tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[Oldstyle]

Na, me poor ignorant con tool. Read above. I said recession. Get a clue.
The important thing is you said that after wwi there was an immediate roaring 20's, with no downturn. Just trying to educate you. sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding truth.

No, you said depression...

"Right. Which also explains the fact that after wwI we did so well. Oh. Yeah. We went into an immediate depression."

Sound familiar? Doh!!!!!

Maybe I used the wrong word. I make mistakes. Unlike you. So, is that it, me boy. You now understand that there was a downturn prior to the Roaring 20's. Good.
Again, see how refreshing it is to admit that you were wrong.

Maybe? Try DEFINITELY!!! You make mistakes constantly, you asshat! It's a good thing that I'm here to correct you or people might start to believe the horseshit that you post here!

Once again...I never said there wasn't a downturn...what I said was there was no depression in 1920. As usual, I'm right and you're wrong. Now did you want to address how the recession in 1920 was dealt with? How fast it rebounded from doing nothing but cutting government spending?

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...I use the site that YOU provided to disprove YOUR contention and you accuse me of relying on FOX News? God, but you're a joke!

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...I use the site that YOU provided to disprove YOUR contention and you accuse me of relying on FOX News? God, but you're a joke!

What contention did you think you disproved, me poor ignorant con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, an economics expert in his own mind, says:

Unemployment went up because Reagan was facing the Stagflation that Carter left him. His solution was to tighten up the money supply first to bring down inflation and then to attack unemployment with tax cuts. Raising interest rates will cause unemployment rates to increase. Reagan understood that yet felt it needed to be done. That's called political courage and leadership.

Uh, you should check your history, me boy. Yup, indeed, interest rates were a problem. But it is not a president, but the FED, that raises interest rates. That would have been Paul Volcker. The guy the reagan got fired later in his administration. Now, the problem was, while interest rates were very high, that had happened during the later stages of the Carter administration. And the unemployment rates had begun decreasing by 1980. They went up like a rocket AFTER reagan's tax administration did their famous tax decreases with accompanying spending decreases during his first couple of years. So, me boy, perhaps you should suggest that Volcker had the courage and leadership.
w

Your claim that Reagan raised taxes is technically correct...he did raise a number of taxes...but overall Reagan was a tax cutter. You'd know that if you were looking at the actual numbers rather than culling your "misinformation" from progressive leaning web sites that make bashing Ronald Reagan a cottage industry.

Me poor ignorant con. I did not say reagan was a tax increaser. That is what you are saying that I said. Really, you need to be honest occasionally. However, it is true, as I have proven to you before, that reagan did increase taxes 11 times. And he borrowed more than all presidents before him combined. Remember, he increased the national debt more than all presidents before him combined. All of which is not important except that it allowed him to spend stimulatively. Again, me boy, simple easily provable fact.

The problem you have with my sources, me boy, is that to you anything short of fox is progressive leaning in your little mind. The numbers are mostly from the bls. Sorry, me boy. And, of course, that your statements are simply unsupported statements of opinion.

Perhaps you have sources that are that impartial suggesting that my links are wrong??? Of course you don't.

So you admit that Reagan lowered taxes? So what is all your bluster about his increasing taxes 11 times? Oh, that's right...you're attempting to mislead people about what really took place during Reagan's two terms! So why are you doing that? Oh, that's right...you don't want to admit that what Reagan DID actually worked.

No bluster at all, me boy. Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed more than all presidents before him combined. Now that, me boy, is simply fact. Calling it bluster is just you being a dipshit. And there is no need for anyone to admit that he lowered taxes more than he increased them. I certainly never said that he did not. That is simply you trying to put words into my mouth. Sorry, the reason you can not find where I said anything like that is that you are making it up, me boy.
You are quite comical. I know of no president that deserves the hero worship that you have for ronnie. What Reagan's economic team did actually depended upon the economy at the time. What happened during the good years was great for the wealthy, not so great for the middle class. We have seen the middle class decline constantly since reagan was in office. But what he did when the economy was not good, as in high unemployment, simply made it worse. Much worse. Which he and his economic team soon understood. So, reducing spending via reducing taxes during times of high unemployment was a stupid idea. Sorry, it is simple history.

