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

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, trying to prove that he is a congenital idiot, says:

And the absurdity of your claim that I try to change the subject

Absurdity. Right. Like wanting to ask about the subject of taxation in a bad economy. When it has been asked by you 12 times and more, clearly. And you just keep on asking the same question.

About you saying that I am lying about my friend who has a PHD in econ, when you have NO proof, at least 8 times so far. And not being willing to take the wager that would prove the truth of my statement. Really, oldstyle??

Or the at least 25 times that you posted questioning whether I taught an econ class. Even after I agreed to explain it to you, and did. But you have NO integrity. You just keep going on. Saying that I am lying. With no proof.

Ot the times you have stated that I do not have a degree in econ. Though I have given you the opportunity to find out. All with no evidence on your side, Oldstyle.

Need more cases of changing the subject. I could show more. But why bother.

You are a game player. Your ability to argue economics basically equals your ability to post conservative dogma. So you simply change the subject when you are proven wrong. And attack. Kind of like every known conservative argues.

Absurdity, in this case, is you saying the charge is absurd. All you need do is look at what we are talking about now. Your bs again.

while at the same time whining that I've asked the same question 12 times is breathtaking.

Funny, oldstyle. I do not whine. Ever. Just pointing out one of your lies that you told over 12 times.

The person who has desperately sought to change the subject would be the same person who needs to embellish his resume. All I've ever done is seek a straight answer to a simple question. And your claim that I never questioned your answers? LOL I laughed at each and every one of those "answers", "Tommy" because none of them ever provided the name of a school of ecnomics that advocated tax raises in a weak economy.

Right, oldstyle. Nice try. Lets see that list of your questions, and the answers you say you were laughing at.

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.

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.

 

[Rshermr]

The fact is...THERE IS NO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS THAT ADVOCATES RAISING TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY...which brings us full circle to you having to explain why it is that we just DID raise taxes in a bad economy.

seem like we've all enjoyed watching Rushermer dodge this issue for weeks now!! He has all the time in the world for personal attack but will never be substantive? We all know what that says about liberalism.

And Oldstyle, being caught up in his lies, enlists the help again, as he does over and over, of the known mentally ill Ed. Put the IQ of these two together, and you get almost a normal IQ. Cumulatively, of course. Funny.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah yes...your valuable "time"...would that be the very same time that you seem to have no problem wasting here cutting and pasting post after post that simply shows that you never did have an answer to the question I was asking? Too funny...

Now, I am really surprised that you would have a problem of cutting and pasting your LIES, oldstyle Funny, you get caught, you attack. Because, me boy, you do not have the integrity to admit that you are lying. You just continue lying, and attacking. Typical, oldstyle, of someone who can not support what they are doing. Which is playing games.

Attacking, and posting cute little videos. That would be you, oldstyle. Because you can not tell anyone why you posted the same question over 12 times. And I answered it over 12 times.

There is a way to prove that you're not full of shit, Rshermr. Put your imaginary friend on and him and I will talk a little economics. Should be easy for him to do because he's got a PhD in the subject...right? I don't think that will ever happen though because I think you made him up and the only person left to talk economics would be you pretending to be him and between you and me, Little Buddy? You don't have the chops to pull off pretending to be an authority on economics because you don't even know the basics.

Which would be Oldstyle, who is unable to put up and make some money. Putting my buddy on the web would prove nothing. And you are REALLY Delusional if you believe that you have the knowledge to discuss economics, me poor little con tool. You may be able to tell him something about washing dishes, but he is not interested in you at all. You are totally insignificant. You simply do not know it. Because you are stupid. So, why are the PHD's In economics that do post to the economics section of this site not discuss things with you , Oldstyle. Let me give you a quick news flash. Because you are now well known as a joke. Nice going Oldstyle. Bye bye.

