of proof you are wrong, and have done so in this thread. So, your up. Lets see proof that taxing the wealthy is going to hurt the economy. From an actual impartial source.

Then as the cherry on the cake, bring in ObamaCare and the job layoffs THAT is going to engender and we're most likely looking at a 1% or less rate of growth in the economy and millions of Americans continuing to be unemployed or underemployed.

And more ignorance. Or is this one just a plain old lie. The cons just went to the CBO, in the past 6 months, to get a reading on what would happen if they successfully killed the ACA. (I know you are a con, and prefer to call it Obamacare. But the real name is Affordable Care Act. Should you actually care) The net was that the effect of killing the ACA would be to increase the deficit. Now, Oldstyle, you need to understand that increasing the deficit is BAD. I know that is a bit complex for you, but it is true.

Perhaps you should find a link that shows what you say will happen actually would happen. Because, Oldstyle, I have seen no such analysis. All that I have seen, from non partisan sites, is that the economic effect will be between negligible additional cost and decreased cost.
But, Oldstyle, this is in your normal pattern. Quoting conservative talking points without any proof. Kind of like a con tool, eh, Oldstyle.

You're so clueless when it comes to economics that it's laughable that you tried to pass yourself off as someone who taught the subject in college.

Do you really not know that Government has tools other than stimulus spending to induce an increase in employment?
The quickest and most effective method is simply letting people keep more of the money that they make and letting them spend it themselves. Your sole method of taxing the public, running it through an inefficient and wasteful government and then giving back whatever is left over in the form of stimulus spending is idiotic. It takes longer and creates fewer real jobs than simply leaving that money in the hands of the public. Government can also cut regulations and red tape that slow down the creation of new business or the expansion of existing ones. They also have the option of changing existing tax law to allow the repatriation of profits made overseas by American corporations without hitting them with a stiff tax if they use that money to create jobs. That alone would bring as large a stimulus as we had to borrow and spend with the Obama Stimulus only it wouldn't cost us a single dime.

Here's what happens when you increase income taxes on the wealthy, Tommy. They put their money into tax free shelters to protect their capital. These aren't ignorant people like you, little guy! They know how to play the game which is why they became wealthy in the first place. So what happens when capital starts getting put into tax shelters instead of invested in stocks or business start-ups? It's not hard to figure that one out...if money isn't being invested in stocks or business start-ups...then people don't get hired to work. Duh?

And if you can't understand why ObamaCare is going to cost jobs then you've either never read the law or you've never run a business. We're about to see tens of thousands of people have their hours cut back so that they don't qualify for full time employees and force their employers to either pay for health care or pay a penalty. You'll also see tens of thousands of small businesses opt to stay below the employee levels that would force THEM to provide health care to their workers.

And the cost of abolishing ObamaCare pales in comparison to what it will cost us if we continue to implement it. We're talking TRILLIONS not a few hundred billion. Just one more thing you're clueless about.

Why do you even try and argue this stuff? Seriously, dude...you know so little about economics that it's amusing to watch you try and formulate a coherent strategy for how we should proceed with ours.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow, Oldstyle. Lets see what drivel you have for me today.

You're so clueless when it comes to economics that it's laughable that you tried to pass yourself off as someone who taught the subject in college.

Lets see. You are a dishwasher. I have a degree in economics. Do you think that I should be upset about your opinion??

Do you really not know that Government has tools other than stimulus spending to induce an increase in employment?

Actually, yes I do know that. Why do you ask??

The quickest and most effective method is simply letting people keep more of the money that they make and letting them spend it themselves. Your sole method of taxing the public, running it through an inefficient and wasteful government and then giving back whatever is left over in the form of stimulus spending is idiotic. It takes longer and creates fewer real jobs than simply leaving that money in the hands of the public.

Yes, well, there is the first idea of any republican well paid by the Koch brothers. Lower taxes.
Like W. Now, that worked out well, eh, Oldstyle. The slowest job creation of any presidential term since Roosevelt. And the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Or Reagan, who lowered taxes and drove the unemploymnent rate up to the highest ever since the great depression. Never that high after, either.

