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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

there is no school of economics that advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy.

I think its called "The Obamination School". What you do is imagine all the wonderful new green jobs socialism can create to save the economy and the planet. Then you raise taxes and invest in Solyndra, Fiskar, A123 Systems, Range Fuels, Abound Solar, and many others.
When all fail into bankruptcy you remain loyal to your father's soviet dreams and merely try again hoping to die before the death toll reaches Stalinesque millions at which point you would begin to feel guilty that you hadn't invested a little more hard earned tax revenue in Solyndra and Fiskar.....

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, caught hard in a lie, tries to wiggle out:

LOL Where in any of THAT is the part where you answered my question?

You've made pathetic attempt after pathetic attempt to try and wriggle OUT of answering the question, Rshermr... but you've never once provided an economic school of thought that advocates tax raises in a weak economy.

All your going back shows...and it's very obvious...is that you CAN'T answer the question.

Nice try, oldstyle. But my answers have been true and concise. Odd you NEVER questioned my answers.

The first response is you blathering on about economics not being "static" which is why you can't provide an answer. Total dodge.

Total dodge on your part, Oldstyle. The quote says economic models tend to be static. Which is true, oldstyle. But nothing will keep you from lying, now, will it.
And Amazing. You had the actual BALLS to change the question that I asked, quoted above in post 560. You actually changed my answer in this post to make it different from the original, which is copied and pasted to post 560. Not many shit heads are that dishonest, oldstyle. That one puts you at the top of the shit head list.

Then in your second post you make the amazing statement that "No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending." Posts like THAT one...where you're not cutting and pasting from some liberal site are where you show your true ignorance about economics. Taxes figure into scores of economic theories...and not just to support deficit spending. How could you have taught economics and not know that? Once again a total dodge...only this time you compound that with a statement about economics that is laughably false.

Wow. And look at Oldstyle tying himself into a pretzel. Oldstyle. Lets vet this lie, eh. Here is your question:

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?
And I answer:

"Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending."


So, you knew perfectly well, as would any half rational organism, that I was answering your question. Not making a statement about taxes in any economic theory. Really, oldstyle. Tacky as hell. And disingenuous. And my answer was not laughably false, but completely true, which is why you never tried to question it.

Post 3 you go right back to dodging the question...blathering on about stimulative spending when the question is about tax increases in a weak economy. Still no economic school of thought cited.

Not blathering, dipshit. Clear as a bell. Which is why you did not question the answer at the time.

The truth is...you haven't even come CLOSE to answering the question because there is no school of economics that advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy. But you're going to come on here and try and bluster your way through getting exposed as the internet "poser" that you are. You know so little about economics that it's embarrassing to watch you try to pretend that you do. The "liar" here is you, "Tommy" and you're not very good at it!!!

Right. And you continue to lie. Do you understand the Kings English. Generally, when I have a problem with a answer, I mention that I do not believe, or do not understand, the question. But I have read the questions and answers. And the answers are clear as a bell. But what I would never do is ask the same question again. Or, in your case, over 10 times. So, oldstyle, you are trying to say that though you have asked this question several times, and I have answered it several times, then you should just go on asking it. Sorry, your statement above just does not pass the giggle test.

Then, there is the fact that my answer is complete and true. You can not argue it, you just say it is not an answer. Again, it does not pass the giggle test, oldstyle. And you never questioned my answers. Is that what dish washers do, Oldstyle. Just keep asking the same question and getting the same answer. Poor guy.

So a friend of mine for many many years, with a doctorate in economics, just can not stop laughing at your responses. I find you pathetic, he finds yo a source of humor. He can not believe that anyone could be this dishonest. His word, not mine. You would last about 10 minutes in an actual economic discussion group, me boy. Your dish washer mentality really tends to show. But what really starts him laughing is when you try to say how knowledgeable you are.

Caught. Lying like crazy. This question has been asked and answered over and over. But you have NEVER questioned my answer. You just pretend like it was never asked before and ask again. Caught. You are now the fish flopping on the bottom of the boat.

