Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[Too Tall]

You know what, oldstyle. You can make all the accusations you want. No one believes you really care. You are simply a con tool asking questions that have been answered and attacking Clinton as though it was second nature for you, which it is. You have taken her words out of context, which is no surprise for you. But here is the thing, Oldstyle, again the investigation has shown nothing that the bat shit crazy con sites have said is true. It has shown that what you have said is untrue. And it has found hillary and obama free of any blame. So, again, there is oldstyle, out there with the bat shit crazy con web sites, and fox. And no one else. looking about as foolish as Rand Paul in the hearing being beaten like a drum by clinton. Funny.

Oldstyle, I have been suggesting for a long time that all the studies that say cons are stupid are valid. Now, Jindal has added credence to that belief. But you, my boy, make the case as well as any con tool out there. Stupid. Just stupid statements.

Clinton and Obama are "free of any blame"? Because...I suppose...the buck NEVER stops with anyone in charge with this Administration. If you were to believe the story you've put forth the President, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General don't have a CLUE what's going on with the entities that THEY oversee. Holder didn't have a clue about Fast & Furious...Clinton didn't have a clue about Benghazi...and Obama doesn't have a clue about ANYTHING that goes wrong on his watch. Does that pretty much sum it up?

What pretty much sums it up, Oldstyle, is that what you just said is exactly what the studies concluded. They were not to blame. What you would like everyone to believe, of course, is what the bat shit crazy con tool web sites and fox wants everyone to believe. And you. What a coincidence. And what is certain is that all that you have been saying came from the same conservative talking points and the same conservative machine that spends every single minute of every single day attacking the democratic president and his administration. And when the truth finally comes out, you see that they were lying all along. And yet Oldstyle, well, Oldstyle parrots what they say like they were truthful all along. Just impartial news sources. And, And the next time, when the next attack on the president comes along from the same sources, the same thing happens. Because ....Well, because that is what Oldstyle does. He always parrots their propoganda. Every single time. NOT because Oldstyle does not know it is propaganda. But because he is a tool, and that is what he does. He is a foot soldier for the fox propaganda, which is exactly the same as the propaganda coming from the bat shit crazy con sites. Because, you see, Oldstyle does not care about truth. Truth is simply of no import. And oldstyle sees no reason to look at what the impartial sources say. No reason at all. He simply engages in the propaganda of his con masters.

Just as when crap blew up in libya in 1983, someone should have known. And not a few people, but 221 Marines should not have been killed. It is a dangerous place, people make mistakes, and SHIT HAPPENS. And yup, Reagan did not know. Lots of people did not know. And you know what, all those entities that attack democratic presidents and their people, said nothing. Total silence. Nothing from Fox at all, Nothing from the then bat shit crazy noise machine that was there at that time. And every person backed the republican president. And I am absolutely certain that OLDSTYLE was quiet.

What do you think would have happened, Oldstyle, had the president been a democrat.

It is over, Oldstyle. People take a while to understand the truth. The con machine puts out those lies, and has for decades now. And over time, people have become wise. And the Rand Pauls of the republican party, blathering on tv, are no longer making hay for the republican noise machine. Instead, they are pissing people off. People like you saying that Clinton said those people did not matter, changing her context to what they want people to believe, look no longer anything other than pathetic tools. Just sad little pathetic tools who can not think for themselves. Pathetic little people with pathetic little minds. And pathetic little lives with dishonest objectives. Obvious dishonest objectives.

Just as when crap blew up in libya in 1983, someone should have known. And not a few people, but 221 Marines should not have been killed.

That was a marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and the military commander on the ground screwed up, not the state department.

 

[rdean]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

The Voices in your head are telling you that Republicans aren't reasonable

 

[Oldstyle]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

Reason? Heck, Deanie...if you REALLY wanted something "reasonable" in regards to helping those that are unemployed get back to work you wouldn't have supported the tax increases that just went through. Only an idiot raises taxes in the midst of a slow economy with millions of people out of work which is what Barry just pulled off.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining to those poor bastards out there who DON'T have a job how what was just done is going to get them a job anytime soon? Your so called "tax on millionaires and billionaires" was really just a kick in the ribs to those people who are down and out because they can't find work only you're such a partisan hack you can't see it.

