US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

The rest of the world isn't buying American.

yes and largely thanks to liberal policies like the highest corporate tax rate in the world, liberal unions and liberal deficits. Ireland for example lowered its corporate tax and half the worlds major corporations moved there in whole or in part. We could eliminate the tax tomorrow and have 1000 new major corporations in a year.

Yea, tearing up our roads with their trucks and not paying any taxes to fix them.

Nobles need not pay taxes.

I'm sorry, Sealy but the truth is...we've paid the taxes all along to fix our roads! That money was appropriated by the Federal Government in the form of gas taxes and taxes on things like tires. If they'd SPENT that tax revenue on road repairs then our highways would be in far better shape than they are but they DIDN'T spend it there...they diverted funds from highway repair to fund entitlements. So now our bridges and highways are in lousy shape and our politicians are saying to us taxpayers...YOU NEED TO GIVE US MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY!

Exactly what GOP governor Rick Snyder did in Michigan. He gave corporations tax breaks because the own him and then when the infrastructure breaks he says we are broke and he has to raise our taxes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Look at our import-export ratios back in the 60's and compare them to what we have now. The rest of the world isn't buying American. Why? Because our workers WERE the highest paid and therefore our products started costing more and more in comparison to the rest of the world.
I believe you are WRONG. Please show a link proving your statements.
Actually, our labor costs are toward the middle of the thirty or so nations considered industrial nations. And those that have lower costs are almost all near third world nations. However, the other half of the equation, productivity, finds that american workers are in third place, behind only Germany and France. So we tend to be quite competitive from a labor standpoint.
Which Country Has the Most Productive Workers?

If you think I'm wrong, Georgie provide a link showing that to be the case! Oh, wait...I forget...you're not smart enough to handle things like that! You're the A-B=Jobs Saved, Guy!

You may want to try the link I gave you. But in the interim, try proving your statement. Like a person with an actual mind.

Wow, did "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved" just tell someone to PROVE their statement? You mean like providing the formula for how Jobs Saved was calculated? Is that the kind of proof you wanted to see, Georgie?

I am more than willing to. But you had to agree to show me the bills that republicans have put forward to stop the devastation caused by the great republican recession of 2008. But though you say you know of such bills, and though no one else seems to, you refuse to tell us what the bills are. So, you loose.
Apparently what we do know is that you are not good to your word. That is, you lied when you said you agreed to do so. Sorry. I just do not play with people who have no integrity, like you.

Why did I have to agree to ANYTHING for you to provide a formula which you already said you would provide? You know...before you embarrassed yourself with that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved attempt? You can't provide that formula. You never COULD! You lied about having it then...and you continue to lie about having it now!

 

[Oldstyle]

The rest of the world isn't buying American.

yes and largely thanks to liberal policies like the highest corporate tax rate in the world, liberal unions and liberal deficits. Ireland for example lowered its corporate tax and half the worlds major corporations moved there in whole or in part. We could eliminate the tax tomorrow and have 1000 new major corporations in a year.

Yea, tearing up our roads with their trucks and not paying any taxes to fix them.

Nobles need not pay taxes.

I'm sorry, Sealy but the truth is...we've paid the taxes all along to fix our roads! That money was appropriated by the Federal Government in the form of gas taxes and taxes on things like tires. If they'd SPENT that tax revenue on road repairs then our highways would be in far better shape than they are but they DIDN'T spend it there...they diverted funds from highway repair to fund entitlements. So now our bridges and highways are in lousy shape and our politicians are saying to us taxpayers...YOU NEED TO GIVE US MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY!

And, the con tool has no source for his accusations. But:
"Even the DOT's yearly funding has been piecemeal. Congress typically funds transportation bills in six-year increments, but the agency has been relying on ad hoc extensions for its budget since 2009."
Some say the lack of investment is hurting the country.
The high cost of America's bad roads and bridges

It is up to congress. and congress is republican. And republicans have voted down every attempt to fund infrastructure.
And, big surprise, there is no indication of money being "stolen" from the federal budget for infrastructure, and used for funding entitlements, as Oldstyle says. That seems to be another lie. It is, however, a conservative talking point. The problem is that congress will not appropriate more money for highways, and other infrastructure. Who heads up Congress????

You continue to demonstrate an almost breathtaking ignorance of how your tax dollars are spent, Georgie!

Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump

 

[Rshermr]

Look at our import-export ratios back in the 60's and compare them to what we have now. The rest of the world isn't buying American. Why? Because our workers WERE the highest paid and therefore our products started costing more and more in comparison to the rest of the world.
I believe you are WRONG. Please show a link proving your statements.
Actually, our labor costs are toward the middle of the thirty or so nations considered industrial nations. And those that have lower costs are almost all near third world nations. However, the other half of the equation, productivity, finds that american workers are in third place, behind only Germany and France. So we tend to be quite competitive from a labor standpoint.
Which Country Has the Most Productive Workers?

If you think I'm wrong, Georgie provide a link showing that to be the case! Oh, wait...I forget...you're not smart enough to handle things like that! You're the A-B=Jobs Saved, Guy!

You may want to try the link I gave you. But in the interim, try proving your statement. Like a person with an actual mind.

Wow, did "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved" just tell someone to PROVE their statement? You mean like providing the formula for how Jobs Saved was calculated? Is that the kind of proof you wanted to see, Georgie?

I am more than willing to. But you had to agree to show me the bills that republicans have put forward to stop the devastation caused by the great republican recession of 2008. But though you say you know of such bills, and though no one else seems to, you refuse to tell us what the bills are. So, you loose.
Apparently what we do know is that you are not good to your word. That is, you lied when you said you agreed to do so. Sorry. I just do not play with people who have no integrity, like you.

Why did I have to agree to ANYTHING for you to provide a formula which you already said you would provide? You know...before you embarrassed yourself with that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved attempt? You can't provide that formula. You never COULD! You lied about having it then...and you continue to lie about having it now!

Why do you ask such a stupid question? You did not have to agree to my condition. At all. But you did. And I did not have to supply what you wanted, since you could not provide what my condition required. Do you have some problem with english, me boy? Maybe a remedial english class would help you.
And, as you well know, I never, ever lie. Just provide what I asked in trade for the formula. You said you could. And you will have the formula you so desire.
So again, all I asked for was the bill or bills that the republican congress sent up to address the economic problems caused by the Great Republican Recession of 2008. You said you could, but failed. That, me boy, is your fault. Not mine.

 

[Rshermr]

The rest of the world isn't buying American.

yes and largely thanks to liberal policies like the highest corporate tax rate in the world, liberal unions and liberal deficits. Ireland for example lowered its corporate tax and half the worlds major corporations moved there in whole or in part. We could eliminate the tax tomorrow and have 1000 new major corporations in a year.

Yea, tearing up our roads with their trucks and not paying any taxes to fix them.

Nobles need not pay taxes.

I'm sorry, Sealy but the truth is...we've paid the taxes all along to fix our roads! That money was appropriated by the Federal Government in the form of gas taxes and taxes on things like tires. If they'd SPENT that tax revenue on road repairs then our highways would be in far better shape than they are but they DIDN'T spend it there...they diverted funds from highway repair to fund entitlements. So now our bridges and highways are in lousy shape and our politicians are saying to us taxpayers...YOU NEED TO GIVE US MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY!

And, the con tool has no source for his accusations. But:
"Even the DOT's yearly funding has been piecemeal. Congress typically funds transportation bills in six-year increments, but the agency has been relying on ad hoc extensions for its budget since 2009."
Some say the lack of investment is hurting the country.
The high cost of America's bad roads and bridges

It is up to congress. and congress is republican. And republicans have voted down every attempt to fund infrastructure.
And, big surprise, there is no indication of money being "stolen" from the federal budget for infrastructure, and used for funding entitlements, as Oldstyle says. That seems to be another lie. It is, however, a conservative talking point. The problem is that congress will not appropriate more money for highways, and other infrastructure. Who heads up Congress????

So Oldstyle, a proven lying con toll, brings proof for his statement:
You continue to demonstrate an almost breathtaking ignorance of how your tax dollars are spent, Georgie!

Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump

So, being a con tool, I suspect you just provided me with a bat shit crazy con site. You continue to demonstrate an almost breathtaking ignorance of how to find impartial web sites. Which wastes peoples time. And shows a complete disregard for the time that people must spend to vet your lies.
Lets see the site you used this time:
NCPA's Principal Issues:

• A right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare.
• NCPA describes its close working relationship with Congress, saying it "has managed to have more than a dozen studies released by members of Congress— a rare event for a think tank— and frequently members of Congress appear at the NCPA's Capitol Hill briefings for congressional aides."
• Right-wing foundations funding includes: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations
• In the early 90s, NCPA created the Center for Tax Studies. NCPA's website describes the inspiration for the Center: "Very few think tank studies are released by members of Congress."