Supply side economics, Oldstyle. You are pushing it again, and again you can not show a time when it has ever helped improve bad unemployment numbers.

Government can also cut regulations and red tape that slow down the creation of new business or the expansion of existing ones.

What a coincidence. The second pillar of the republican economic plan. Cut regulations. Which has never, ever had any influence, actual or percieved by impartial sources, on unemployment. What a coincidence that it came out of the mouth of the dishwasher.

They also have the option of changing existing tax law to allow the repatriation of profits made overseas by American corporations without hitting them with a stiff tax if they use that money to create jobs. That alone would bring as large a stimulus as we had to borrow and spend with the Obama Stimulus only it wouldn't cost us a single dime.

The famous tax holiday scheme. Been tried before by republican presidents. Never had any impact at all, for obvious reasons, on the ue rate. For very obvious reasons. But very popular with the con financiers like the Koch brothers. And, again, what a coincidence that it is coming from Oldstyle.

Here's what happens when you increase income taxes on the wealthy, Tommy. They put their money into tax free shelters to protect their capital. These aren't ignorant people like you, little guy! They know how to play the game which is why they became wealthy in the first place. So what happens when capital starts getting put into tax shelters instead of invested in stocks or business start-ups? It's not hard to figure that one out...if money isn't being invested in stocks or business start-ups...then people don't get hired to work. Duh?

Now, I know that you think what you just said was profound. But here is the thing, Oldstyle. It was ignorant. Look up the difference. Profound/Ignorant. Why ignorant my poor ignorant con tool asks???
Because what economists have long since known is that the wealthy put their money in a number of places that are not useful for job creation for a variety of reasons. But only one reason is of major concern. And that is that they do not see enough demand for their products or services to increase production. And they will not hire until they see that increased demand. Simple. I hope simple enough that even you could understand that, Oldstyle.

Now, the idea that the wealthy will keep their money in investments and not hire when there IS demand assumes that you believe them to be quite stupid. You see, oldstyle, businesses are in business to sell stuff. Products and services. So, if demand increases, that is what they will do. Unless, of course, they are as stupid as you suggest and would rather sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors sell their products and services. Get it yet.

And if you can't understand why ObamaCare is going to cost jobs then you've either never read the law or you've never run a business. We're about to see tens of thousands of people have their hours cut back so that they don't qualify for full time employees and force their employers to either pay for health care or pay a penalty. You'll also see tens of thousands of small businesses opt to stay below the employee levels that would force THEM to provide health care to their workers.

Here we go again. The opinion of a dishwasher. The health care insurance industry has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars selling this swill, and paying think tanks to push it. And ginning up tea party advocates all over the country to do the same. And most importantly, buying politicians to push this crap. And, every single conservative web site out there is pushing it. So, it must be a coincidence that Oldstyle is pushing it too. What a surprise.

Go find a non partisan source that backs this crap up, Oldstyle. Then maybe it will be worth listening to. In the interim, can you spell con tool?

And the cost of abolishing ObamaCare pales in comparison to what it will cost us if we continue to implement it. We're talking TRILLIONS not a few hundred billion. Just one more thing you're clueless about.

See above, dipshit. Jesus. You are such a tool.

Why do you even try and argue this stuff? Seriously, dude...you know so little about economics that it's amusing to watch you try and formulate a coherent strategy for how we should proceed with ours.

Again, said by a dishwasher. And I do not need to formulate any strategy. That is done by economists with a whole lot of economic history to look at. Oddly enough, they are not getting their ideas from conservative web sites. Nor from dishwashers.

the bottom line is this, Oldstyle. I have said nothing in this post that I have not said to your same questions and statements before. Over and over. So, you are at it again. And you waste peoples time. Because you do not care to have a discussion. You do not want to look at economic theory or economic history. You just want to support conservative points of view. Period. Nothing else. And soon, you will stop because you have pushed these ideas enough, and revert to strictly and only personal attack. What a class act you are, Oldstyle. And I really prefer to deal with people that have class. And enough grey matter to make compelling arguments. All of which points to one thing. You are a waste of time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow, Oldstyle. Lets see what drivel you have for me today.

You're so clueless when it comes to economics that it's laughable that you tried to pass yourself off as someone who taught the subject in college.