Putting your imaginary friend on the web would prove he exists...which at this point is very much in doubt. Your excuses as to why that won't happen ring hollow. I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor...ie that the simplest explanation is usually correct. In this case the simplest explanation as to why your friend won't be showing his face here to debate economics is that he doesn't exist.

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean what do you do when you've created a imaginary person who's supposedly an authority on a subject and supports your contentions...if whoever you're debating wants to HEAR from that person? You can't very well pretend to be that person because you've already proclaimed them to be an expert on the subject of economics and if you're like Rshermr and don't even know the basics of economic theory, it's going to be obvious that you're a fraud.

So what do you do? You come up with lots of reasons why your so called expert can't "answer the bell". Which is exactly what Rshermr did. Predictable as always...

 

[Rshermr]

Ah yes...your valuable "time"...would that be the very same time that you seem to have no problem wasting here cutting and pasting post after post that simply shows that you never did have an answer to the question I was asking? Too funny...

Now, I am really surprised that you would have a problem of cutting and pasting your LIES, oldstyle Funny, you get caught, you attack. Because, me boy, you do not have the integrity to admit that you are lying. You just continue lying, and attacking. Typical, oldstyle, of someone who can not support what they are doing. Which is playing games.

Attacking, and posting cute little videos. That would be you, oldstyle. Because you can not tell anyone why you posted the same question over 12 times. And I answered it over 12 times.

There is a way to prove that you're not full of shit, Rshermr. Put your imaginary friend on and him and I will talk a little economics. Should be easy for him to do because he's got a PhD in the subject...right? I don't think that will ever happen though because I think you made him up and the only person left to talk economics would be you pretending to be him and between you and me, Little Buddy? You don't have the chops to pull off pretending to be an authority on economics because you don't even know the basics.

Which would be Oldstyle, who is unable to put up the money to make some money. Putting my buddy on the web would prove nothing. And you are REALLY Delusional if you believe that you have the knowledge to discuss economics, me poor little con tool. You may be able to tell him something about washing dishes, but he is not interested in you at all. You are totally insignificant. You simply do not know it. Because you are stupid. So, why are the PHD's In economics that do post to the economics section of this site not discuss things with you , Oldstyle. Let me give you a quick news flash. Because you are now well known as a joke. Nice going Oldstyle. Bye bye.

Putting your imaginary friend on the web would prove he exists...which at this point is very much in doubt. Your excuses as to why that won't happen ring hollow. I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor...ie that the simplest explanation is usually correct. In this case the simplest explanation as to why your friend won't be showing his face here to debate economics is that he doesn't exist.

Sorry, Oldstyle. Putting him on the Web would prove nothing. hell, i could log in down the street from another PC, set up an ID, and say anything if I wanted. Hell, you may be doing that already. so, dipshit. Put up the money, tell me how you want to verify his diploma, and away we go. But first, me con tool, put up the $10K for the wager. Because I am not playing your little games for nothing. And you need to learn to not call people liars without proof. Asshole.

And here you are again. Calling me a liar. Not addressing my last quote, that PROVED you have been lying. And playing your little immature games.

I guess that is all you have to do when you are a small person, eh oldstyle. Lie and play your immature little games. A big person would not question something that he did not fervently believe was untrue. And, offered a chance to make a quick $10K, he would be in immediately. Because, you see, big people have integrity. Little people, like you, have none. Just big mouths.

 

[Rshermr]

I mean what do you do when you've created a imaginary person who's supposedly an authority on a subject and supports your contentions...if whoever you're debating wants to HEAR from that person? You can't very well pretend to be that person because you've already proclaimed them to be an expert on the subject of economics and if you're like Rshermr and don't even know the basics of economic theory, it's going to be obvious that you're a fraud.

So what do you do? You come up with lots of reasons why your so called expert can't "answer the bell". Which is exactly what Rshermr did. Predictable as always...

See above, my last post before responding to this latest piece of bs. Really, oldstyle, I am sure you can not find a PHD in econ who would want to play your games. You are truly delusional.