I can continue to expose lies that you have been caught in. No problem at all. And you always do what you are doing here. Once it is obvious that you are wrong, and likely to anyone that you have lied, you try to change subjects. And you run from you lies. And you twist and scramble to try to lie your way out. Sad. Zero Integrity. But the funniest thing of all is that you need help, and you get your help from ED. The biggest con tool on the net. Funny. Disingenuous.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Oldstyle, caught hard in a lie, tries to wiggle out:

LOL Where in any of THAT is the part where you answered my question?

You've made pathetic attempt after pathetic attempt to try and wriggle OUT of answering the question, Rshermr... but you've never once provided an economic school of thought that advocates tax raises in a weak economy.

All your going back shows...and it's very obvious...is that you CAN'T answer the question.

Nice try, oldstyle. But my answers have been true and concise. Odd you NEVER questioned my answers.

The first response is you blathering on about economics not being "static" which is why you can't provide an answer. Total dodge.

Total dodge on your part, Oldstyle. The quote says economic models tend to be static. Which is true, oldstyle. But nothing will keep you from lying, now, will it.
And Amazing. You had the actual BALLS to change the question that I asked, quoted above in post 560. You actually changed my answer in this post to make it different from the original, which is copied and pasted to post 560. Not many shit heads are that dishonest, oldstyle. That one puts you at the top of the shit head list.



Wow. And look at Oldstyle tying himself into a pretzel. Oldstyle. Lets vet this lie, eh. Here is your question:



"Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending."


So, you knew perfectly well, as would any half rational organism, that I was answering your question. Not making a statement about taxes in any economic theory. Really, oldstyle. Tacky as hell. And disingenuous. And my answer was not laughably false, but completely true, which is why you never tried to question it.

Post 3 you go right back to dodging the question...blathering on about stimulative spending when the question is about tax increases in a weak economy. Still no economic school of thought cited.

Not blathering, dipshit. Clear as a bell. Which is why you did not question the answer at the time.

The truth is...you haven't even come CLOSE to answering the question because there is no school of economics that advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy. But you're going to come on here and try and bluster your way through getting exposed as the internet "poser" that you are. You know so little about economics that it's embarrassing to watch you try to pretend that you do. The "liar" here is you, "Tommy" and you're not very good at it!!!

Right. And you continue to lie. Do you understand the Kings English. Generally, when I have a problem with a answer, I mention that I do not believe, or do not understand, the question. But I have read the questions and answers. And the answers are clear as a bell. But what I would never do is ask the same question again. Or, in your case, over 10 times. So, oldstyle, you are trying to say that though you have asked this question several times, and I have answered it several times, then you should just go on asking it. Sorry, your statement above just does not pass the giggle test.

Then, there is the fact that my answer is complete and true. You can not argue it, you just say it is not an answer. Again, it does not pass the giggle test, oldstyle. And you never questioned my answers. Is that what dish washers do, Oldstyle. Just keep asking the same question and getting the same answer. Poor guy.

So a friend of mine for many many years, with a doctorate in economics, just can not stop laughing at your responses. I find you pathetic, he finds yo a source of humor. He can not believe that anyone could be this dishonest. His word, not mine. You would last about 10 minutes in an actual economic discussion group, me boy. Your dish washer mentality really tends to show. But what really starts him laughing is when you try to say how knowledgeable you are.

Caught. Lying like crazy. This question has been asked and answered over and over. But you have NEVER questioned my answer. You just pretend like it was never asked before and ask again. Caught. You are now the fish flopping on the bottom of the boat.

I can continue to expose lies that you have been caught in. No problem at all. And you always do what you are doing here. Once it is obvious that you are wrong, and likely to anyone that you have lied, you try to change subjects. And you run from you lies. And you twist and scramble to try to lie your way out. Sad. Zero Integrity. But the funniest thing of all is that you need help, and you get your help from ED. The biggest con tool on the net. Funny. Disingenuous.