Lets see. You are a dishwasher. I have a degree in economics. Do you think that I should be upset about your opinion??

Do you really not know that Government has tools other than stimulus spending to induce an increase in employment?

Actually, yes I do know that. Why do you ask??


Yes, well, there is the first idea of any republican well paid by the Koch brothers. Lower taxes.
Like W. Now, that worked out well, eh, Oldstyle. The slowest job creation of any presidential term since Roosevelt. And the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Or Reagan, who lowered taxes and drove the unemploymnent rate up to the highest ever since the great depression. Never that high after, either.

Supply side economics, Oldstyle. You are pushing it again, and again you can not show a time when it has ever helped improve bad unemployment numbers.



What a coincidence. The second pillar of the republican economic plan. Cut regulations. Which has never, ever had any influence, actual or percieved by impartial sources, on unemployment. What a coincidence that it came out of the mouth of the dishwasher.



The famous tax holiday scheme. Been tried before by republican presidents. Never had any impact at all, for obvious reasons, on the ue rate. For very obvious reasons. But very popular with the con financiers like the Koch brothers. And, again, what a coincidence that it is coming from Oldstyle.



Now, I know that you think what you just said was profound. But here is the thing, Oldstyle. It was ignorant. Look up the difference. Profound/Ignorant. Why ignorant my poor ignorant con tool asks???
Because what economists have long since known is that the wealthy put their money in a number of places that are not useful for job creation for a variety of reasons. But only one reason is of major concern. And that is that they do not see enough demand for their products or services to increase production. And they will not hire until they see that increased demand. Simple. I hope simple enough that even you could understand that, Oldstyle.

Now, the idea that the wealthy will keep their money in investments and not hire when there IS demand assumes that you believe them to be quite stupid. You see, oldstyle, businesses are in business to sell stuff. Products and services. So, if demand increases, that is what they will do. Unless, of course, they are as stupid as you suggest and would rather sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors sell their products and services. Get it yet.



Here we go again. The opinion of a dishwasher. The health care insurance industry has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars selling this swill, and paying think tanks to push it. And ginning up tea party advocates all over the country to do the same. And most importantly, buying politicians to push this crap. And, every single conservative web site out there is pushing it. So, it must be a coincidence that Oldstyle is pushing it too. What a surprise.

Go find a non partisan source that backs this crap up, Oldstyle. Then maybe it will be worth listening to. In the interim, can you spell con tool?

And the cost of abolishing ObamaCare pales in comparison to what it will cost us if we continue to implement it. We're talking TRILLIONS not a few hundred billion. Just one more thing you're clueless about.

See above, dipshit. Jesus. You are such a tool.

Why do you even try and argue this stuff? Seriously, dude...you know so little about economics that it's amusing to watch you try and formulate a coherent strategy for how we should proceed with ours.

Again, said by a dishwasher. And I do not need to formulate any strategy. That is done by economists with a whole lot of economic history to look at. Oddly enough, they are not getting their ideas from conservative web sites. Nor from dishwashers.

the bottom line is this, Oldstyle. I have said nothing in this post that I have not said to your same questions and statements before. Over and over. So, you are at it again. And you waste peoples time. Because you do not care to have a discussion. You do not want to look at economic theory or economic history. You just want to support conservative points of view. Period. Nothing else. And soon, you will stop because you have pushed these ideas enough, and revert to strictly and only personal attack. What a class act you are, Oldstyle. And I really prefer to deal with people that have class. And enough grey matter to make compelling arguments. All of which points to one thing. You are a waste of time.

You "say" you have a degree in economics, "Tommy"...just as you "say" you taught the subject at the college level as an undergraduate. From what you've displayed here, both claims are laughable.

Everything you post are progressive talking points that you cut and paste to "prove" your claims. You don't have much choice though...do you, Tommy? God knows how stupid you look any time you try to argue something in your own words.

Take this Rshermr "gem"...

"Now, the idea that the wealthy will keep their money in investments and not hire when there IS demand assumes that you believe them to be quite stupid. You see, oldstyle, businesses are in business to sell stuff. Products and services. So, if demand increases, that is what they will do. Unless, of course, they are as stupid as you suggest and would rather sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors sell their products and services. Get it yet."