National Center for Policy Analysis
Also,
National Center for Policy Analysis

​

Learn more about corporations VOTING to rewrite our laws, The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a free market think tank primarily funded by private foundations established by wealthy conservative business families and billionaires, including Charles and David Koch. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'"
So, another RIGHT WING "THINK TANK". From a right wing con tool. What a surprise, Oldstyle. But then, you just keep to your normal lack of integrity. How about if I bring a quote to you from MoveOn.org. But then, I have integrity, so I would not.

 

[Oldstyle]

If you think I'm wrong, Georgie provide a link showing that to be the case! Oh, wait...I forget...you're not smart enough to handle things like that! You're the A-B=Jobs Saved, Guy!

You may want to try the link I gave you. But in the interim, try proving your statement. Like a person with an actual mind.

Wow, did "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved" just tell someone to PROVE their statement? You mean like providing the formula for how Jobs Saved was calculated? Is that the kind of proof you wanted to see, Georgie?

I am more than willing to. But you had to agree to show me the bills that republicans have put forward to stop the devastation caused by the great republican recession of 2008. But though you say you know of such bills, and though no one else seems to, you refuse to tell us what the bills are. So, you loose.
Apparently what we do know is that you are not good to your word. That is, you lied when you said you agreed to do so. Sorry. I just do not play with people who have no integrity, like you.

Why did I have to agree to ANYTHING for you to provide a formula which you already said you would provide? You know...before you embarrassed yourself with that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved attempt? You can't provide that formula. You never COULD! You lied about having it then...and you continue to lie about having it now!

Why do you ask such a stupid question? You did not have to agree to my condition. At all. But you did. And I did not have to supply what you wanted, since you could not provide what my condition required. Do you have some problem with english, me boy? Maybe a remedial english class would help you.
And, as you well know, I never, ever lie. Just provide what I asked in trade for the formula. You said you could. And you will have the formula you so desire.
So again, all I asked for was the bill or bills that the republican congress sent up to address the economic problems caused by the Great Republican Recession of 2008. You said you could, but failed. That, me boy, is your fault. Not mine.

So you SAY that you have the formula that the Obama economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"! When pressed on that however you give us A-B=Jobs Saved? Quite obviously you lied when you said you had the formula, Georgie and you continue to lie when you blather about "conditions" that have to be met before you will provide what you said you had! All you've done in this string is lie for weeks now. Anyone with even a dollop of self respect and integrity would have simply admitted that they don't know how the Obama economists came up with their "Jobs Saved" numbers and moved on...but not you! Oh no...you're the board's George Costanza! You're so invested in your fantasies about yourself that you can't even admit the obvious!

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Why did I have to agree to ANYTHING for you to provide a formula which you already said you would provide? You know...before you embarrassed yourself with that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved attempt? You can't provide that formula. You never COULD! You lied about having it then...and you continue to lie about having it now!

Why do you ask such a stupid question? You did not have to agree to my condition. At all. But you did. And I did not have to supply what you wanted, since you could not provide what my condition required. Do you have some problem with english, me boy? Maybe a remedial english class would help you.
And, as you well know, I never, ever lie. Just provide what I asked in trade for the formula. You said you could. And you will have the formula you so desire.
So again, all I asked for was the bill or bills that the republican congress sent up to address the economic problems caused by the Great Republican Recession of 2008. You said you could, but failed. That, me boy, is your fault. Not mine.[/QUOTE]

So you SAY that you have the formula that the Obama economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"! When pressed on that however you give us A-B=Jobs Saved? Quite obviously you lied when you said you had the formula, Georgie and you continue to lie when you blather about "conditions" that have to be met before you will provide what you said you had! All you've done in this string is lie for weeks now. Anyone with even a dollop of self respect and integrity would have simply admitted that they don't know how the Obama economists came up with their "Jobs Saved" numbers and moved on...but not you! Oh no...you're the board's George Costanza! You're so invested in your fantasies about yourself that you can't even admit the obvious!

LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortor. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe

You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?

So there is one case of proving that you lied. And you lied using the same statement, which you knew was untrue, over 100 times!!!!!!! That is one of the lies. Would you like another? You need to stop lying, or I will rub your nose in another. And another. But for now, you have an opportunity. Stop lying, stop personal attacks, and I will not bring back your lies. Up to you. I have no concern as to how you want to do things.