Now if you are saying that at later times, lowering taxes may have been a good thing, that was also true, during times when unemployment was LOW. Simple fact. But, oldstyle, what you fail to understand is that lowering or raising taxes is not good in any measure. Try to think of it as taking aspirin. Three or four may be a good idea. A bottle or two is not so good. Aspirin kills humans, tax decreases or increases in the wrong time or at any time in the wrong amount kills the economy. So, yup, tax decreases during good economic times were good to a point, but that final big tax decrease during his regime was too many aspirin. And it Killed the next presidents economy. Poor old bush1 lost an election as a result. As he said, voodoo economics makes no sense.
So, you are trying to make an argument for what, me boy? That he utilized stimulus spending after creating the highest unemployment ever recorded outside of the great depression, and that worked? Good, you are correct.

And yes, reagan was not bothered that the deficit rose. Now, that is a problem for a con like you. But economists see deficits for what they are, not for what you have been led by your nose to believe. Same with the national debt. And the reagan economic team mostly understood this. After they shot themselves in the foot in the first instance, and created the unemployment rate during 1982.
As a poor ignorant con, you see the national debt as something that citizens must repay. Though you would not have a clue as to whom to write a check.
So I understand that you think stimulus spending does not work. Regan knew it did. And it worked for him.
And I understand that you think that a deficit is a bad bad thing. Reagan knew it did not matter, and he was correct.
And I understand that you think that saying that reagan tripled the national debt was a left wing attack on him. But it is not. It was simply the truth, and it occurred largely because of stimulus spending on his administrations part. Hardly a bad thing, me boy. Except in the mind of a con who has been led into that thinking by the ring through his nose. Looks like one of those rings from the bat shit crazy con web sites.

 

[Rshermr]

No, you said depression...

"Right. Which also explains the fact that after wwI we did so well. Oh. Yeah. We went into an immediate depression."

Sound familiar? Doh!!!!!

Maybe I used the wrong word. I make mistakes. Unlike you. So, is that it, me boy. You now understand that there was a downturn prior to the Roaring 20's. Good.
Again, see how refreshing it is to admit that you were wrong.

Maybe? Try DEFINITELY!!! You make mistakes constantly, you asshat! It's a good thing that I'm here to correct you or people might start to believe the horseshit that you post here!

Once again...I never said there wasn't a downturn...what I said was there was no depression in 1920. As usual, I'm right and you're wrong. Now did you want to address how the recession in 1920 was dealt with? How fast it rebounded from doing nothing but cutting government spending?

You are really comical, me boy. Anger like yours is simply another part of the mental problem that you have. You like anger, don't you oldstyle. Makes you feel soooo good. But it is expected. That is what all the studies show. Cons typically look for the chance to be angry. And always at something that they can make up. Because as a con tool, that is what you do. Get angry over a single misspoken word and ignore the issue at question.
You are getting boring as usual. And your attacks are way too stupid to listen to. By the way, remember a day or two ago when you made the comment about libertarian governments. Remember that I reminded you that there was no such thing as a libertarian government. And oddly enough, you forget quickly when you make mistakes or are found to be wrong. funny, and lacking in integrity, me boy. See why I call you a dipshit. It should be obvious to you by now.

 

[Oldstyle]

Anger? Dude...I'M LAUGHING AT YOU!!!!

You claimed that a DEPRESSION occurred immediately following WWI and when I pointed out that you were wrong...you first denied ever saying it...and then when I produced the post where you DID...you admitted that "maybe you used the wrong word".

Why would I possibly be angry at showing you to be one of the bigger buffoons on this board?

 

[Oldstyle]

"No bluster at all, me boy. Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed more than all presidents before him combined. Now that, me boy, is simply fact. Calling it bluster is just you being a dipshit. And there is no need for anyone to admit that he lowered taxes more than he increased them. I certainly never said that he did not. That is simply you trying to put words into my mouth. Sorry, the reason you can not find where I said anything like that is that you are making it up, me boy." Rshermr

So are you admitting that you knew Reagan lowered taxes more than he increased them? It that's the case then why did you attempt to portray him a guy that raised taxes? You attempted to mislead people on this board...didn't you?

I know you have no problem playing fast and loose with the truth, Rshermr. Your claim to have taught college level economics proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt! My question is this...do you REALLY think you're not going to get called on your falsehoods? Why do you even bother telling your little "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" spiel when you know it's not an accurate portrayal of what took place during the Reagan Administration?

 

[Rshermr]

Anger? Dude...I'M LAUGHING AT YOU!!!!

You claimed that a DEPRESSION occurred immediately following WWI and when I pointed out that you were wrong...you first denied ever saying it...and then when I produced the post where you DID...you admitted that "maybe you used the wrong word".

Why would I possibly be angry at showing you to be one of the bigger buffoons on this board?