Yes, businesses "are" in business to sell stuff... (What a deep thought, little buddy!) but what investors are in business to do is to make a PROFIT! Every time you do something to reduce the amount of anticipated profit (whether it be by adding costly regulations or by raising taxes) you decrease the incentive for investors to risk their capital. What morons like you can't seem to grasp is that if the potential profit becomes too small (because of the added costs of tax increases or new regulation) then the capital that funds new business will NOT be risked. If that potential for profit shrinks then you have an incentive for that capital to be kept in tax free shelters to protect it. Your rather naive concept that somehow demand increases when you increase taxes shows me just how ignorant you ARE when it comes to economics.

The wealthy people that fund much of our private sector start ups don't make products or provide services...they invest capital and they invest that capital in whatever will get them the best return on investment with the least amount of risk. They would rather invest in businesses with a potential for big growth and big profits but if you increase the risks to profits with increased regulations or increased taxes then they will reluctantly keep their capital in tax shelters to keep it from being "stolen" by government. That's reality, "Tommy" and that "reality" is what is keeping our economy grinding along at a little over 1% growth while progressives like you "fix" things with new taxes and more red tape.

Funny how a "dishwasher" knows that, yet an economics major (eye roll) like yourself doesn't...

And just so you know, little buddy? There are hundreds of thousands of Food & Beverage managers in this country who go to work every day in one of the most competitive industries there is. They are not "dishwashers"...they are professionals in an industry that employs 10% of the American workforce. Your ignorance of what it takes to do "that" job matches your ignorance of economics. But feel free to go on referring to me as a "dishwasher", "Tommy"...I find it amusing.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, this is really a post that is painful to read. Because, Oldstyle, with all the words you used, there should be something of substance. But instead, it is simply more conservative talking points. Very, very easy to disprove. But hard to believe that some one would actually post this kind of drivel. Complete conservative dogma.
So, Oldstyle, out apparently to waste my time, says:

You "say" you have a degree in economics, "Tommy"...just as you "say" you taught the subject at the college level as an undergraduate. From what you've displayed here, both claims are laughable.

Sure. Anything you say. Funny thing is, I made you a bet about this, giving you the option to make $10K or more if I could not prove my degrees. You ran like a true coward. Funny, Oldstyle. Deal is still there. You can win or loose based on your claim. But we know, Oldstyle, that as a simple dish washer, you can not do so. Because you know better, eh. And you know you will lose. Poor little con tool. Just making personal attacks.

Everything you post are progressive talking points that you cut and paste to "prove" your claims. You don't have much choice though...do you, Tommy? God knows how stupid you look any time you try to argue something in your own words.

Sorry, Oldstyle Unlike you, I do not go to the web and find talking points. What I say comes from years of actual study of the subject. And trying to simplify it enough that you can understand. What I go to the web for are proof and individual facts of things I do not remember precisely. And then I always use links. And I never ever lie. As you know, having tried to find lies in what I said, and failed.

Take this Rshermr "gem"...

"Now, the idea that the wealthy will keep their money in investments and not hire when there IS demand assumes that you believe them to be quite stupid. You see, oldstyle, businesses are in business to sell stuff. Products and services. So, if demand increases, that is what they will do. Unless, of course, they are as stupid as you suggest and would rather sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors sell their products and services. Get it yet."

Yes, businesses "are" in business to sell stuff... (What a deep thought, little buddy!) but what investors are in business to do is to make a PROFIT! Every time you do something to reduce the amount of anticipated profit (whether it be by adding costly regulations or by raising taxes) you decrease the incentive for investors to risk their capital. What morons like you can't seem to grasp is that if the potential profit becomes too small (because of the added costs of tax increases or new regulation) then the capital that funds new business will NOT be risked. If that potential for profit shrinks then you have an incentive for that capital to be kept in tax free shelters to protect it. Your rather naive concept that somehow demand increases when you increase taxes shows me just how ignorant you ARE when it comes to economics.