But, oldstyle, what is TOTAL proof of your game playing is your lack of interest in putting your money where your mouth is. Just a bullshit artist, Oldstyle. That is all you are.

Now, I noticed that you ignored your 12 lies. That is what we will talk about next. You need to prove you were not lying, over 12 times. Because, Oldstyle, as you should well know as a liar, no one can believe anything once you have proven yourself a liar.

 

[Oldstyle]

Now, I am really surprised that you would have a problem of cutting and pasting your LIES, oldstyle Funny, you get caught, you attack. Because, me boy, you do not have the integrity to admit that you are lying. You just continue lying, and attacking. Typical, oldstyle, of someone who can not support what they are doing. Which is playing games.

Attacking, and posting cute little videos. That would be you, oldstyle. Because you can not tell anyone why you posted the same question over 12 times. And I answered it over 12 times.



Which would be Oldstyle, who is unable to put up the money to make some money. Putting my buddy on the web would prove nothing. And you are REALLY Delusional if you believe that you have the knowledge to discuss economics, me poor little con tool. You may be able to tell him something about washing dishes, but he is not interested in you at all. You are totally insignificant. You simply do not know it. Because you are stupid. So, why are the PHD's In economics that do post to the economics section of this site not discuss things with you , Oldstyle. Let me give you a quick news flash. Because you are now well known as a joke. Nice going Oldstyle. Bye bye.

Putting your imaginary friend on the web would prove he exists...which at this point is very much in doubt. Your excuses as to why that won't happen ring hollow. I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor...ie that the simplest explanation is usually correct. In this case the simplest explanation as to why your friend won't be showing his face here to debate economics is that he doesn't exist.

Sorry, Oldstyle. Putting him on the Web would prove nothing. hell, i could log in down the street from another PC, set up an ID, and say anything if I wanted. Hell, you may be doing that already. so, dipshit. Put up the money, tell me how you want to verify his diploma, and away we go. But first, me con tool, put up the $10K for the wager. Because I am not playing your little games for nothing. And you need to learn to not call people liars without proof. Asshole.

And here you are again. Calling me a liar. Not addressing my last quote, that PROVED you have been lying. And playing your little immature games.

I guess that is all you have to do when you are a small person, eh oldstyle. Lie and play your immature little games. A big person would not question something that he did not fervently believe was untrue. And, offered a chance to make a quick $10K, he would be in immediately. Because, you see, big people have integrity. Little people, like you, have none. Just big mouths.

Only one thing wrong with your plan, genius! You can log in, set up an ID but it's still YOU and YOU don't know squat about economics. How are YOU going to impersonate someone with a PhD in the subject?

 

[Rshermr]

Putting your imaginary friend on the web would prove he exists...which at this point is very much in doubt. Your excuses as to why that won't happen ring hollow. I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor...ie that the simplest explanation is usually correct. In this case the simplest explanation as to why your friend won't be showing his face here to debate economics is that he doesn't exist.

Sorry, Oldstyle. Putting him on the Web would prove nothing. hell, i could log in down the street from another PC, set up an ID, and say anything if I wanted. Hell, you may be doing that already. so, dipshit. Put up the money, tell me how you want to verify his diploma, and away we go. But first, me con tool, put up the $10K for the wager. Because I am not playing your little games for nothing. And you need to learn to not call people liars without proof. Asshole.

And here you are again. Calling me a liar. Not addressing my last quote, that PROVED you have been lying. And playing your little immature games.

I guess that is all you have to do when you are a small person, eh oldstyle. Lie and play your immature little games. A big person would not question something that he did not fervently believe was untrue. And, offered a chance to make a quick $10K, he would be in immediately. Because, you see, big people have integrity. Little people, like you, have none. Just big mouths.

Only one thing wrong with your plan, genius! You can log in, set up an ID but it's still YOU and YOU don't know squat about economics. How are YOU going to impersonate someone with a PhD in the subject?