Oh, now you have a "friend" who has a doctorate in economics? Gotta love ya', "Tommy"! You get exposed trying to pass yourself off as an "authority" on economics because you taught the subject at the college level but when you don't even know what I'm referring to when I talk about different economic schools, you've shown that's obviously a lie...so what do you do? You invent a "friend" who has a doctorate in economics and THEY support your position? Sir Walter Scott summed you up rather well, little buddy when he wrote the following. "Oh! what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive!" You think that telling another whopper is going to extricate you from the first lie you've gotten caught in.

So what does "Doc Economics" find humorous about my responses, Rshermr? I'm dying to hear what your imaginary friend knows about economics. You just keep digging that hole deeper! Pseudologia fantastica, seek help...

 

[Oldstyle]

Since your friend is an incredibly intelligent PhD in Economics and I'm a lowly "dishwasher"...he should be able to mop the floor with me in a discussion about economics...correct? Since your friend finds my responses so amusing then he should REALLY enjoy taking me to school here on the message board...right, little buddy? So tell him to log his learned butt on and put me in my place! I'm guessing that you're going to come up with a quick excuse why THAT won't be happening. Why? Because your friend is about as believable as you teaching college courses as an undergrad.

 

[Oldstyle]

Google Image Result for http://sportshawaii.com/images/liars.jpg

Keep this up, Little Buddy and YOU can be right up there with these other bullshit artists!!!

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, trying as hard as he can to change the subject, says:

Oh, now you have a "friend" who has a doctorate in economics? Gotta love ya', "Tommy"! You get exposed trying to pass yourself off as an "authority" on economics because you taught the subject at the college level but when you don't even know what I'm referring to when I talk about different economic schools, you've shown that's obviously a lie...so what do you do? You invent a "friend" who has a doctorate in economics and THEY support your position? Sir Walter Scott summed you up rather well, little buddy when he wrote the following. "Oh! what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive!" You think that telling another whopper is going to extricate you from the first lie you've gotten caught in.

Sorry, oldstyle, I do not lie. never have. And therefor, you have never caught me in one.
I do find it interesting that you are so surprised that I know a person with an economics PHD. I also know a couple of enginering PHD's. Had a fellow vp in a company I worked in who had a PHD in Physics. So, do you suppose I am lying about them all. Sorry, sometimes I forget that you are a very menial person. there are PHD's in economics posting on this site. You seem to think that a person with a PHD is a god. they are people. The person I was mentioning likes to fish. Can you believe it. And so do I. And we have fished together, from time to time, for many years. Wow, oldstyle. What a sheltered little life you must lead.

So what does "Doc Economics" find humorous about my responses, Rshermr? I'm dying to hear what your imaginary friend knows about economics. You just keep digging that hole deeper! Pseudologia fantastica, seek help...

Read this past sentence. He has not seen it yet, but I am sure he will get a real kick out of it.

So, you are trying to avoid the lie you are caught in. You will not. I will be back with you on it shortly. And by the way, the general picture I get of you, that is, of being a very very little person who is extremely immature for his age, just keeps getting more solid. Nice video.

 

[Rshermr]

Since your friend is an incredibly intelligent PhD in Economics and I'm a lowly "dishwasher"...he should be able to mop the floor with me in a discussion about economics...correct? Since your friend finds my responses so amusing then he should REALLY enjoy taking me to school here on the message board...right, little buddy? So tell him to log his learned butt on and put me in my place! I'm guessing that you're going to come up with a quick excuse why THAT won't be happening. Why? Because your friend is about as believable as you teaching college courses as an undergrad.

Oldstyle, me delusional con tool. You believe that you have won some argument related to the subject of this thread. You have not, of course. You loose every single time. Always.

there are PHD's in economics that post on this site. Mostly in the Economics area, as one would expect. None wants to argue politics with you. It is kind of like putting a little league pitcher on the mound against a major league home run champ. And, if you were wondering, you would be the little league pitcher out there on the mound. It would not be fair to you, and it would bore the shit out of them. So, why the hell would you ask why my friend would want to argue economics with a dish washer? tends to show you are delusional, dipshit.