Typical. All you have is a lame attempt that when I say that I knew it was a recession, and said I made a verbal foopah, you go on trying to say that I believed it was a depression. Nice. Just like I did not try to pin on you, over and over, as I could have, that you really believed that there was such a thing as a Libertarian Government. Because I know you PROBABLY know better. And I have integrity.

You on the other hand just keep on keeping on. Because you have no integrity. **** off.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle reposts my statement:
"No bluster at all, me boy. Reagan raised taxes 11 times and borrowed more than all presidents before him combined. Now that, me boy, is simply fact. Calling it bluster is just you being a dipshit. And there is no need for anyone to admit that he lowered taxes more than he increased them. I certainly never said that he did not. That is simply you trying to put words into my mouth. Sorry, the reason you can not find where I said anything like that is that you are making it up, me boy." Rshermr

So are you admitting that you knew Reagan lowered taxes more than he increased them? It that's the case then why did you attempt to portray him a guy that raised taxes? You attempted to mislead people on this board...didn't you?

Never ever said that he raised taxes more than he lowered them. Ever. You see, oldstyle, you are simply floating a new lie. There is nothing at all untrue in what I ever said, and nothing at all misleading in what I said. Try to read what my last couple posts about the subject, answering your ignorant questions said.
You see, me poor ignorant con, there are facts in the world. And, me poor ignorant con, all you have to do is look at the documentation that exists out there. And, if you have half a brain, which apparently you do not, you would find complete proof that he did indeed lower taxes more than he raised them. Simple for anyone.
Are you saying, oldstyle, that you were incapable of finding and posting a link to that proof if you wanted to prove that he did indeed lower taxes more than he raised them???

I know you have no problem playing fast and loose with the truth, Rshermr

. Sorry, oldstyle, you lie again. I never, ever play fast and loose with the truth. You are projecting. That is your style, not mine.

Your claim to have taught college level economics proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt!

You just made that claim again, lying as you so often do. That would indicate to anyone who read it that I had responsibility for teaching an economics class. I did not. And, of course, I have proven what I said by bringing back my posts. Which you disregard and come back with the same claim. Over, and over, and over. So, since you have done so over 50 times, I have those exact exchanges, chapter and verse, and can play them back again. But you need to prove your statement. You see, you are simply lying. You know you are lying. And you know you can not prove what you just posted. Because, in short, I did not have responsibility for any economics class, Only worked for a econ proff that did, and taught part of that class under his direction.
So, do you ever tell the truth??? I think not.

Why do you even bother telling your little "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" spiel when you know it's not an accurate portrayal of what took place during the Reagan Administration?

And you say you are not a joke?? Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Easy to find the truth. Simply use google, me boy.
So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that saying that he did raise taxes 11 times, which he did, is not an accurate portrayal of the truth?? When it is true???

Here is your malfunction, me boy. You love reagan so much you are unwilling to see what you do not want to see. You have been dragged by your nose, willingly I might add, to believe exactly what the reagan history revisionists want you to believe. And you say that telling the truth about him is not an accurate portrail of what he did. See yet why you are a dipshit??

So, here is a little information for you. Too bad you are so in love with reagan. Your dedication to the gipper borders on fanaticism. But there is a world of truth out there. I am sure you are not interested, but here is a bit of information that you may find of interest. Or not:

By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.

Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Now, your hero raised taxes, and he lowered taxes. But what he was doing when he RAISED taxes was to try to pay for stimulative spending. Now, if you understood the concept of aggregate demand (which anyone with a very, very, very small amount of economics study DOES understand) then you would understand what Reagan was doing.

Or try this one:

The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

From a true RIGHT WING BAT SHIT CRAZYLIBERTARIAN WEB SITE
Sorry, me boy. That was a post from misis.org. The mouthpiece for the Austrian theory of economics. At the end or reagan's presidency. Before they got the memo about how to work on revising reagan's history.

Me boy, you need to get a grip on reality. We are all starting to worry about you. You seem unable to function in the rational world.

So, your hero raised taxes in bad economic times to finance stimulative deficit spending. He increased the size of the gov, and did not shrink government receipts from it's citizenry. All true, me boy. You may want to continue to ignore the facts, and simply disappear back into the reagan shrine you keep, and light a few more candles.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Easy to find the truth. Simply use google, me boy.
So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that saying that he did raise taxes 11 times, which he did, is not an accurate portrayal of the truth?? When it is true???"