Would you like me to prove that I did indeed set a condition for providing you with your desired formula. Because I can and will if you say one more time that I did not require a condition. Up to you, me boy. Because you know I can, and I will, show you to have lied again.

 

[Oldstyle]

[/QUOTE]

Why did I have to agree to ANYTHING for you to provide a formula which you already said you would provide? You know...before you embarrassed yourself with that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved attempt? You can't provide that formula. You never COULD! You lied about having it then...and you continue to lie about having it now!

Why do you ask such a stupid question? You did not have to agree to my condition. At all. But you did. And I did not have to supply what you wanted, since you could not provide what my condition required. Do you have some problem with english, me boy? Maybe a remedial english class would help you.
And, as you well know, I never, ever lie. Just provide what I asked in trade for the formula. You said you could. And you will have the formula you so desire.
So again, all I asked for was the bill or bills that the republican congress sent up to address the economic problems caused by the Great Republican Recession of 2008. You said you could, but failed. That, me boy, is your fault. Not mine.[/QUOTE]

So you SAY that you have the formula that the Obama economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"! When pressed on that however you give us A-B=Jobs Saved? Quite obviously you lied when you said you had the formula, Georgie and you continue to lie when you blather about "conditions" that have to be met before you will provide what you said you had! All you've done in this string is lie for weeks now. Anyone with even a dollop of self respect and integrity would have simply admitted that they don't know how the Obama economists came up with their "Jobs Saved" numbers and moved on...but not you! Oh no...you're the board's George Costanza! You're so invested in your fantasies about yourself that you can't even admit the obvious!

LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortor. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe

You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?

So there is one case of proving that you lied. And you lied using the same statement, which you knew was untrue, over 100 times!!!!!!! That is one of the lies. Would you like another? You need to stop lying, or I will rub your nose in another. And another. But for now, you have an opportunity. Stop lying, stop personal attacks, and I will not bring back your lies. Up to you. I have no concern as to how you want to do things.

Would you like me to prove that I did indeed set a condition for providing you with your desired formula. Because I can and will if you say one more time that I did not require a condition. Up to you, me boy. Because you know I can, and I will, show you to have lied again.[/QUOTE]

What an absolute crock! I asked you what school of economics you were basing a contention on and you didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about. There isn't an economics major out there that's gone past their Sophomore year that wouldn't know EXACTLY what I meant by that question yet you totally whiffed on it. That was the AHA moment when I knew that you were a total poser and knew next to nothing about economics! All your bullshit about teaching economics at the college level as an Undergrad! I call you Georgie Costanza because you're as much of an Economics major as he is an architect!

 

[Oldstyle]

And I never said you didn't "set a condition", Georgie...you did...but only when your pathetic attempt to provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved (the laughable A-B=Jobs Saved!) was ridiculed. THEN you went with this "condition" nonsense...in an equally pathetic attempt to save face! You will never provide that formula that you promised, Georgie...nor will you ever admit that you lied when you said you had it!

 

[Rshermr]

And I never said you didn't "set a condition", Georgie...you did...but only when your pathetic attempt to provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved (the laughable A-B=Jobs Saved!) was ridiculed. THEN you went with this "condition" nonsense...in an equally pathetic attempt to save face! You will never provide that formula that you promised, Georgie...nor will you ever admit that you lied when you said you had it
So, you continue to lie. Lets take a look, shall we.

And I never said you didn't "set a condition", Georgie...you did...but only when your pathetic attempt to provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved (the laughable A-B=Jobs Saved!) was ridiculed. THEN you went with this "condition" nonsense...in an equally pathetic attempt to save face! You will never provide that formula that you promised, Georgie...nor will you ever admit that you lied when you said you had it!

OK. We are making progress. One of your lies bites the dust. You now admit I set a condition. Actually, you asked for the formula in Post 696, this thread, on May 4 of this year. "And how exactly would they accomplish that? How would your team of economists measure "jobs saved"? Give me a formula for how that's going to work, Rshermr!"
To which I responded, in Post 700 on that same day. "As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008."
No mention of A-B=Jobs Saved. So, if I did not mention it then, looks like you are lying again when you say, above, that "but only when your pathetic attempt to provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved (the laughable A-B=Jobs Saved!) was ridiculed." Lets see when I provided the formula A-B=Jobs saved, me boy. Because again, it will prove that you are lying.
Uh-Oh, Oldstyle. The comment about the A-B= Jobs Saved was Post Number 776, two days LATER. On May 6, me boy. Which means YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN. Really, Oldstyle, you need to stop lying. I only have so much red ink.