I told you THAT right from the start of this joke of a string.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

The truth is...you can't refute what that video SHOWS and therefore you've fallen back on what you ALWAYS do when you're losing an argument...you accuse the person who's made a point you can't discount of either "lying" or of being a "bat shit crazy con".

I didn't USE any of what "Red Sphere" blogged. I didn't even read it to be honest. All I was doing was looking at all of the available video clips of Clinton speaking and her back and forth with the Senator from Utah. The video clip I chose was the only one that WASN'T edited or of ALL of Clinton's testimony which would have forced anyone who watched it to hear what she said before pounding on the table and angrily declaring what does it matter, to watch several HOURS of video. I wanted an uncut...unedited version of that testy exchange because I wanted to refute your claim that I was taking Clinton's comments out of context.

Same bullshit from oldstyle. Same answer fits perfectly:

That is really interesting, dipshit. Here is Oldstyle, telling us of the capabilities of an F16. Now, maybe you should let the DOD know that. because they flew in a special ops teams. You know, one of those secrative teams. Because they were not as smart as you. If only they had known about the F16. Jesus, Oldstyle, we all know that. Which, I guess, makes us all unpatriotic for not letting the head of military ops know that an F16 would have solved all of our problems. Either that, or you are a clown. I just do not know what to believe, Oldstyle. Maybe I should go out and read what to believe from your bat shit crazy con tool sites. Or I could have called FOX.

What is really interesting is that only you, and the bat shit crazy con web sites, and fox, say what you just said. All perfectly aligned. Only they believe that an air to ground missile would have solved their problem. Instead, military ops, being stupid as compared to you and the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, just did not want to do that. Now, next you are going to say that they were told to stand down. Which the report tells you they were not. In fact, they were never given any such order. But still, that is what the bat shit crazy con sites and Fox said. So, I am sure you believe so. Because, oldstyle, you believe what they tell you to believe.

Those lying DOD folks, and Hillary, for christ sake, are saying that the reports of what was happening were confused. No clear picture emerged. And the report agrees. But Oldstyle, well, he and Fox had a crystal clear picture as to exactly what was going on. No confused reports at all. They knew Everything. And the report must be wrong, because Fox is Never wrong. So, therefor, Oldstyle knows it all. Hell, Oldstyle has his own reporting arm to feed him a crystal clear picture of events in Libya. Yeah, I know it looks like it could, just possibly, be Oldstyle lying again. But he says he knows. Yes, I know Oldstyle is a proven liar. But still......

Keep at it Oldstyle. Keep posting the lies. Keep posting the lies that had no proof. Keep posting the lies that were put in the con sites before any investigation could happen. Keep posting lies that were talking points put in a hundred con sites, all the same. And keep posting the lies that have now been proven wrong. Because, Oldstyle, it proves who you are to anyone with a working mind. A sad little person who simply posts conservative propaganda. A person who lies over and over and over. A person who does not believe what the non partisan sites say. A person with no integrity.

 

[Rshermr]

Clinton and Obama are "free of any blame"? Because...I suppose...the buck NEVER stops with anyone in charge with this Administration. If you were to believe the story you've put forth the President, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General don't have a CLUE what's going on with the entities that THEY oversee. Holder didn't have a clue about Fast & Furious...Clinton didn't have a clue about Benghazi...and Obama doesn't have a clue about ANYTHING that goes wrong on his watch. Does that pretty much sum it up?

What pretty much sums it up, Oldstyle, is that what you just said is exactly what the studies concluded. They were not to blame. What you would like everyone to believe, of course, is what the bat shit crazy con tool web sites and fox wants everyone to believe. And you. What a coincidence. And what is certain is that all that you have been saying came from the same conservative talking points and the same conservative machine that spends every single minute of every single day attacking the democratic president and his administration. And when the truth finally comes out, you see that they were lying all along. And yet Oldstyle, well, Oldstyle parrots what they say like they were truthful all along. Just impartial news sources. And, And the next time, when the next attack on the president comes along from the same sources, the same thing happens. Because ....Well, because that is what Oldstyle does. He always parrots their propoganda. Every single time. NOT because Oldstyle does not know it is propaganda. But because he is a tool, and that is what he does. He is a foot soldier for the fox propaganda, which is exactly the same as the propaganda coming from the bat shit crazy con sites. Because, you see, Oldstyle does not care about truth. Truth is simply of no import. And oldstyle sees no reason to look at what the impartial sources say. No reason at all. He simply engages in the propaganda of his con masters.