I'm saying that anyone using that "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" as an "accurate portrayal of the truth" when they know damn well that overall Reagan cut taxes dramatically...isn't interested in the truth...they are interested in misleading people.

That would be YOU, Rshermr! You've deliberately used cherry picked statistics that you knew weren't an accurate portrayal of the truth and then you hid behind the pathetic excuse that even though you knew you were being misleading...technically you weren't lying so therefore it's "OK"?

Then you have the gall to come on here and declare how much "integrity" you have? Seriously? You've just proven how LITTLE integrity you have by how little regard you have for the truth.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Because, in short, I did not have responsibility for any economics class, Only worked for a econ proff that did, and taught part of that class under his direction."

Only you could declare that you taught economics at the college level...then turn around and state that you didn't REALLY teach economics because it wasn't to a whole class...all the while displaying such an obvious lack of knowledge about the subject that it's equally obvious that you got caught in a HUGE lie when you claimed to have taught ANYONE about economics.

Then you bluster about your honesty and integrity? LOL Rshermr...you have little of either. You're a pathetic internet poster that tried to bolster your own "resume" with a claim that's patently false. You never taught economics at the college level because if you HAD then you'd actually be able to carry on an intelligent conversation about the subject. Your attempts to walk that lie back since you told it have only made you look more pathetic than when you didn't understand basic economic terms like economic school.

You're a joke...

 

[Rshermr]

"Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Easy to find the truth. Simply use google, me boy.
So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that saying that he did raise taxes 11 times, which he did, is not an accurate portrayal of the truth?? When it is true???"

I'm saying that anyone using that "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" as an "accurate portrayal of the truth" when they know damn well that overall Reagan cut taxes dramatically...isn't interested in the truth...they are interested in misleading people.

That would be YOU, Rshermr! You've deliberately used cherry picked statistics that you knew weren't an accurate portrayal of the truth and then you hid behind the pathetic excuse that even though you knew you were being misleading...technically you weren't lying so therefore it's "OK"?

Then you have the gall to come on here and declare how much "integrity" you have? Seriously? You've just proven how LITTLE integrity you have by how little regard you have for the truth.

Integrity, me boy, is telling the truth. I said that he did raise taxes 11 times. And you admit it is true. So, what is your problem again???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Easy to find the truth. Simply use google, me boy.
So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that saying that he did raise taxes 11 times, which he did, is not an accurate portrayal of the truth?? When it is true???"

I'm saying that anyone using that "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" as an "accurate portrayal of the truth" when they know damn well that overall Reagan cut taxes dramatically...isn't interested in the truth...they are interested in misleading people.

That would be YOU, Rshermr! You've deliberately used cherry picked statistics that you knew weren't an accurate portrayal of the truth and then you hid behind the pathetic excuse that even though you knew you were being misleading...technically you weren't lying so therefore it's "OK"?

Then you have the gall to come on here and declare how much "integrity" you have? Seriously? You've just proven how LITTLE integrity you have by how little regard you have for the truth.

Integrity, me boy, is telling the truth. I said that he did raise taxes 11 times. And you admit it is true. So, what is your problem again???

Where were taxes when Reagan entered office and then when he left?

 

[Trajan]

The Reaganite legend begins with the false proposition that the Reagan Administration stopped the march of “Big Government” and brought a new fiscal restraint to Washington.

Yet after the economy had rebounded and recession-bloated spendinghad subsidized during Reagan’s Second term, Federal outlays averaged 21.7 percent of gross domestic product/

This was obviously no imprivement at all on the 21.1 percent of GDP average during the alleged “big spending: Carter years. And compared quite miserably to the 19.3 percent of the GDP recording during Lundon Johnson’s final four years of “:guns and butter” extravagance.

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

he also did tax reform, it wasn't just one sided, hello.....

 

[Rshermr]

So, poor oldstyle, having lost an economic argument again, resorts back to an attack he has made against me, personally, over 50 times:

Only you could declare that you taught economics at the college level...then turn around and state that you didn't REALLY teach economics because it wasn't to a whole class...all the while displaying such an obvious lack of knowledge about the subject that it's equally obvious that you got caught in a HUGE lie when you claimed to have taught ANYONE about economics.