So after we get done addressing your lie, maybe you would like to bring one of your "wins" forward. Should be amusing.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle has now started a new line of attack, personal of course. After this post, he seems to know he was screwed. So, rather than respond, he has gone on his rather normal conservative mode, which is personal attacks. Because oldstyle does not want to admit to his lies, which can be seen above:

Here are additional times that you have asked the same question, Oldstyle. And each time you pretended like you were asking for the first time. Each time a lie. Because I had answered. And you did not respond to my answer. Lets take a look, oldstye. I showed you three already. That would be too many. Five is proof beyond any doubt. SO:

Post 314

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?

I responded:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.


Post 327

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?

I responded:
Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.


Post 405

Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I responded:
I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.

I responded:
I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

Post 402

So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?

I responded:
So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

post 475
So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..

I responded:
We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post 531

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

I responded:
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

Post 547

And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...

I responded:
I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since your friend is an incredibly intelligent PhD in Economics and I'm a lowly "dishwasher"...he should be able to mop the floor with me in a discussion about economics...correct? Since your friend finds my responses so amusing then he should REALLY enjoy taking me to school here on the message board...right, little buddy? So tell him to log his learned butt on and put me in my place! I'm guessing that you're going to come up with a quick excuse why THAT won't be happening. Why? Because your friend is about as believable as you teaching college courses as an undergrad.

Oldstyle, me delusional con tool. You believe that you have won some argument related to the subject of this thread. You have not, of course. You loose every single time. Always.

there are PHD's in economics that post on this site. Mostly in the Economics area, as one would expect. None wants to argue politics with you. It is kind of like putting a little league pitcher on the mound against a major league home run champ. And, if you were wondering, you would be the little league pitcher out there on the mound. It would not be fair to you, and it would bore the shit out of them. So, why the hell would you ask why my friend would want to argue economics with a dish washer? tends to show you are delusional, dipshit.

So after we get done addressing your lie, maybe you would like to bring one of your "wins" forward. Should be amusing.

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD in economics won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! Why should anyone believe you, Rshermr?

 

[Oldstyle]

"And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English."

When you critique someone comprehension of the "King's English", Little Buddy...it might be a good idea if you utilized correct spelling and punctuation while doing so. Duh?

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! I asked your friend to argue economics with me because I don't believe they exist. I think you lied about them just like you lied about teaching economics at the college level.

Uh, Oldstyle, do you actually believe that any person with those credentials want to discuss economics with ANY dish washer? You are truly delusional. But you do not really think I am telling you an untruth, oldstyle. You are simply trying to change the subjecagaint . So, lets end this bs, me boy. You think I do not have a long time friend with a PHD in economics. So, same thing. Come on out, I will pay the air fare, you meat my friend, and he shows you proof of his phd. If he can not, you get $10K. If he does, you pay me. There you go, Oldstyle, A chance to make some good money. Take you two days, max. Now, me poor little person, put up or shut up. And, if you want to increase the size of the wager, we can do that. Up to you.

Now, about these posts, oldstyle. You are caught in a loie. As I said, you are acting like a fish flopping on the bottom of a boat. Want to explain why you asked the same question over 10 times? Or do you just want to admit the obvious, dipshit?

Post 314

Quote:
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?
I responded:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.


Post 327

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?
I responded:
Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.


Post 405


Quote:
Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.
I responded:
I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

Quote:
It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.
I responded:
I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

Post 402

Quote:
So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?
I responded:
So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

post 475
So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Quote:
Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..
I responded:
We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post 531

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

I responded:
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

Post 547

Quote:
And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...
I responded:
I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. These posts show that you were:
1, Completely disingenuous
2. Playing games
3. Lying
4. Trying to change the subject

So, makes you a disingenuous clown. And you would wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! I asked your friend to argue economics with me because I don't believe they exist. I think you lied about them just like you lied about teaching economics at the college level.