Just as when crap blew up in libya in 1983, someone should have known. And not a few people, but 221 Marines should not have been killed. It is a dangerous place, people make mistakes, and SHIT HAPPENS. And yup, Reagan did not know. Lots of people did not know. And you know what, all those entities that attack democratic presidents and their people, said nothing. Total silence. Nothing from Fox at all, Nothing from the then bat shit crazy noise machine that was there at that time. And every person backed the republican president. And I am absolutely certain that OLDSTYLE was quiet.

What do you think would have happened, Oldstyle, had the president been a democrat.

It is over, Oldstyle. People take a while to understand the truth. The con machine puts out those lies, and has for decades now. And over time, people have become wise. And the Rand Pauls of the republican party, blathering on tv, are no longer making hay for the republican noise machine. Instead, they are pissing people off. People like you saying that Clinton said those people did not matter, changing her context to what they want people to believe, look no longer anything other than pathetic tools. Just sad little pathetic tools who can not think for themselves. Pathetic little people with pathetic little minds. And pathetic little lives with dishonest objectives. Obvious dishonest objectives.

Just as when crap blew up in libya in 1983, someone should have known. And not a few people, but 221 Marines should not have been killed.

That was a marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and the military commander on the ground screwed up, not the state department.

So you say. Good for you.

 

[Rshermr]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

Reason? Heck, Deanie...if you REALLY wanted something "reasonable" in regards to helping those that are unemployed get back to work you wouldn't have supported the tax increases that just went through. Only an idiot raises taxes in the midst of a slow economy with millions of people out of work which is what Barry just pulled off.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining to those poor bastards out there who DON'T have a job how what was just done is going to get them a job anytime soon? Your so called "tax on millionaires and billionaires" was really just a kick in the ribs to those people who are down and out because they can't find work only you're such a partisan hack you can't see it.

I told you THAT right from the start of this joke of a string.

The joke, of course, is you, Oldstyle. You know what the answer is. Just as the job situation was bad for Reagan, it is bad for Obama. And just as Reagan increased taxes, so did obama. And, of course, you know what that is for. It is called stimulus spending. And with just a little luck, and the repubs out of the way a bit, he can do the kind of stimulus spending that Reagan did, with similar results.

Or more recently, he could see the kind of results that Clinton saw when he raised taxes in order to do stimulus spending. But you know that. Because, as with the Reagan tax increases, I have discussed this over and over and over. And you continue to pretend it did not happen. But of course it did, and is easy to prove. Just as I have proven it to you before, complete with links. And indeed, after the tax increases and the stimulus spending those tax increases funded, we saw unemployment levels drop like a rock. To under 5%. And a really, really great economy. More jobs added than under any president in this century.

Because, you see, Oldstyle is a liar. Plain, no question about it, liar and a game player. Next he will come back and say clinton LOWERED the capital gains tax, but will forget to mention that it was not during bad unemployment times, but rather it was during a GREAT economy. When tax decreases make sense. Because he will try to say, ignorantly, "see, Clinton Lowered Taxes. So there." Ignorant, but that is Oldstyle.

Or, he will go through the fact that Reagan did not raise INCOME TAXES. He did, but only a little. But he can not explain why it made any difference, since it was simply to provide money for stimulus spending. Nor will he be able to explain why reagan borrowed enough to nearly TRIPLE the national debt. And use that money to spend stimulatively.

And when asked to name a time when a president of this country and since the great depression has lowered taxes during a time of high unemployment with good results, Oldstyle will start trying to change the subject. Because there is no answer.

Poor Oldstyle. Playing games again, getting caught in lies again. Soon he will be back to nothing but personal attacks. Because that is the way it always works for Oldstyle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

Reason? Heck, Deanie...if you REALLY wanted something "reasonable" in regards to helping those that are unemployed get back to work you wouldn't have supported the tax increases that just went through. Only an idiot raises taxes in the midst of a slow economy with millions of people out of work which is what Barry just pulled off.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining to those poor bastards out there who DON'T have a job how what was just done is going to get them a job anytime soon? Your so called "tax on millionaires and billionaires" was really just a kick in the ribs to those people who are down and out because they can't find work only you're such a partisan hack you can't see it.

I told you THAT right from the start of this joke of a string.