Let me understand this. The guy, who said he had a degree in history. But who many years later goes to work as a dish washer, and is so important that his boss lets him play on the internet. And claims as his other brother, ED. But who is caught lying. Wants to make a statement about who understands economics. And believes that anyone thinks he is not delusional But can not address why he asked the same question over and over and over. Again, Oldstyle, want to address the following and tell us why you never questioned my answer, until caught. Here you go, the list again, that you run from knowing you are exposed as a lying piece of shit. That you are able to live with yourself proves you lack any class and that you have zero integrity.

Right, oldstyle. Nice try. Lets see that list of your questions, and the answers you say you never questioned. Because the answers were clear to any rational person, oldstyle.

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.

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]

What your repeated cut & pastes show is someone who has portrayed themselves as schooled in economics yet can't answer a rather simple question on the subject...someone who's SO ignorant about economics that they thought I was referring to physical colleges and universities when I asked you to name a school of economics.

You're a sad little man who needs to embellish who he is in order to try and not lose an argument on an internet chat site. Not content to just embarrass yourself with the whole "I taught college economics as an undergraduate" thing you decided to invent a friend who has a PhD in the subject...who agrees totally with you...but can't take the time out of his busy schedule to post here.

You're a joke...and nothing illustrates it more than your $10,000 wager.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is...THERE IS NO SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS THAT ADVOCATES RAISING TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY...which brings us full circle to you having to explain why it is that we just DID raise taxes in a bad economy.

seem like we've all enjoyed watching Rushermer dodge this issue for weeks now!! He has all the time in the world for personal attack but will never be substantive? We all know what that says about liberalism.

And Oldstyle, being caught up in his lies, enlists the help again, as he does over and over, of the known mentally ill Ed. Put the IQ of these two together, and you get almost a normal IQ. Cumulatively, of course. Funny.

seems like we've all enjoyed watching Rushermer dodge this issue for weeks now!! Why cant the liberal explain how taxing an economy or bleeding a man will help them thrive?????????


He has all the time in the world for personal attack but none for substance?

He is the perfect advertisement for liberalism.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's less about his being a liberal, Ed and more about his being insecure. People like Rshermr make up stuff like teaching college courses because they feel it will earn them "respect". In reality it usually earns them ridicule when they are exposed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's less about his being a liberal, Ed and more about his being insecure. People like Rshermr make up stuff like teaching college courses because they feel it will earn them "respect". In reality it usually earns them ridicule when they are exposed.

Well, I'd say you get a powerful brainwashing feeling from the dominate liberal culture which says to you that liberalism is morally and intellectually superior. Don't forget human beings have a profound herd instinct so this is no surprise.

Its only years later when you try to defend the ideas in writing that you see how idiotic they are, but by then you are deeply and emotionally committed to them and your own moral and intellectual superiority.

The more you realize this the angrier, defensive, and insecure you become, or so it seems to me.

I think he's making slow painful progress. I doubt he'll claim again that The Times is an objective paper, that taxing an economy is good for it, or that the Reagan administration was a perfect single variable experiment demonstrating the superiority of liberalism.

What do you think?

 

[Rshermr]

It's less about his being a liberal, Ed and more about his being insecure. People like Rshermr make up stuff like teaching college courses because they feel it will earn them "respect". In reality it usually earns them ridicule when they are exposed.

Come on, Oldstyle. Are you not going to address your list of lies.

If you think I am lying, bring some proof, me boy. But of course you can not. Because I never lie. Which makes your claim that I have been exposed untrue. And which leaves you to make charges that you can not prove. Funny how that works, Oldstyle.

You are a lying piece of crap who is incapable of addressing your own lies. Sad.

So, now that we know you are a liar, why would anyone want to discuss anything with you. Because you will simply lie again and play silly immature games. Sad.