Uh, Oldstyle, do you actually believe that any person with those credentials want to discuss economics with ANY dish washer? You are truly delusional. But you do not really think I am telling you an untruth, oldstyle. You are simply trying to change the subjecagaint . So, lets end this bs, me boy. You think I do not have a long time friend with a PHD in economics. So, same thing. Come on out, I will pay the air fare, you meat my friend, and he shows you proof of his phd. If he can not, you get $10K. If he does, you pay me. There you go, Oldstyle, A chance to make some good money. Take you two days, max. Now, me poor little person, put up or shut up. And, if you want to increase the size of the wager, we can do that. Up to you.

Now, about these posts, oldstyle. You are caught in a loie. As I said, you are acting like a fish flopping on the bottom of a boat. Want to explain why you asked the same question over 10 times? Or do you just want to admit the obvious, dipshit?

Post 314

Quote:
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?
I responded:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.


Post 327

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?
I responded:
Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.


Post 405


Quote:
Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.
I responded:
I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

Quote:
It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.
I responded:
I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

Post 402

Quote:
So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?
I responded:
So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

post 475
So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Quote:
Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..
I responded:
We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post 531

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

I responded:
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

Post 547

Quote:
And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...
I responded:
I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. These posts show that you were:
1, Completely disingenuous
2. Playing games
3. Lying
4. Trying to change the subject

So, makes you a disingenuous clown. And you would wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

What your posts "show" is that you have consistently dodged my question. It's obvious at this point that you don't have a viable answer because there IS no school of economics that advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one. An honest person would admit that. You however have tried to salvage an untenable situation by changing the topic of conversation. Instead of simply showing an economic school that does advocate tax increases in a weak economy you want to change the topic to "stimulus" all the while accusing me of trying to change the subject...which is laughable.

So for the umpteenth time, "Tommy"...what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one? I'd suggest that you ask your friend with the PhD in economics to help you out with this one but since you've obviously made them up, that's not going to work...is it?

 

[Oldstyle]

Heck, Little Buddy...since you're utilizing an imaginary friend you might as well invent an imaginary school of economics that agrees with your contention that tax raises in a weak economy is stimulative. In for a penny...in for a pound...right?

 

[Oldstyle]

We can call it the Rshermr School or perhaps the "Tommy" School...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We can call it the Rshermr School or perhaps the "Tommy" School...

a school that says the NY Times is not a biased source and that Keynes didn't say we'd be working a 15 hour week by now!!

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! I asked your friend to argue economics with me because I don't believe they exist. I think you lied about them just like you lied about teaching economics at the college level.

Uh, Oldstyle, do you actually believe that any person with those credentials want to discuss economics with ANY dish washer? You are truly delusional. But you do not really think I am telling you an untruth, oldstyle. You are simply trying to change the subjecagaint . So, lets end this bs, me boy. You think I do not have a long time friend with a PHD in economics. So, same thing. Come on out, I will pay the air fare, you meat my friend, and he shows you proof of his phd. If he can not, you get $10K. If he does, you pay me. There you go, Oldstyle, A chance to make some good money. Take you two days, max. Now, me poor little person, put up or shut up. And, if you want to increase the size of the wager, we can do that. Up to you.

Now, about these posts, oldstyle. You are caught in a loie. As I said, you are acting like a fish flopping on the bottom of a boat. Want to explain why you asked the same question over 10 times? Or do you just want to admit the obvious, dipshit?

Post 314

Quote:
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?
I responded:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.


Post 327

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?
I responded:
Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.


Post 405


Quote:
Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.
I responded:
I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

Quote:
It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.
I responded:
I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

Post 402

Quote:
So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?
I responded:
So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

post 475
So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Quote:
Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..
I responded:
We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post 531

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

I responded:
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

Post 547

Quote:
And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...
I responded:
I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. These posts show that you were:
1, Completely disingenuous
2. Playing games
3. Lying
4. Trying to change the subject

So, makes you a disingenuous clown. And you would wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

What your posts "show" is that you have consistently dodged my question. It's obvious at this point that you don't have a viable answer because there IS no school of economics that advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one. An honest person would admit that. You however have tried to salvage an untenable situation by changing the topic of conversation. Instead of simply showing an economic school that does advocate tax increases in a weak economy you want to change the topic to "stimulus" all the while accusing me of trying to change the subject...which is laughable.