OK, me con liar. Here is the cut and paste of exactly your post, followed by my response, OVER A YEAR AGO. You said:

You said:

This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

I responded with:

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics. I did not get paid for my efforts. Did get tuition relief. Good as I was very broke.
But as you will soon show, this proves nothing. You had my word, which is good for most. What I did 45 years ago is not provable today, nor do I care what you believe. Your premise, that I prove myself a liar, should I not respond to you, is total BS. As was your efforts to push this as you did. And may still. The only reason I am responding is to get you to spend your efforts at economics topics instead of wasting time trying to prove me a liar, which I am not. You see, oldstyle, I do not lie, as I prefer to maintain my integrity. A life obsession. Which is why I see you as a shit. And as I have told you, because this was a very small part of my life. Certainly not something that I brag about

Notice the highlighted parts above, me boy. Funny how you say would prove that I was not a liar. and that you would eat your words. As I suggested, did not keep those words. Rather, you simply keep on playing your little game. Now, to anyone that knows what integrity is, what you said, followed by what you have done since PROVES YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY. But then, you have none, and can not recognize it. Must be a really pathetic life you have to live.

Then, proving again you have no integrity, you went at the same statement again. Poor oldstyle, unable to discuss economics, plays childish games:

Let's clear this up. I don't "question your degrees"...I question your story that you were allowed to teach a college level course as an undergraduate, something I've never heard of happening at ANY reputable college. When you claim that...I do indeed think you're lying. I only hope for your sake that you're also lying about getting a degree IN economics because if you DID and you're this ignorant about the subject...I find that really sad for you.

And I responded with:
Oldstyle. you just gave me whiplash. You said earlier today that I obviously do not have a degree in

economics because I did not know what Keynsian economics was. And I am not sure what subject you are referring to above, but it looks like the subject is economics. So, Oldstyle, I can go get your exact quote and you can re read it, but I think you know better.
Now, one more time, oldstyle. I did not lie, and I never will. I told you what I did in college. So, let me say it one more time. Try to concentrate, please, because I do not feel that I have any reason at all to explain anything at all to you about what I did over 40 years ago:
1, I worked for Clair Lillard, a phd in economics who specialized in international economics, particularly as it related to South America.
2. Clair had econ 100 to teach. It was a course in econ for non majors. It was, in other words, not a class that provided credit toward an economics degree as far as the economics credits required.
3. It was a class taken by a lot of students. Each quarter it had between 130 and over 200 students registered. Because of its size, it was taught in an auditorium.
4. Clair did not enjoy teaching the class. It was pretty pedestrian, and a large number of the students had little interest in economics. In addition, he felt that the students needed more interaction with the teacher than this class allowed due to it's basic size.
5, Clair came up with the idea to have students with economics majors and the best possible grades in econ teach the class part of the time. Part of the time morfed to be 4 of 5 days per week, and he taught the full class on Fridays.
6. The class was divided up into 5 smaller class groups. Those classes were each assigned to an undergraduate econ major who taught the class the other four days each week.
7. We had to follow the course outline, which was provided by Prof. Lillard. We did not make up positions, or teach anything outside of the class plan.
8. though I do not remember specifically how, we made some amount of money or college credit in leu of money for teaching the class.
9. We also gave tests, graded tests, and did other things for the class.
10. Prof. Lillard had been following this process for some period of time before i became involved in it. And it went on after I graduated.
11. Prof. Lillard was not the only instructor to utilize this methodology to divide up very large classes. Others did the same thing for similar reasons.
12, It seemed to work well. Students liked the ability to work with us to get answers that they never would have in the original large class.

So, Oldstyle, want to explain why you are at this crap again, me poor little man. Is it simply that you are so insignificant that you have nothing better to do.

Hell, a few weeks ago you said you called the school I went to and they said it was not likely that I did teach that class. So, me boy, have a name. And a number. You have to have it if you called there. Yet you will not produce it. Because you lied again. Pathetic, me boy.

What is it like, me boy, to be so insignificant to be impressed by such a simple thing. It must be terrible to get a degree in history, and then only use it for a dish washing job. But then, it does show the problem you have, me boy. You are simply a con. And as the studies show, you ae therefor stupid. And as such, you simply can not have actual discussions, you simply play games, lie a lot, and spend your time attacking people and calling them liars. Pathetic, me boy. Really, really pathetic. Just a very little man being dragged around by his nose by the folks who tell you what to do and what to believe. But then, you like it!!!

 

[Rshermr]

"Reagan did indeed raise taxes 11 times. Easy to find the truth. Simply use google, me boy.
So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that saying that he did raise taxes 11 times, which he did, is not an accurate portrayal of the truth?? When it is true???"

I'm saying that anyone using that "Reagan raised taxes 11 times" as an "accurate portrayal of the truth" when they know damn well that overall Reagan cut taxes dramatically...isn't interested in the truth...they are interested in misleading people.