So you have asked Ed to help in your attack. Again. Which you have done now several times. Which makes you like Ed. I thought at one time you had some substance, and maybe some integrity. We now understand that you do not. Simply another ED. Another person who has no compunction about lying. Just another little person, no honesty. No integrity. Must be a sad existence, making attacks you can not prove and avoiding your own lies. And playing juvenile games.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's less about his being a liberal, Ed and more about his being insecure. People like Rshermr make up stuff like teaching college courses because they feel it will earn them "respect". In reality it usually earns them ridicule when they are exposed.

Well, I'd say you get a powerful brainwashing feeling from the dominate liberal culture which says to you that liberalism is morally and intellectually superior. Don't forget human beings have a profound herd instinct so this is no surprise.

Its only years later when you try to defend the ideas in writing that you see how idiotic they are, but by then you are deeply and emotionally committed to them and your own moral and intellectual superiority.

The more you realize this the angrier, defensive, and insecure you become, or so it seems to me.

I think he's making slow painful progress. I doubt he'll claim again that The Times is an objective paper, that taxing an economy is good for it, or that the Reagan administration was a perfect single variable experiment demonstrating the superiority of liberalism.

What do you think?

Rshermr takes his cues from far left leaning web sites...so for him The New York Times isn't liberally slanted...taxes in a weak economy will lead to growth...and Reagan was a tax raiser.

The problem, our "Tommy" runs into is when he's challenged on those views. My question to him about what school of economics it is that advocates tax increases in a weak economy threw him for a loop because his usual Google search didn't turn up ANYTHING which means he's screwed. In case you didn't notice, Rshermr was forced to admit that nobody thinks raising taxes in a weak economy is a good thing...yet it's always been his premise THAT'S what we should do because it worked during the Clinton Administration. When I pointed out that Clinton actually dropped the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% before he ran those three budget surpluses in a row, our little liberal lemming didn't know WHAT to do. I mean...Clinton's tax rates are the holy grail of liberal economics these days...because they supposedly make the point that an economy can flourish if you raise taxes. So if a tax cut of 8% to the very thing that progressives are now raising, along with budget cuts by a GOP controlled House precipitated the best fiscal numbers for the Clinton White House...then his whole argument is shown to be baseless.

At that point it's not unexpected that Rshermr would launch a barrage of insults...the whole "dishwasher" thing is a perfect example. But what else has he got? He can't argue his position because he can't back up his contentions with facts.

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr takes his cues from far left leaning web sites...so for him The New York Times isn't liberally slanted

...
Right. I never said that, oldstyle. Lying again. What I said is that it is a viable and generally truth led source, not an agenda led source. And, that to a con tool like you, any source to the left of FOX is questionable. Me poor, ignorant con tool.
So, there is your first lie in this post.

taxes in a weak economy will lead to growth

So, there are 12 times when Oldstyle has posed this question, as to who says taxes lead to a good economy. I have in all cases, said that it is NOT taxes, but that taxes provide the revenue for Stimulus Spending, which in a high unemployment economy will lead to improved employment numbers.
So, lie number 2 in this post.

Reagan was a tax raiser

.

What I said, and what i proved to oldstyle, is that Reagan raised taxes 11 times after unemployment hit 10.8% in 1982. And that at those times, he raised taxes. Proved it with government numbers, and with statements by those in his own administration. Now, what oldstyle is trying to say is that I said that reagan was, overall, a tax raiser. Which I never said.

Lie number 3 in this post.

The problem, our "Tommy"

Now, Oldstyle, my name for this site is RSHERMR. Not Tommy. So you are playing games. Tacky.
And you will find Oldstyle continually interspersing personal attacks. Part of his game playing.

My question to him about what school of economics it is that advocates tax increases in a weak economy threw him for a loop because his usual Google search didn't turn up ANYTHING which means he's screwed. In case you didn't notice, Rshermr was forced to admit that nobody thinks raising taxes in a weak economy is a good thing...yet it's always been his premise THAT'S what we should do because it worked during the Clinton Administration.