All Deanie heard was, "republicanssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss evillllllllllll evil Republicanssss"

 

[Oldstyle]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

Reason? Heck, Deanie...if you REALLY wanted something "reasonable" in regards to helping those that are unemployed get back to work you wouldn't have supported the tax increases that just went through. Only an idiot raises taxes in the midst of a slow economy with millions of people out of work which is what Barry just pulled off.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining to those poor bastards out there who DON'T have a job how what was just done is going to get them a job anytime soon? Your so called "tax on millionaires and billionaires" was really just a kick in the ribs to those people who are down and out because they can't find work only you're such a partisan hack you can't see it.

I told you THAT right from the start of this joke of a string.

The joke, of course, is you, Oldstyle. You know what the answer is. Just as the job situation was bad for Reagan, it is bad for Obama. And just as Reagan increased taxes, so did obama. And, of course, you know what that is for. It is called stimulus spending. And with just a little luck, and the repubs out of the way a bit, he can do the kind of stimulus spending that Reagan did, with similar results.

Or more recently, he could see the kind of results that Clinton saw when he raised taxes in order to do stimulus spending. But you know that. Because, as with the Reagan tax increases, I have discussed this over and over and over. And you continue to pretend it did not happen. But of course it did, and is easy to prove. Just as I have proven it to you before, complete with links. And indeed, after the tax increases and the stimulus spending those tax increases funded, we saw unemployment levels drop like a rock. To under 5%. And a really, really great economy. More jobs added than under any president in this century.

Because, you see, Oldstyle is a liar. Plain, no question about it, liar and a game player. Next he will come back and say clinton LOWERED the capital gains tax, but will forget to mention that it was not during bad unemployment times, but rather it was during a GREAT economy. When tax decreases make sense. Because he will try to say, ignorantly, "see, Clinton Lowered Taxes. So there." Ignorant, but that is Oldstyle.

Or, he will go through the fact that Reagan did not raise INCOME TAXES. He did, but only a little. But he can not explain why it made any difference, since it was simply to provide money for stimulus spending. Nor will he be able to explain why reagan borrowed enough to nearly TRIPLE the national debt. And use that money to spend stimulatively.

And when asked to name a time when a president of this country and since the great depression has lowered taxes during a time of high unemployment with good results, Oldstyle will start trying to change the subject. Because there is no answer.

Poor Oldstyle. Playing games again, getting caught in lies again. Soon he will be back to nothing but personal attacks. Because that is the way it always works for Oldstyle.

You are so totally clueless about economics in general that watching you try to hold your own in a debate about the subject is almost painful. Seriously Dude...only YOU would try and make the point that Reagan and Obama were alike in their fiscal policy. Only YOU woud be that naive. Only YOU would buy into the crap that those progressive web sites have been filling your head with. Reagan lowered over all taxes substantially. The 11 taxes you keep ranting about (which of course you gleaned from the progressive sites you swear you don't frequent...eye roll!) were for the most part temporary increases in excise tax on things like gas, cigarettes and booze. Clinton did in fact lower the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% BEFORE he ran his three budget surpluses in a row...something which you "higher tax" freaks don't want to admit. Obama just raised it.

Raising taxes slows an economy...a concept that you can't seem to get through your thick skull. It's why Keynes advocated tax increases in a booming economy to both pay back monies borrowed to spend on stimulus spending in any down economy and to prevent economic bubbles from growing out of control and ultimately bursting. Stimulus spending makes it grow but only in a short term and utterly artificial way since the massive amounts of debt we're incurring are fully as harmful to our economy as the unemployment that you keep rambling on about if we don't ever pay it back...which we don't. Why? Because any revenue that Barry, Harry and Nancy manage to extort out of a reluctant GOP House doesn't go towards paying down the deficit...oh, no...that money gets spent on more big government programs.