 

[Rshermr]

Why did I have to agree to ANYTHING for you to provide a formula which you already said you would provide? You know...before you embarrassed yourself with that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved attempt? You can't provide that formula. You never COULD! You lied about having it then...and you continue to lie about having it now!

Why do you ask such a stupid question? You did not have to agree to my condition. At all. But you did. And I did not have to supply what you wanted, since you could not provide what my condition required. Do you have some problem with english, me boy? Maybe a remedial english class would help you.
And, as you well know, I never, ever lie. Just provide what I asked in trade for the formula. You said you could. And you will have the formula you so desire.
So again, all I asked for was the bill or bills that the republican congress sent up to address the economic problems caused by the Great Republican Recession of 2008. You said you could, but failed. That, me boy, is your fault. Not mine.[/QUOTE]

So you SAY that you have the formula that the Obama economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"! When pressed on that however you give us A-B=Jobs Saved? Quite obviously you lied when you said you had the formula, Georgie and you continue to lie when you blather about "conditions" that have to be met before you will provide what you said you had! Really, dipshit, we made a deal and now you say that we did not. But I proved that we did, and you proved that you would or could not keep your end. All you've done in this string is lie for weeks now. Obviously, I did not lie. I will keep my end of the bargain, but you will not keep yours. I am being honest. I have the formula, but you will not get it if you do not comply with the condition you agreed to. Because I do not like slackers. Anyone with even a dollop of self respect and integrity would have simply admitted that they don't know how the Obama economists came up with their "Jobs Saved" numbers and moved on...but not you! Oh no...you're the board's George Costanza! Wow. Childish little insults, with no basis. Tacky, me boy. [/QUOTE]
LETS TALK FOR JUST A MINUTE ABOUT INTEGRITY, OLDSTYLE. Remember your posts saying that you mentioned the Chicago School of Economics to me, and me not knowing what it was? Remember that claim, time after time, over 100 times, saying that I was ignorant of economics because I did not know the Chicago School of Economics was not brick and mortor. You should remember, me boy. Because you made that claim over 100 times. Problem is, here is your post:
So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

"Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one,"
That is Post 398. December of 2012. Thread: How is Austerity Doing in Europe

You asked about any school of economics that advocates...... No mention, me boy, of the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, your post was in DECEMBER OF 2012. OVER THREE YEARS AGO. You know that because you have tried this lie over 100 times. You know you did not ask about the Chicago School of Economics. And, me boy, you were talking about a school of economics that ADVOCATES. In my educational schooling, we referred to what you call a school of economics as an economic theory. And, me poor ignorant tool, neither schools, nor economic theories advocate for anything. That is still the proper name.
So, here again is proof that you are a liar. If you had said Chicago School of Economics, I would have recognized that you were talking about an economic theory. You did not. You lied about that as you so often do. At least a hundred times over the past 3 years. And to make the point further, you changed what you said, and what I said, to fit your plan to attack me. Really, do you even know what integrity is?

So there is one case of proving that you lied. And you lied using the same statement, which you knew was untrue, over 100 times!!!!!!! That is one of the lies. Would you like another? You need to stop lying, or I will rub your nose in another. And another. But for now, you have an opportunity. Stop lying, stop personal attacks, and I will not bring back your lies. Up to you. I have no concern as to how you want to do things.

Would you like me to prove that I did indeed set a condition for providing you with your desired formula. Because I can and will if you say one more time that I did not require a condition. Up to you, me boy. Because you know I can, and I will, show you to have lied again.