The wealthy people that fund much of our private sector start ups don't make products or provide services...they invest capital and they invest that capital in whatever will get them the best return on investment with the least amount of risk. They would rather invest in businesses with a potential for big growth and big profits but if you increase the risks to profits with increased regulations or increased taxes then they will reluctantly keep their capital in tax shelters to keep it from being "stolen" by government. That's reality, "Tommy" and that "reality" is what is keeping our economy grinding along at a little over 1% growth while progressives like you "fix" things with new taxes and more red tape.

Funny how a "dishwasher" knows that, yet an economics major (eye roll) like yourself doesn't...

Wow. What a long, twisted, and painful attempt to prove something that is obvious, oldstyle Part of what you said is obviously true. Like all businessmen, profits are king for investors. But what you are saying is that investments will stop if the tax rate is increased by 4%. All that posting to prove that investors are in it for a profit is true. That they will stop investing because their tax rates go up by 4% is just plain stupid. And provably so.
Take the clinton example, Oldstyle. Same thing. Taxes raised to 39.6% on incomes over $25K And the repubs howled that the economy was going to be ruined. Because their benefactors said so. And, Oldstyle, you know what happened. The economy soared.

Again, Oldstyle. Impartial sources like the CBO do not agree with you. There are no impartial sources that agree with you. And you know that. So, you just post the same dogma that the right wing supported sites put out. Because, Oldstyle, you are a con tool.

I know heavy duty investors, oldstyle. I do not even need to read about them. And I can absolutely tell you that the idea that they will not continue to invest if their profits are reduced by 4% is pure fantasy. What they will do, however, is invest more if the economy gets better and those companies in which they invest have a better chance of success. That is the fact, jack. What you are posting, that they will stop because their tax rate goes up 4%, is a con lie. Plain and simple.[/quote]

And just so you know, little buddy? There are hundreds of thousands of Food & Beverage managers in this country who go to work every day in one of the most competitive industries there is. They are not "dishwashers"...they are professionals in an industry that employs 10% of the American workforce. Your ignorance of what it takes to do "that" job matches your ignorance of economics. But feel free to go on referring to me as a "dishwasher", "Tommy"...I find it amusing.

Yes, but they actually have to work. You post all the time, from work, saying it is ok with your boss if you have free time. Now, oldstyle, that just does not pass the giggle test. I believe you have a trivial job. That is relatively obvious. So, what Oldstyle. Are you a waiter?? But any way, glad it is amusing to you. You obviously need something in your poor little life.

 

[whitehall]

What happened to the anti-war movement? War is fine as long as a democrat is in the W.H.? The point is that the hypocrites on the left ain't got a clue or a place to put one. Thanks to the liberal media and the union based education system generations of dumb assed kids have grown up believing that FDR's programs ended the depression. Infrastructure maintenance is important and is ongoing as any who has traveled the interstate can testify to but government programs don't improve the economy. Confiscated taxpayer funds administered by corrupt politicians and redundant and wasteful commissions do not contribute to the GDP. Only the private sector creates jobs.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, this is really a post that is painful to read. Because, Oldstyle, with all the words you used, there should be something of substance. But instead, it is simply more conservative talking points. Very, very easy to disprove. But hard to believe that some one would actually post this kind of drivel. Complete conservative dogma.
So, Oldstyle, out apparently to waste my time, says:

You "say" you have a degree in economics, "Tommy"...just as you "say" you taught the subject at the college level as an undergraduate. From what you've displayed here, both claims are laughable.

Sure. Anything you say. Funny thing is, I made you a bet about this, giving you the option to make $10K or more if I could not prove my degrees. You ran like a true coward. Funny, Oldstyle. Deal is still there. You can win or loose based on your claim. But we know, Oldstyle, that as a simple dish washer, you can not do so. Because you know better, eh. And you know you will lose. Poor little con tool. Just making personal attacks.

Everything you post are progressive talking points that you cut and paste to "prove" your claims. You don't have much choice though...do you, Tommy? God knows how stupid you look any time you try to argue something in your own words.

Sorry, Oldstyle Unlike you, I do not go to the web and find talking points. What I say comes from years of actual study of the subject. And trying to simplify it enough that you can understand. What I go to the web for are proof and individual facts of things I do not remember precisely. And then I always use links. And I never ever lie. As you know, having tried to find lies in what I said, and failed.