So for the umpteenth time, "Tommy"...what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one? I'd suggest that you ask your friend with the PhD in economics to help you out with this one but since you've obviously made them up, that's not going to work...is it?

And you, oldstyle, are a game player. Just a con tool. And you are lying, again and again. What part of my answer did you not understand, you fucking game player. And, me boy, relative to the truth about my having a friend with and econ phd, shut the fuck up. I gave you the chance. You have run from it. Because oldstyle, you have no intgegrity. And you also have no balls.

It must be really, really pathetic, your life, oldstyle. You get so impressed with anyone who does not have a pathetic life like yours. And you attack, because of your insecurity and your pathetic jealousy. But you have your chance, oldstyle. Put your money where your pointy little head is, and come on out. Hell, I am paying your way. But you will not, of course, because you know you will pay me if you show up.

Pathetic, oldstyle, you are pathetic. And you ask why we laugh at you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Uh, Oldstyle, do you actually believe that any person with those credentials want to discuss economics with ANY dish washer? You are truly delusional. But you do not really think I am telling you an untruth, oldstyle. You are simply trying to change the subjecagaint . So, lets end this bs, me boy. You think I do not have a long time friend with a PHD in economics. So, same thing. Come on out, I will pay the air fare, you meat my friend, and he shows you proof of his phd. If he can not, you get $10K. If he does, you pay me. There you go, Oldstyle, A chance to make some good money. Take you two days, max. Now, me poor little person, put up or shut up. And, if you want to increase the size of the wager, we can do that. Up to you.

Now, about these posts, oldstyle. You are caught in a loie. As I said, you are acting like a fish flopping on the bottom of a boat. Want to explain why you asked the same question over 10 times? Or do you just want to admit the obvious, dipshit?

Post 314

Quote:
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?
I responded:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.


Post 327

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?
I responded:
Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.


Post 405


Quote:
Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.
I responded:
I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nausium. You seem unable to understand the kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

Quote:
It's a simple question, Rshermr. One that an economics major that "taught" the subject at the college level should be able to answer easily...yet you can't.
I responded:
I can. And I have. Multiple times. Not my problem you can not understand. And that you want to keep asking the same stupid question time after time.

Post 402

Quote:
So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?
I responded:
So, again, oldstyle, try to understand this. The plan is stimulus. It is not tax decreases. But, oldstyle, tax decreases to the middle class and below are stimulative. And the idea is NOT tax increases or decreases. It is STIMULUS.
I try and I try to educate you, oldstyle. But it just does not take. So, I am sure you will be back calling me a liar again. What is it, oldstyle, that you are compensating for?

post 475
So, Oldstyle, in trying to mask his lies about the Clinton administration, does the conservative twist:

Quote:
Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..
I responded:
We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for. Ah, so you do not believe in stimulative spending, eh? No one believes in that?? Well, obviously that is untrue. Reagan did. Used it a Great deal. And apparently you disagree with Bruce Bartlett. Who is Bartlett? You know who he is, but for grins: Bruce Reeves Bartlett (b. October 11, 1951, in Ann Arbor, Michigan) is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post 531

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

I responded:
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

Post 547

Quote:
And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...
I responded:
I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. These posts show that you were:
1, Completely disingenuous
2. Playing games
3. Lying
4. Trying to change the subject

So, makes you a disingenuous clown. And you would wonder why anyone would laugh at you.

What your posts "show" is that you have consistently dodged my question. It's obvious at this point that you don't have a viable answer because there IS no school of economics that advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one. An honest person would admit that. You however have tried to salvage an untenable situation by changing the topic of conversation. Instead of simply showing an economic school that does advocate tax increases in a weak economy you want to change the topic to "stimulus" all the while accusing me of trying to change the subject...which is laughable.