 

[Too Tall]

What pretty much sums it up, Oldstyle, is that what you just said is exactly what the studies concluded. They were not to blame. What you would like everyone to believe, of course, is what the bat shit crazy con tool web sites and fox wants everyone to believe. And you. What a coincidence. And what is certain is that all that you have been saying came from the same conservative talking points and the same conservative machine that spends every single minute of every single day attacking the democratic president and his administration. And when the truth finally comes out, you see that they were lying all along. And yet Oldstyle, well, Oldstyle parrots what they say like they were truthful all along. Just impartial news sources. And, And the next time, when the next attack on the president comes along from the same sources, the same thing happens. Because ....Well, because that is what Oldstyle does. He always parrots their propoganda. Every single time. NOT because Oldstyle does not know it is propaganda. But because he is a tool, and that is what he does. He is a foot soldier for the fox propaganda, which is exactly the same as the propaganda coming from the bat shit crazy con sites. Because, you see, Oldstyle does not care about truth. Truth is simply of no import. And oldstyle sees no reason to look at what the impartial sources say. No reason at all. He simply engages in the propaganda of his con masters.

Just as when crap blew up in libya in 1983, someone should have known. And not a few people, but 221 Marines should not have been killed. It is a dangerous place, people make mistakes, and SHIT HAPPENS. And yup, Reagan did not know. Lots of people did not know. And you know what, all those entities that attack democratic presidents and their people, said nothing. Total silence. Nothing from Fox at all, Nothing from the then bat shit crazy noise machine that was there at that time. And every person backed the republican president. And I am absolutely certain that OLDSTYLE was quiet.

What do you think would have happened, Oldstyle, had the president been a democrat.

It is over, Oldstyle. People take a while to understand the truth. The con machine puts out those lies, and has for decades now. And over time, people have become wise. And the Rand Pauls of the republican party, blathering on tv, are no longer making hay for the republican noise machine. Instead, they are pissing people off. People like you saying that Clinton said those people did not matter, changing her context to what they want people to believe, look no longer anything other than pathetic tools. Just sad little pathetic tools who can not think for themselves. Pathetic little people with pathetic little minds. And pathetic little lives with dishonest objectives. Obvious dishonest objectives.

Just as when crap blew up in libya in 1983, someone should have known. And not a few people, but 221 Marines should not have been killed.

That was a marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and the military commander on the ground screwed up, not the state department.

So you say. Good for you.

At least I got it in the right COUNTRY fool. And, it was a military operation, whereas Benghazi was a civilian operation ran by State.

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle sticks his finger in the car door, testing to see if I will slam it. Stupid idea, Oldstyle:

You are so totally clueless about economics in general that watching you try to hold your own in a debate about the subject is almost painful.

That would be your opinion. the opinion from a guy with a couple economics classes total to his resume. But you are about to see painful. I read this post of yours, and it will be painful.

Seriously Dude...only YOU would try and make the point that Reagan and Obama were alike in their fiscal policy.

And only you would take what I said to be that they were alike in their fiscal policy, dude. What I said is that both raised taxes. I know you like to try to change what I say to what you want me to have said, but that is a dishonest game.

Only YOU would buy into the crap that those progressive web sites have been filling your head with. Reagan lowered over all taxes substantially.

Sorry me boy. I said no such thing. I simply said that he raised taxes when he had a serious unemployment problem. I do not get information from politically motivated web sites. I have the degree in economics. You are the dish washer. Keep it straight, my poor ignorant con.

The 11 taxes you keep ranting about (which of course you gleaned from the progressive sites you swear you don't frequent...eye roll!) were for the most part temporary increases in excise tax on things like gas, cigarettes and booze.

Are you having eye problems, Oldstyle, or are you simply stupid. As I said, were you able to read. I correctly predicted you would make this point. Which is meaningless. Income and excise and other taxes have the same effect for the purposes of Clinton, Obama, and Reagan. They produce revenue for the government to pay for stimulus spending. But I have explained this to you, what, 20 times or so. And you act like you are unaware. That comes from being dishonest, oldstyle. At any rate, it is good to see that we both agree that reagan raised taxes and brought in revenue.

Clinton did in fact lower the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% BEFORE he ran his three budget surpluses in a row...something which you "higher tax" freaks don't want to admit. Obama just raised it.

And, as you know, many democratic and many republicans have lowered taxes during low unemployment times. It is very often a good idea. Kennedy did it, also. So, did you have a point???? And by the way, oldstyle, I also said you would try this one. Because you always do, and it is always as immaterial as ever. I long ago told you that raising taxes during high unemployment is to provide revenue for stimulus spending. And have done so many times since. Try a little honesty, oldsytle. Integrity is a good thing.