Take this Rshermr "gem"...

"Now, the idea that the wealthy will keep their money in investments and not hire when there IS demand assumes that you believe them to be quite stupid. You see, oldstyle, businesses are in business to sell stuff. Products and services. So, if demand increases, that is what they will do. Unless, of course, they are as stupid as you suggest and would rather sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors sell their products and services. Get it yet."

Yes, businesses "are" in business to sell stuff... (What a deep thought, little buddy!) but what investors are in business to do is to make a PROFIT! Every time you do something to reduce the amount of anticipated profit (whether it be by adding costly regulations or by raising taxes) you decrease the incentive for investors to risk their capital. What morons like you can't seem to grasp is that if the potential profit becomes too small (because of the added costs of tax increases or new regulation) then the capital that funds new business will NOT be risked. If that potential for profit shrinks then you have an incentive for that capital to be kept in tax free shelters to protect it. Your rather naive concept that somehow demand increases when you increase taxes shows me just how ignorant you ARE when it comes to economics.

The wealthy people that fund much of our private sector start ups don't make products or provide services...they invest capital and they invest that capital in whatever will get them the best return on investment with the least amount of risk. They would rather invest in businesses with a potential for big growth and big profits but if you increase the risks to profits with increased regulations or increased taxes then they will reluctantly keep their capital in tax shelters to keep it from being "stolen" by government. That's reality, "Tommy" and that "reality" is what is keeping our economy grinding along at a little over 1% growth while progressives like you "fix" things with new taxes and more red tape.

Funny how a "dishwasher" knows that, yet an economics major (eye roll) like yourself doesn't...

Wow. What a long, twisted, and painful attempt to prove something that is obvious, oldstyle Part of what you said is obviously true. Like all businessmen, profits are king for investors. But what you are saying is that investments will stop if the tax rate is increased by 4%. All that posting to prove that investors are in it for a profit is true. That they will stop investing because their tax rates go up by 4% is just plain stupid. And provably so.
Take the clinton example, Oldstyle. Same thing. Taxes raised to 39.6% on incomes over $25K And the repubs howled that the economy was going to be ruined. Because their benefactors said so. And, Oldstyle, you know what happened. The economy soared.

Again, Oldstyle. Impartial sources like the CBO do not agree with you. There are no impartial sources that agree with you. And you know that. So, you just post the same dogma that the right wing supported sites put out. Because, Oldstyle, you are a con tool.

I know heavy duty investors, oldstyle. I do not even need to read about them. And I can absolutely tell you that the idea that they will not continue to invest if their profits are reduced by 4% is pure fantasy. What they will do, however, is invest more if the economy gets better and those companies in which they invest have a better chance of success. That is the fact, jack. What you are posting, that they will stop because their tax rate goes up 4%, is a con lie. Plain and simple.

And just so you know, little buddy? There are hundreds of thousands of Food & Beverage managers in this country who go to work every day in one of the most competitive industries there is. They are not "dishwashers"...they are professionals in an industry that employs 10% of the American workforce. Your ignorance of what it takes to do "that" job matches your ignorance of economics. But feel free to go on referring to me as a "dishwasher", "Tommy"...I find it amusing.

Yes, but they actually have to work. You post all the time, from work, saying it is ok with your boss if you have free time. Now, oldstyle, that just does not pass the giggle test. I believe you have a trivial job. That is relatively obvious. So, what Oldstyle. Are you a waiter?? But any way, glad it is amusing to you. You obviously need something in your poor little life.[/QUOTE]

Gee whiz, "Tommy"! A promotion from dishwasher to waiter? How magnanimous of you!

I actually don't post "all the time", little buddy. If you look at the times I DO post you'll see that they occur during morning and early afternoon hours and late night. I seldom post from work...not because my boss hasn't OK'd it but because it's "season" down here in Florida and we're jammed every night from open to close and I'm rather busy. I have Wed. and Sun. off so you'll see posts other times on those days. Happy?