So for the umpteenth time, "Tommy"...what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one? I'd suggest that you ask your friend with the PhD in economics to help you out with this one but since you've obviously made them up, that's not going to work...is it?

And you, oldstyle, are a game player. Just a con tool. And you are lying, again and again. What part of my answer did you not understand, you fucking game player. And, me boy, relative to the truth about my having a friend with and econ phd, shut the fuck up. I gave you the chance. You have run from it. Because oldstyle, you have no intgegrity. And you also have no balls.

It must be really, really pathetic, your life, oldstyle. You get so impressed with anyone who does not have a pathetic life like yours. And you attack, because of your insecurity and your pathetic jealousy. But you have your chance, oldstyle. Put your money where your pointy little head is, and come on out. Hell, I am paying your way. But you will not, of course, because you know you will pay me if you show up.

Pathetic, oldstyle, you are pathetic. And you ask why we laugh at you.

laugh?? If he's wrong about anything of substance please point it out for the whole world to see or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Rshermr]

Since your friend is an incredibly intelligent PhD in Economics and I'm a lowly "dishwasher"...he should be able to mop the floor with me in a discussion about economics...correct? Since your friend finds my responses so amusing then he should REALLY enjoy taking me to school here on the message board...right, little buddy? So tell him to log his learned butt on and put me in my place! I'm guessing that you're going to come up with a quick excuse why THAT won't be happening. Why? Because your friend is about as believable as you teaching college courses as an undergrad.

Oldstyle, me delusional con tool. You believe that you have won some argument related to the subject of this thread. You have not, of course. You loose every single time. Always.

there are PHD's in economics that post on this site. Mostly in the Economics area, as one would expect. None wants to argue politics with you. It is kind of like putting a little league pitcher on the mound against a major league home run champ. And, if you were wondering, you would be the little league pitcher out there on the mound. It would not be fair to you, and it would bore the shit out of them. So, why the hell would you ask why my friend would want to argue economics with a dish washer? tends to show you are delusional, dipshit.

So after we get done addressing your lie, maybe you would like to bring one of your "wins" forward. Should be amusing.

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD in economics won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! Why should anyone believe you, Rshermr?

Oldstyle. You are delusional. Why would he want to discuss anything related to economics with a dishwasher who can not understand a really simple statement. And who keeps asking the same thing, time after time, totaling over 10 times. And who can not put together a simple question if he is unable to get the statement. And then, he of course, realizes that the dish washer is playing games. Why, oldstyle, is he not discussing economics with you? You really ask that? Probably for the same reason that those posting normally in this site, that do have PHD's, never bother to discus economics with you. And why I am done with you, Oldstyle. Because you are dishonest. You lie with no compundtion. And play silly games. And you are very, very immature. So, any other questions, Oldstyle.

And, relative to your questioning my simple statement about having a friend with an econ PHD. Which is, of course, simply another dodge. Because you do not want to discuss your lies. But what is pathetic about you is that you say I am lying, and I give you the opportunity to make $10K if I can not produce my freind. And you know you are caught again. So you ignore the wager. Which is no surprise, oldstyle, because you really know I am not lying and you do not want to lose the bucks. Pathetic, oldstyle. If I beleived something as much as you say you do, and I had the offer I made to you, I would be on the plane. Cmon, oldstyle. What is your problem. No balls, old boy??

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oldstyle, me delusional con tool. You believe that you have won some argument related to the subject of this thread. You have not, of course. You loose every single time. Always.

there are PHD's in economics that post on this site. Mostly in the Economics area, as one would expect. None wants to argue politics with you. It is kind of like putting a little league pitcher on the mound against a major league home run champ. And, if you were wondering, you would be the little league pitcher out there on the mound. It would not be fair to you, and it would bore the shit out of them. So, why the hell would you ask why my friend would want to argue economics with a dish washer? tends to show you are delusional, dipshit.