What an absolute crock! I asked you what school of economics you were basing a contention on and you didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about. The exact wording of the post, from a copy and paste of your exact post, is above. It does not say what you are now saying. Because you are lying again.You asked what school of economics advocates. Which is stupid, if you were telling the truth, because economic theories do not advocate. People advocate, not theories. There isn't an economics major out there that's gone past their Sophomore year that wouldn't know EXACTLY what I meant by that question yet you totally whiffed on it. That was the AHA moment when I knew that you were a total poser and knew next to nothing about economics! All your bullshit about teaching economics at the college level as an Undergrad! I call you Georgie Costanza because you're as much of an Economics major as he is an architect!
Right. And who, me boy, do you think will believe a person who has been caught lying multiple times. You are a lying con tool. A sad, sad piece of shit.
Ah, but I never ever lie. But you have cowered from the opportunity to take my bet, and see if I have a diploma, because you know you can not afford to take a bet that you will lose.
Besides, Oldstyle, what you have said over 100 times is that you stated the following:. "So implausible that I start to query you ABOUT the subject that you supposedly know so much about that you were selected to teach your fellow students by a grateful professor...but you don't even know what the "Chicago School" refers to"
That was post 198 on May 13, 2013. Over 3 years ago. And you continued that lie for years.

So, you can not stop yourself from lying. You can not stop the uncalled for personal attacks. And you can not make a single economic argument. All you are capable of is posting conservative talking points. With no impartial sources. You are worthless, me boy. See ya around.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why don't you just admit you don't have the formula? It's obvious you don't. It's been obvious ever since "A-B=Jobs Saved" that you don't! Who do you think you're fooling with your "conditions", "me boys", and "red ink"? Once again you got caught pretending to know something about economics...and once again you're having to bluster your way out of a lie. You would think you'd learn from your past mistakes...but that's not you...is it, Georgie?

 

[Oldstyle]

"Pathological lying (PL) has been defined by the Psychiatric Times as a “long history (maybe lifelong history) of frequent and repeated lying for which no apparent psychological motive or external benefit can be discerned.” There is no real consensus on what pathological lying is and many people have developed their own definition. Pathological lying is something that has negatively affected many people, even professionals, who are often unaware of the psychiatric instability or personality disorder of the liar. For example, in one of my previous articles I focused on Judge Patrick Couwenberg, a Superior Court Judge of California, who lied repeatedly while serving the public. The former Judge maintained the lie that he was a Caltech graduate, a wounded war veteran, and a CIA operative in the 1960s. All of these statements were easily identified by his peers as unreliable and inconsistent, but Couwenberg continued to attempt to evade others. He was later removed for “willful and prejudicial misconduct” for lying about attending Caltech. This education was critical to his Judicial position.


The sad part about this story is not so much that the former Judge lost his job in the end, but that he lacked insight into the fact that his steps could be traced and that many people would ultimately find him out. An appropriate level of consciousness was missing from Couwenberg and is missing in so many other people who are compulsive liars. The very fact that a lie could be found out does not affect the pathological liar. They have an inability to consider the consequences or even fear being found out. It’s as if the pathological liar believes they are smarter than everyone and will never be found out. The very fact that the pathological liars’ work-life, home-life, or reputation could be in jeopardy as a result of the lies, does not phase the liar. Guilt, shame, or regret does not affect the liar. Consequences also do not seem to affect the liar. So then why does the liar engage in such behaviors?

Multiple research studies have attempted to find an answer to this question to no avail. Trying to understand the mind, behaviors, and intention of the pathological liar is not an exact science. It is very much an inexact science and entails years of study. Humans are complex and trying to understand the reasons for why they do all the things they do takes more than a graduate school degree in psychology and years of work experience. For many mental health professionals and psychiatrists, trying to understand the pathological liar (or sociopath and narcissist who engages in this behavior) will entail a combination of intuition and science. Science alone cannot answer the many questions we have about pathological liars, but experience can offer some clues. We now know that pathological lying is spontaneous and unplanned. Impulsivity is often the culprit. We also know that pathological lying is more likely to occur in certain disorders or among individuals who have certain personality traits."

That's you in a nutshell, Georgie...

 

[Rshermr]

.[/QUOTE] .[/QUOTE]
Oldstyle, having been shown to be a liar again, starts to twist and turn. Because he hates it when he is caught lying. So, he starts with his childish taunts and personal attacks, wishing in the worst way that he could catch me lying. Though he knows by now, having tried for three plus years, to find me lying, that I never ever lie. So, he makes up childish little taunts using his George Castanza routine. Which, apparently, he thinks are profound. Must be sad to be that stupid.

That's you in a nutshell, Georgie..

I am sure you think you are impressing someone with your childish little taunts. And your continuous personal attacks. And your complete lack of rational argumen. But, me boy, lies and childish personal attacks are all you have. Just crap. You are a proven, sad little liar. You prove it over and over and over. And you waste people's time. In the end, that is all that you are. A waste of time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Pseudologia Fantastica...