That would be YOU, Rshermr! You've deliberately used cherry picked statistics that you knew weren't an accurate portrayal of the truth and then you hid behind the pathetic excuse that even though you knew you were being misleading...technically you weren't lying so therefore it's "OK"?

Then you have the gall to come on here and declare how much "integrity" you have? Seriously? You've just proven how LITTLE integrity you have by how little regard you have for the truth.

Integrity, me boy, is telling the truth. I said that he did raise taxes 11 times. And you admit it is true. So, what is your problem again???

Where were taxes when Reagan entered office and then when he left?

The question, me boy, was did he or did he not raise taxes 11 times. I said he did. Oldstyle said he did. Do you suggest that because he lowered income tax rates that he also never raised them, me poor ignorant con. Or do you have some other point.
If you are saying that he lowered taxes overall, you are agreeing with what I said. Now, what I also said was that when he took the unemployment rate to 10.8% he then went on to do a WHOLE LOT of stimulus spending funded by 11 tax increases and RECORD BORROWING.

I know, me boy, being a congenital idiot as you are makes things difficult. Compound statements are beyond you. But it is ok. Your problem is congenital. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Taxes were lower when Reagan left off so he must have lowered them

Obama ran up more deficit in a single year than Reagan did in 8

Reagan ran the whole government one less than an Obama deficit

 

[Rshermr]

Taxes were lower when Reagan left off so he must have lowered them

Obama ran up more deficit in a single year than Reagan did in 8

Reagan ran the whole government one less than an Obama deficit

So, does that ring they put in your nose to lead you around by leave a scar???

 

[Oldstyle]

Integrity, me boy, is telling the truth. I said that he did raise taxes 11 times. And you admit it is true. So, what is your problem again???

Where were taxes when Reagan entered office and then when he left?

The question, me boy, was did he or did he not raise taxes 11 times. I said he did. Oldstyle said he did. Do you suggest that because he lowered income tax rates that he also never raised them, me poor ignorant con. Or do you have some other point.
If you are saying that he lowered taxes overall, you are agreeing with what I said. Now, what I also said was that when he took the unemployment rate to 10.8% he then went on to do a WHOLE LOT of stimulus spending funded by 11 tax increases and RECORD BORROWING.

I know, me boy, being a congenital idiot as you are makes things difficult. Compound statements are beyond you. But it is ok. Your problem is congenital. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

You deliberately attempt to mislead people about Reagan's tax policies and then declare that you aren't doing anything sleazy because technically you're not telling a lie?

You missed your calling, Rshermr...you should be working as Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

 

[Rshermr]

Where were taxes when Reagan entered office and then when he left?

The question, me boy, was did he or did he not raise taxes 11 times. I said he did. Oldstyle said he did. Do you suggest that because he lowered income tax rates that he also never raised them, me poor ignorant con. Or do you have some other point.
If you are saying that he lowered taxes overall, you are agreeing with what I said. Now, what I also said was that when he took the unemployment rate to 10.8% he then went on to do a WHOLE LOT of stimulus spending funded by 11 tax increases and RECORD BORROWING.

I know, me boy, being a congenital idiot as you are makes things difficult. Compound statements are beyond you. But it is ok. Your problem is congenital. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

You deliberately attempt to mislead people about Reagan's tax policies and then declare that you aren't doing anything sleazy because technically you're not telling a lie?

You missed your calling, Rshermr...you should be working as Barack Obama's Press Secretary.

Well, oldstyle, all I said was the truth. So, how did you come to the conclusion that telling the truth was an act of misleading??? In that case, when I said regan lowered taxes overall, I must have been misleading, right??

Now I understand why you think it was sleazy. Con tools like you like lies. By lying you can feed your agenda. But here is a news flash, clown. Almost everyone, anywhere, believes that the truth is the opposite of misleading. And telling the truth is the opposite of sleazy.

Are you projecting again, me boy???

It must be odd to be a tool. Someone provides you with truth, and you call the person giving it to you names. Funny. Most, including myself, appreciate someone providing the truth. Which is why it is so hard to like you, me boy. Because you lie and play childish games. Which makes you irrelevant. But then little, tiny minds like yours often get hung up on hero worship, like your worship of ronnie. We understand. Your hero can do no wrong. And anyone who tells the truth about him, when it does not align with your agenda, is misleading. And Sleazy. Funny.

As I said, oldstyle. It is not your fault. Ignorance is often congenital. Like yours. Simply plain bad luck, me boy.