So after we get done addressing your lie, maybe you would like to bring one of your "wins" forward. Should be amusing.

Ah, so your "friend" with the PhD in economics won't be showing up? LOL What a shock! Why should anyone believe you, Rshermr?

AH, oldstyle. Back to washing dishes. Your punctuation help is not needed. Because, you see, this is not a formal letter. If you are having problems understanding the statement, let me know and I will school you. dipshit.

You see, oldstyle, not everyone takes the time that you have to check every word and all of your punctuation. I know, and knew when I typed the paragraph, that the K should be properly punctuated. But, you stupid clown, the paragraph was not about capitalization. It was about your inability to understand anything. But you understand, oldstyle, you are simply playing games. And you lied, 15 times, on this single thread. And you are caught. But you try to just keep on keeping on. dipshit. No integrity.

of course as a conservative he beat you badly which explains why you're so pissed off. I love it!!

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle makes the following statement?

What your posts "show" is that you have consistently dodged my question.

You lie, oldstyle. Again. Lets take this question from you, and my answer, and see what it is that you are trying to do, oldstyle.

In Post 405, you said:

Desperate? LOL I keep asking you to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in a bad economy and you keep on dodging the question with the same nonsense you pulled from your progressive sites.

I responded:

I pulled nothing from any site, oldstyle, except the link in the last post that backed what I said. dipshit. And I have answered your question, ad nauseumm. You see unable to understand the Kings English. I have said, over and over, multiple economic theories support what I am saying. It is called stimulus spending, oldstyle. You are fixated on the tax increases, because that is not what the theories are about. Tax increases, me boy, are one way to generate revenue needed for stimulus spending. If, on the very unlikely event, you have the money sitting around you do not need to increase taxes. Then, oldstyle, as I have also said multiple times, if you do not have the revenue available, and you do not wish to raise taxes, you COULD borrow. Up to you, oldstyle, either pay as you go with taxes, or borrow and directly increase the national debt.

Could not be clearer, dipshit. What is your problem, me boy. Just game playing. And trying to avoid the obvious. You are lying.

Then Oldstyle says:

What your posts "show" is that you have consistently dodged my question.

Sorry, Oldstyle. What your post says is that you are playing games. Or, you are just plain but stupid. You see, oldstyle, people who disagree with a statement argue the statement. You never argued it, but rather just kept asking the same question again and again.

Then Oldstyle says:

It's obvious at this point that you don't have a viable answer because there IS no school of economics that advocates tax raises in a weak economy and tax cuts in a strong one. An honest person would admit that. You however have tried to salvage an untenable situation by changing the topic of conversation. Instead of simply showing an economic school that does advocate tax increases in a weak economy you want to change the topic to "stimulus" all the while accusing me of trying to change the subject...which is laughable.

And of course, I am not changing the subject. I have been consistently telling you the same thing. Nice try, Oldstyle. But another lie from Oldstyle. Who IS trying to change the subject.

You have asked the same question over 10 times, gotten consistent answers, and you have never questioned the answers. Then you say you wanted to hear that there were no economic theories that suggested raising taxes in a bad economy. And that I never said that.

Lets see, Oldstyle, if we can find you lying again:

So, oldstyle asks:

Only a complete idiot thinks that tax increases somehow stimulate an economy..

I responded:

We have discussed this multiple times. And you are now ignoring it again. No one believes in raising taxes to directly stimulate an economy. You know that. The issue is the stimulative spending that the raised taxes pay for.

So, there it is, Oldstyle, in black and white. So, you WERE lying. And you are caught again.

And there are other posts, several in fact, that say the same thing. If you are suggesting that I check out over 100 economic theories, to find if one of them suggests raising taxes in a bad economy, then that would be further proof that you are delusional. What I told you is that it makes no difference. Because, as you fully understand, and as you were told over and over, the subject is stimulus. Which, my con tool, is also the subject of the thread. And it is what you are trying to avoie. By playing games and lying.