You keep bringing up Clinton, "Tommy". Would you like to take a stab at explaining why, if raising taxes was the secret to his success, Clinton signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%? Amazing that you didn't know that from your "years" of study on the subject! If you really "did" know the economic history of the Clinton Administration you'd know that he cut taxes substantially to the lower classes when welfare reform was undertaken with the GOP controlled House. He also cut tariffs and regulations on trade with Canada and Mexico with NAFTA. He also raised the exemption on death taxes from $600,000 to a million dollars as well as raising the amount people could put into IRA's. Why did Clinton do all THAT if raising taxes was working out so well? The truth is...it wasn't. That's just the nonsense that you "gleaned" from your usual Google search of progressive sites.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Sorry, Oldstyle Unlike you, I do not go to the web and find talking points. What I say comes from years of actual study of the subject. And trying to simplify it enough that you can understand. What I go to the web for are proof and individual facts of things I do not remember precisely. And then I always use links. And I never ever lie. As you know, having tried to find lies in what I said, and failed." Rshermr.

Let me see if I'm understanding this? You "deliberately" try to simplify your responses for me? Gee, "Tommy"...and here I thought you were just working with an 8th grade education! Do everyone a favor and grace us with your FULL intellectual "brilliance" (eye-roll).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your rather naive concept that somehow demand increases when you increase taxes shows me just how ignorant you ARE when it comes to economics..

you nailed him!! That is exactly his point!! The more you tax and regulate business the more it grows!! The soviets cubans and FDR tried it forever but the libturds cant see the nose in front of their face!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

The recent liberal propaganda that Clinton raising taxes is what led to the economic boom in the latter part of the 90's has always amused me. The truth is that the economy took off when he CUT taxes, especially the tax on capital gains. That's something that Rshermr would know if he really DID study the issue. But since he gets his "knowledge" from Google searches he's oblivious.

Gee, I wonder if my pointing this out is going to get me demoted to "dishwasher" again?

 

[eots]

To sides of the same shit coin...still in Iraq..still in Afghanistan..still beating the drums of war...

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle having given up on proving that tax increases and stimulus spending during bad unemployment times works, changes the subject:

Gee whiz, "Tommy"! A promotion from dishwasher to waiter? How magnanimous of you!

You'r welcome.

I actually don't post "all the time", little buddy. If you look at the times I DO post you'll see that they occur during morning and early afternoon hours and late night. I seldom post from work...not because my boss hasn't OK'd it but because it's "season" down here in Florida and we're jammed every night from open to close and I'm rather busy. I have Wed. and Sun. off so you'll see posts other times on those days. Happy?

Yup. Did you think I was not happy? But you lie a lot, so I do not believe you.

You keep bringing up Clinton, "Tommy". Would you like to take a stab at explaining why, if raising taxes was the secret to his success, Clinton signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%? Amazing that you didn't know that from your "years" of study on the subject!

Be happy to explain that, Oldstyle. My pleasure. Though, you should know the answer. Consider the ue rates in 1997:

Unemployment Rates in 1997
January 1997 - 5.3%
February 1997 - 5.2%
March 1997 - 5.2%
April 1997 - 5.1%
May 1997 - 4.9%
June 1997 - 5%
July 1997 - 4.9%
August 1997 - 4.8%
September 1997 - 4.9%
October 1997 - 4.7%
November 1997 - 4.6%
December 1997 - 4.7%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

So, do you see the problem with your statement. There is reason to use stimulative spending when the economy is bad, and the UE is high. Otherwise, there is no reason for stimulative spending. And since there is no reason for stimulative spending, there is no reason for tax increases to raise revenue. And, Oldstyle, many dems including Clinton lowered taxes during good economic times. But you should know that, being a self proclaimed economics expert.

If you really "did" know the economic history of the Clinton Administration you'd know that he cut taxes substantially to the lower classes when welfare reform was undertaken with the GOP controlled House.

So, apparently you forgot a couple of things:
One, the ue rate was pretty good by then. No problem with tax decreases in general in those circumstances.
Two, the tax cut was to low income taxpayers. Again, no problem here.
So, your point is what????

He also cut tariffs and regulations on trade with Canada and Mexico with NAFTA.

Again, when the economy was doing well. And, now you are talking about a trade deal. Did you think this had some effect on employment???