But, of course, I did not lie. I never said any school of economic thought taught raising taxes during a bad economy. But I did say, 12 times, that the issue had nothing to do with raising taxes, but that it had to do with stimulus spending, and that raising taxes was simply one way of raising revenue for stimulus spending. I laid out those times in post 608. Actual copies with post numbers of each time he asked that question and I answered it.
So, lie number 4.
And a second case of playing games.

When I pointed out that Clinton actually dropped the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% before he ran those three budget surpluses in a row, our little liberal lemming didn't know WHAT to do.

Lemming, eh. Another personal attack. More game playing. Tacky.

I mean...Clinton's tax rates are the holy grail of liberal economics these days...because they supposedly make the point that an economy can flourish if you raise taxes. So if a tax cut of 8% to the very thing that progressives are now raising, along with budget cuts by a GOP controlled House precipitated the best fiscal numbers for the Clinton White House...then his whole argument is shown to be baseless.

So, the argument is that the clinton economy improved, as unemployment rates show, as a result of a tax decrease in 1983. So, what Oldstyle is trying to say is that the economy was better because the tax rate went down by 8%. But ONLY the capital gains tax rates went down. And not until unemployment rates were very low. As I showed oldstyle by providing the unemployment rates for 1997, when the capital gains tax was reduced. And, as I have always said, this is about what do do in a bad employment economy. Not in a good employment economy.
So lie number 5.

So, another post, another set of lies. Five subjects, and 5 lies. Perfect score, oldstyle.

And, oldstyle gets so upset when he is called a liar. But he lies.
Over and over and over and over. And plays games, over and over and over and over. Juvinile little games.

Do you ever, ever have the ability to use truth in your arguments, oldstyle? I know you say you are not a con tool, but the only place, and I mean the ONLY place, that you can find your claims is in bat shit crazy con tool web sites. Must be just a coincidence.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah yes...everyone lies but Rshermr...even though he claims to have a degree in Economics while not knowing what a school of economics refers to! Everyone who disagrees with him is a "con tool" and gets everything they post comes from "bat shit crazy con tool web sites" while his posts are from unbiased sources such as The New York Times! Anyone who simply points out how absurd his claims are is being "tacky" and making "personal attacks" but it's perfectly fine for him to call people "dip shit".

All the bluster...all the hissy fits that Rshermr throws? They're his response to getting caught embellishing who he is with outlandish claims like teaching college courses in Economics as an undergraduate when he can't even hold an intelligent conversation on economics here. His imaginary friend with the PhD in economics? His $10,000 wager? They're the usual responses of someone who's been caught in a lie and doesn't want to admit it.

 

[Rshermr]

So, the other thing thatOldstyle likes to do is attack, and waste time talking about things not having to do with the subject of the thread. Because he can not successfully argue his agenda. And it is indeed agenda. So, lets look at this last post:

Ah yes...everyone lies but Rshermr..

.
Not everyone, oldstyle. Not at all. But you lie, over and over and over.

even though he claims to have a degree in Economics while not knowing what a school of economics refers to!

I do have a degree in economics. And I do know what a school of economics is. Lying again, oldstyle.

Everyone who disagrees with him is a "con tool" and gets everything they post comes from "bat shit crazy con tool web sites"

Another lie, oldstyle. Many people disagree with me on a variety of things. They may actually use rational thought and proveable statements. but you, oldstyle, are a con tool. Either that, or your statements just happen to ALWAYS be the same as those found typically only on such sites.

while his posts are from unbiased sources such as The New York Times!

Well, me boy, smart people know that the great news papers make every effort at being unbiased. That is as opposed to the con sites you always agree with, and the far left sites, like move on, which I would never ever use. Also, oldstyle, smart people, and people with integrity, know that you impartial sites do have opinion pieces that may be slanted. Which makes it necessary to vet who the source is that is writing the opinion piece.

All the bluster...all the hissy fits that Rshermr throws?