Raising taxes slows an economy...a concept that you can't seem to get through your thick skull.

the person that has proven that he has a thick skull is you. You do not understand that raising taxes in a bad economy on the well to do has just about zero effect on the economy. If you raise taxes on the poor and middle class, it will have some slowing effect. Which is why Obama is not. But, of course, that is not the point, as you know, It is about stimulus spending. Which stimulates the economy. So, your argument is, as usual, vacuous. Which is why, by raising taxes, and stimulus spending, Reagan lowered unemployment and improved the economy. And why Clinton did the same. And, by the way, why you can not show a single case when a president has lowered taxes during high unemployment and improved the economy WITHOUT STIMULUS.
Here is a study by the non partial study on raising taxes on the wealthy, by the Congressional Research Service. If you would like to see more, we can look at what the CBO has to say on the subject.
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance

It's why Keynes advocated tax increases in a booming economy to both pay back monies borrowed to spend on stimulus spending in any down economy and to prevent economic bubbles from growing out of control and ultimately bursting.

what you do not understand is that what you are saying no longer applies. Since the republicans have made it essentially impossible to raise taxes, a president is stuck with lowering them, but never paying them back. Lower taxes, help the economy a little bit, but not much. Increase the national debt as a result. Nice plan, oldstyle. Nice plan. You will destroy the national debt over time, and in general kill the economy.

Stimulus spending makes it grow but only in a short term and utterly artificial way since the massive amounts of debt we're incurring are fully as harmful to our economy as the unemployment that you keep rambling on about if we don't ever pay it back...which we don't. Why? Because any revenue that Barry, Harry and Nancy manage to extort out of a reluctant GOP House doesn't go towards paying down the deficit...oh, no...that money gets spent on more big government programs.

See, now that is why you should never, ever criticize anyone's economic knowledge. Because that was about the stupidest statement, from an economic standpoint, ever. Jesus, that was dumb. If you were in an economic forum, you would be blasted out. Really dumb. Lets look at the elements of your really stupid paragraph:

Stimulus spending makes it grow but only in a short term and utterly artificial way

Makes the economy grow, that is true. In the short term, depends. Usually the projects are relatively short term, perhaps one to ten years. Now, during that time the workers on the projects will spend their money. It is not artificial money, so it is gladdly accepted. That causes growth in business who receive that money. So they hire. And they spend their non artificial money. And that repeats. So, me boy, nothing artificial about it, except in your little mind. What does happen, me boy, is that the economy keeps on keeping on even after the money is spent. Which is why Reagan was so successful with his tax and stimulus spend process. And why Clinton was so successfull in the exact same way. So, both did tax decreases and used stimulus spending to get the economy going really well. The most workers added to the workforce were by Clinton. Reagan was number two. Did their economies look temporary to you???

t

he massive amounts of debt we're incurring are fully as harmful to our economy as the unemployment that you keep rambling on about if we don't ever pay it back

No me boy. You will have a very, very hard time finding any economists that believe that the national debt is anywhere near as big a problem as unemployment. And here, again, you show your ignorance of economics. At no time in history have we payed down the national debt in any real way when unemployment was over 7%. So you have it totally backwards. National debt is a big problem that will not be addressed until we get unemployment well down. You see, oldstyle, i know this is a bit complex. But debt goes down with increased revenue as well as with lower expenditures. And, you can not increase revenues until people are employed at a high rate. And therefor paying taxes. And paying taxes reduces the debt. Study it a bit. It is actually very, very simple.

...

which we don't. Why? Because any revenue that Barry, Harry and Nancy manage to extort out of a reluctant GOP House doesn't go towards paying down the deficit...oh, no...that money gets spent on more big government programs.

And that is a political statement. But if you look at the CBO estimates, you will see that the national debt is expected to decrease over the upcoming years. As is the deficit. And by the way, want to tell us, now that we are all on the edge of our seats, when it was that a republican president EVER had a deficit??? Last one, me poor economic wasteland, was under Clinton. You really need to get your facts straight.

 

[Rshermr]

That was a marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and the military commander on the ground screwed up, not the state department.

So you say. Good for you.

At least I got it in the right COUNTRY fool. And, it was a military operation, whereas Benghazi was a civilian operation ran by State.

And so what, dipshit. Did you think it was ok to loose over 200 servicemen in Lebanon, but a problem to loose four americans, state and military, in Benghazi???? Or are you simply trying to prove that you are stupid?

 

[Oldstyle]

So you say. Good for you.