He also raised the exemption on death taxes from $600,000 to a million dollars as well as raising the amount people could put into IRA's.

Again, when the economy was doing well Oldstyle. you are really desperate to prove something. Not sure what you think it is.

Why did Clinton do all THAT if raising taxes was working out so well? The truth is...it wasn't. That's just the nonsense that you "gleaned" from your usual Google search of progressive sites.

Wow, Oldstyle You really have been studying clinton. Congratulations, I guess. But the unemployment problem that Clinton faced was at the beginning of his term. The Clinton stimulus worked. And you just can not let that go. What happened later was during good economic times. When stimulus is not required. So, you just wasted a lot of time talking about what happened after the stimulus was successfull.

Now, when Reagan LOWERED taxes, the UE Rate went UP, all the way to 10.8% from 7.4%. And remember, the ue rate had been coming down prior to that decrease. So there WAS reason for a stimulus, and for tax increases to fund that stimulus. And,of course, he did raise taxes and he did borrow. And he did use stimulus spending to cut the UE rate. And it did work. See the difference, Oldstyle. Bad UE rate, and Reagan raised taxes and spent stimulatively. Same with Clinton. It is simply that Clintons problem was from the prior administration, while Reagan made his own problems.

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle says:

The recent liberal propaganda that Clinton raising taxes is what led to the economic boom in the latter part of the 90's has always amused me. The truth is that the economy took off when he CUT taxes, especially the tax on capital gains. That's something that Rshermr would know if he really DID study the issue. But since he gets his "knowledge" from Google searches he's oblivious.

Well, Oldstyle, that would be interesting if it were true. But, of course, it was not. But good try.

Gee, I wonder if my pointing this out is going to get me demoted to washing dishes again?

Everyone has to have a trade, Oldstyle.

So, oldstyle, you say the ue only went down in the latter part of Clintons term. Well, that would be interesting if it were true. Unfortunately, there is no truth to that statement. The unemployment rate was going down by late 1993, Clintons first year in office. And really getting good by 1994. So, another lie, oldstyle. When will you ever stop????
Here is Clinton's record on job creation:

Bill Clinton, D-Ark., 1993-2001

First term: +11.51 million jobs

Second term: +11.24 million jobs

Clinton Total: +22.74 million jobs
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-democratic-or-republican-408508

During his first term, Clinton's economy created more jobs than any other president during his full term, and also during his first four years.

But keep bringing on the lies, oldstyle, and I will keep vetting them for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Oldstyle says:

The recent liberal propaganda that Clinton raising taxes is what led to the economic boom in the latter part of the 90's has always amused me. The truth is that the economy took off when he CUT taxes, especially the tax on capital gains. That's something that Rshermr would know if he really DID study the issue. But since he gets his "knowledge" from Google searches he's oblivious.

Well, Oldstyle, that would be interesting if it were true. But, of course, it was not. But good try.

Gee, I wonder if my pointing this out is going to get me demoted to washing dishes again?

Everyone has to have a trade, Oldstyle.

So, oldstyle, you say the ue only went down in the latter part of Clintons term. Well, that would be interesting if it were true. Unfortunately, there is no truth to that statement. The unemployment rate was going down by late 1993, Clintons first year in office. And really getting good by 1994. So, another lie, oldstyle. When will you ever stop????
Here is Clinton's record on job creation:

Bill Clinton, D-Ark., 1993-2001

First term: +11.51 million jobs

Second term: +11.24 million jobs

Clinton Total: +22.74 million jobs
U.S. Presidents from Which Party Create More Jobs - Democratic or Republican?

During his first term, Clinton's economy created more jobs than any other president during his full term, and also during his first four years.

But keep bringing on the lies, oldstyle, and I will keep vetting them for you.

When did I say that unemployment only went down in the latter part of Clinton's term? You might want to "vet" your own lies, little buddy...

I asked you to explain why Clinton dropped the top rate on capital gains from 28% to 20% in 1997 which happens to have been followed with his three budget surpluses. You keep hammering the point home that cutting taxes NEVER works...and yet there was Clinton doing exactly that and running budget surpluses. How can that be, "Tommy"?