No bluster. No hissy fits. Odd that you do not recognize what almost everyone does. Which is that no one likes liars. Or game players. And your previous post was full of both.

They're his response to getting caught embellishing who he is with outlandish claims like teaching college courses in Economics as an undergraduate when he can't even hold an intelligent conversation on economics here. His imaginary friend with the PhD in economics? His $10,000 wager? They're the usual responses of someone who's been caught in a lie and doesn't want to admit it

.

Oldstyle is funny, sometimes. He does not want anyone to believe that I have a friend with an Economics PHD. Apparently, he thinks that the tens of thousands of such people have no friends. Rather an odd belief. And though I satisfied his questioning of my having worked with a professor to teach part of his divided introduction to econ class over 45 years ago, and though he said he would lay off of the issue once I explained it, oldstyle just keeps on. But I never, ever lie when posting on this site. Never. So, since he can not catch me in a lie, and because I catch him over and over and over, he has to make something up. Oldstyle so wants to be able to say that I lie, too. Sorry about that, Oldstyle, it will not happen because I do not lie.
Now, the $10K wager is simply a way for Oldstyle to prove his statements, one being that I do not have an econ degree, and the other that I do not have a friend with a phd in econ. But oldstyle, knowing that I do not lie, is not willing to take the wager. Because he knows, as usual, that he is simply attacking me personally, and has NO WAY TO WIN THE BET. Because the wager is based on hard proof, and Oldstyle knows he will loose. Big mouth, Oldstyle, but no integrity. So he goes back to his dish washing job, and feels jealous. Must be a really small life.

So, there are people with integrity, and those who have NO integrity. Those with integrity make what they believe to be true arguments, and admit if they are proven wrong. Because to them truth is the bottom line.
Those without integrity make claims based on agenda, and NEVER admit that they have been proven wrong. Instead, they just change the subject, use personal attacks, play games, and waste peoples time. Because to them agenda is the bottom line. Truth is of absolutely no importance.
And Oldstyle has shown himself to have NO INTEGRITY. Sad existence.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Those without integrity make claims based on agenda, and NEVER admit that they have been proven wrong. Instead, they just change the subject, use personal attacks, play games, and waste peoples time. Because to them agenda is the bottom line. Truth is of absolutely no importance."

I hate to break this to you, "Tommy" but you've just described yourself to a T!

You made the claim that tax increases in a weak economy was sound fiscal policy (which of course is the current and completely misguided progressive agenda) and when it was pointed out to you that although Reagan DID raise taxes on 11 different things over an eight year period he lowered both the overall tax rate and the capital gains tax...and that Clinton actually dropped the capital gains tax down from 28% to 20% AND cut spending prior to his running 3 consecutive budget surpluses...you then responded by stating that taxes didn't matter one way or the other because what was REALLY important was stimulus spending! That's changing the subject little buddy. As for personal attacks? Your pathetic attempts to denigrate what I've chosen as a career...food and beverage management by referring to me as a "dishwasher" and your repeated crude insults (dip shit?) don't seem to register in your little brain as a personal attack. But what else is new? You tell lies like nobody else I've seen on this board...get caught at them continuously...and come right back for more.

 

[Oldstyle]

And if you REALLY believe that The New York Times makes "every effort at being unbiased" then you're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

Anyone who's head isn't firmly planted in their posterior would admit that The New York Times is fully as biased to the liberal perspective as the Wall Street Journal is biased to a conservative perspective. But you can't do that, Rshermr...because progressives like yourself LOVE to quote the Times and CALL it unbiased.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And if you REALLY believe that The New York Times makes "every effort at being unbiased" then you're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

Anyone who's head isn't firmly planted in their posterior would admit that The New York Times is fully as biased to the liberal perspective as the Wall Street Journal is biased to a conservative perspective. But you can't do that, Rshermr...because progressives like yourself LOVE to quote the Times and CALL it unbiased.

Even the last two public editors claim the paper is biased. One obvious indicator is the editorial page which is about 80% liberal.