At least I got it in the right COUNTRY fool. And, it was a military operation, whereas Benghazi was a civilian operation ran by State.

And so what, dipshit. Did you think it was ok to loose over 200 servicemen in Lebanon, but a problem to loose four americans, state and military, in Benghazi???? Or are you simply trying to prove that you are stupid?

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

 

[Rshermr]

At least I got it in the right COUNTRY fool. And, it was a military operation, whereas Benghazi was a civilian operation ran by State.

And so what, dipshit. Did you think it was ok to loose over 200 servicemen in Lebanon, but a problem to loose four americans, state and military, in Benghazi???? Or are you simply trying to prove that you are stupid?

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

.
Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it. Relative to critisizing someone about their knowledge of economics, i would suggest you look at my last post. Apparently you are to ignorant to know when you have been hammered. Really funny, a dish washer who just got crushed now back with a spelling fix. You really need to get a life, Oldstyle.

What is really funny is that when this series of posts started,I predicted exactly what you would do in the exact order. And you came through in flying colors. Made the two stupid arguments I said you would. Perfect and on cue. Had them stuffed back down your ignorant throat. As I said would happen. And now revert to the personal attacks. 1 2 3. In exactly the order I suggested. Oldstyle, you are simply stupid. And, thinking you can argue economics is probably the most amusing of your statements. Poor Oldstyle. Screwed again. Funny.

I should send you the stupid studies. They will tell you that stupid people, though what they say is dumb, think they are really smart. Because, Oldstyle, they do not recognize all of the things that they do not know. So they love the con nonsense, as it gives them the answers they need. No need to do all that troublesome studying and reading. And that is you, oldstyle. Just plain stupid.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Oldstyle sticks his finger in the car door, testing to see if I will slam it. Stupid idea, Oldstyle:

You are so totally clueless about economics in general that watching you try to hold your own in a debate about the subject is almost painful.

That would be your opinion. the opinion from a guy with a couple economics classes total to his resume. But you are about to see painful. I read this post of yours, and it will be painful.

Seriously Dude...only YOU would try and make the point that Reagan and Obama were alike in their fiscal policy.

And only you would take what I said to be that they were alike in their fiscal policy, dude. What I said is that both raised taxes. I know you like to try to change what I say to what you want me to have said, but that is a dishonest game.



Sorry me boy. I said no such thing. I simply said that he raised taxes when he had a serious unemployment problem. I do not get information from politically motivated web sites. I have the degree in economics. You are the dish washer. Keep it straight, my poor ignorant con. Are you having eye problems, Oldstyle, or are you simply stupid. As I said, were you able to read. I correctly predicted you would make this point. Which is meaningless. Income and excise and other taxes have the same effect for the purposes of Clinton, Obama, and Reagan. They produce revenue for the government to pay for stimulus spending. But I have explained this to you, what, 20 times or so. And you act like you are unaware. That comes from being dishonest, oldstyle. At any rate, it is good to see that we both agree that reagan raised taxes and brought in revenue.



And, as you know, many democratic and many republicans have lowered taxes during low unemployment times. It is very often a good idea. Kennedy did it, also. So, did you have a point???? And by the way, oldstyle, I also said you would try this one. Because you always do, and it is always as immaterial as ever. I long ago told you that raising taxes during high unemployment is to provide revenue for stimulus spending. And have done so many times since. Try a little honesty, oldsytle. Integrity is a good thing.

the person that has proven that he has a thick skull is you. You do not understand that raising taxes in a bad economy on the well to do has just about zero effect on the economy. If you raise taxes on the poor and middle class, it will have some slowing effect. Which is why Obama is not. But, of course, that is not the point, as you know, It is about stimulus spending. Which stimulates the economy. So, your argument is, as usual, vacuous. Which is why, by raising taxes, and stimulus spending, Reagan lowered unemployment and improved the economy. And why Clinton did the same. And, by the way, why you can not show a single case when a president has lowered taxes during high unemployment and improved the economy WITHOUT STIMULUS.
Here is a study by the non partial study on raising taxes on the wealthy, by the Congressional Research Service. If you would like to see more, we can look at what the CBO has to say on the subject.
Tax the Rich, Kill the Economy? Here's Proof It Doesn't Work That Way - DailyFinance


what you do not understand is that what you are saying no longer applies. Since the republicans have made it essentially impossible to raise taxes, a president is stuck with lowering them, but never paying them back. Lower taxes, help the economy a little bit, but not much. Increase the national debt as a result. Nice plan, oldstyle. Nice plan. You will destroy the national debt over time, and in general kill the economy.