 

[Oldstyle]

Personal attacks? You mean like what you do to anyone who questions your stories, Georgie? My depiction of you as the board's George Costanza is the result of the bullshit that you post here.

Now if you'd like to prove me wrong...simply provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"...if not don't waste anyone's time with "conditions", "me boys" and accusations of "lying" because you'll have made it quite obvious that you never HAD any such formula!

 

[Rshermr]

Personal attacks? You mean like what you do to anyone who questions your stories, Georgie? My depiction of you as the board's George Costanza is the result of the bullshit that you post here.

Now if you'd like to prove me wrong...simply provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"...if not don't waste anyone's time with "conditions", "me boys" and accusations of "lying" because you'll have made it quite obvious that you never HAD any such formula![/QUOTE]

Personal attacks? You mean like what you do to anyone who questions your stories, Georgie? My depiction of you as the board's George Costanza is the result of the bullshit that you post here.

Now if you'd like to prove me wrong...simply provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"...if not don't waste anyone's time with "conditions", "me boys" and accusations of "lying" because you'll have made it quite obvious that you never HAD any such formula!

Personal attacks? You mean like what you do to anyone who questions your stories, Georgie? My depiction of you as the board's George Costanza is the result of the bullshit that you post here.

I post no stories. Ever. What I post about myself is true. It is you who question what I post without reason. Only you, me boy. Just you. I understand that you are completely upset by the fact that you can not catch me lying, because I never do. Like most people, I see no reason to. I may make a mistake, but if I am found to have done so, I will admit it. Unlike you, me boy, who lies and moves on and lies and moves on and lies and moves on. As many have noticed.
What is really odd is that you choose to pick things to attack that are simple events in my life that are hardly worth bragging about. You have criticized me as lying for:
1. Helping a Professor of Econ teach and with administrative activities (test grading) for christ sake. Really simple stuff.
2. Having had a Secretary. Jesus. Really simple, though less common, perhaps, these days.
3. You tried to say I said I was an executive at BP in Alaska, when all I said was that I worked with executives who worked there.
4. You have said time after time that I have no degree in economics. But I do.
None of those things are big deals at all. At my age, they are simply events in my history, non of which I would ever see as a big enough deal to brag about, if I was so inclined. So one can only assume that you have a very, very small life, me boy, to see any of these things as a big deal.
Your depiction of me as anything except myself is simply childish game playing. I could care less. It does not hurt me in any way. Please, help yourself. Play all the childish games you want. I will not play with you, however, because you are a clown. who completely lacks integrity. So, knock yourself out. I prefer to deal with people who have class.
Now if you'd like to prove me wrong...simply provide the formula that Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"...if not don't waste anyone's time with "conditions", "me boys" and accusations of "lying" because you'll have made it quite obvious that you never HAD any such formula!

Prove you wrong??? That has already been done. You will get no formula, me boy, if you do not keep your end of the bargain. Which you are not, because you can not. Because there are no bills. Which proves you lied again. Because you did not admit the obvious, that republicans brought no bills forward to help address their Great Republican Recession of 2008. I have the integrity to NEVER EVER LIE, and to KEEP MY END OF THE BARGAIN to give you no formula if you can not keep your end.
I try to address the issues of the thread. But all you do is attack, lie, and play games. If you would like to argue a point, fine. But that is not your style. You simply play games, as with this post. Because you have no integrity. And oldstyle, let me educate you again. Accusations indicate unproven statements. Your lying has been proven. No question at all. You are, by proof, a lying game playing conservative tool. We understand that, as do you.

 

[Oldstyle]

All of that hysterical blathering, Georgie but one thing NEVER changes! You never provide the formula. You lied when you said you knew what it was...and you continue lie.

It's a simple thing...if you want to prove you're not full of shit...provide the formula...if you can't then admit you lied...admit you don't know anything about economics...and move on. The choice is yours...

 

[Oldstyle]

I didn't criticize you for having a Secretary, Georgie...I laughed at the excuse you came up with for why your posts looked like they'd been written by someone with an eighth grade education! You said that they looked that way because your secretary always proof read your correspondence but didn't do so here!

Just one more example of how completely full of shit you've ALWAYS been on this board!

 

[Oldstyle]

It's an amazing thing...you claim to have a college degree in economics but write at the eighth grade level and didn't know what an economic school of thought was! I guess what you'd like us to believe is that at one time you were smart...but now you're a senile idiot? Does that about sum you up?