See, now that is why you should never, ever criticize anyone's economic knowledge. Because that was about the stupidest statement, from an economic standpoint, ever. Jesus, that was dumb. If you were in an economic forum, you would be blasted out. Really dumb. Lets look at the elements of your really stupid paragraph:

Makes the economy grow, that is true. In the short term, depends. Usually the projects are relatively short term, perhaps one to ten years. Now, during that time the workers on the projects will spend their money. It is not artificial money, so it is gladdly accepted. That causes growth in business who receive that money. So they hire. And they spend their non artificial money. And that repeats. So, me boy, nothing artificial about it, except in your little mind. What does happen, me boy, is that the economy keeps on keeping on even after the money is spent. Which is why Reagan was so successful with his tax and stimulus spend process. And why Clinton was so successfull in the exact same way. So, both did tax decreases and used stimulus spending to get the economy going really well. The most workers added to the workforce were by Clinton. Reagan was number two. Did their economies look temporary to you???

t

he massive amounts of debt we're incurring are fully as harmful to our economy as the unemployment that you keep rambling on about if we don't ever pay it back

No me boy. You will have a very, very hard time finding any economists that believe that the national debt is anywhere near as big a problem as unemployment. And here, again, you show your ignorance of economics. At no time in history have we payed down the national debt in any real way when unemployment was over 7%. So you have it totally backwards. National debt is a big problem that will not be addressed until we get unemployment well down. You see, oldstyle, i know this is a bit complex. But debt goes down with increased revenue as well as with lower expenditures. And, you can not increase revenues until people are employed at a high rate. And therefor paying taxes. And paying taxes reduces the debt. Study it a bit. It is actually very, very simple.

...

which we don't. Why? Because any revenue that Barry, Harry and Nancy manage to extort out of a reluctant GOP House doesn't go towards paying down the deficit...oh, no...that money gets spent on more big government programs.

And that is a political statement. But if you look at the CBO estimates, you will see that the national debt is expected to decrease over the upcoming years. As is the deficit. And by the way, want to tell us, now that we are all on the edge of our seats, when it was that a republican president EVER had a deficit??? Last one, me poor economic wasteland, was under Clinton. You really need to get your facts straight.

Watching you pretend to know something about economics is always amusing. You can indeed cut debt with increases in revenue but only if you use the increased revenue to pay DOWN the debt once you receive it. If you take the money that you've gotten in tax increases and spend it on other things instead of the debt then it doesn't take an economic "genius" to figure out that WON'T decrease the debt. Now would you like to show me where Barack Obama has done any paying down of the debt? I'll wait...

You really think the CBO is estimating that the national debt is going to decrease over the upcoming years? God you're dumb! The amount of growth in the national debt may decrease but there is no way on God's Green Earth that the national debt is going decrease. How can it decrease when they are predicting trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and we haven't even seen the true costs of ObamaCare kick in yet.

Once again...the "teacher of college economics" is the most clueless poster on the board when it comes TO economics. But you don't lie? Sure, Tommy...sure...

 

[Oldstyle]

And so what, dipshit. Did you think it was ok to loose over 200 servicemen in Lebanon, but a problem to loose four americans, state and military, in Benghazi???? Or are you simply trying to prove that you are stupid?

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it.

I should feel proud that you supposedly went to college...yet are borderline illiterate? Not quite sure how that follows, Tommy. I feel some pride that I actually learned something during the time I spent in school unlike some others. That's about it though. I'm curious...do you feel "shame" because you supposedly have a college degree...yet you can't spell?

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, trying to discuss something about economics says the following, because he is a glutton for punishment:

Watching you pretend to know something about economics is always amusing.

Oh, man, oldstyle. Here is the dishwasher again, having had two classes in econ a long time ago, telling me I know nothing of econ. Now, oldstyle, again you are showing the attributes of a stupid person. Believeing that you know what you do not know. Because you are to ignorant to recognize that you know so little. So, let me see again if I can educate you. Though that may be a task better left to a grade school teacher.

You can indeed cut debt with increases in revenue but only if you use the increased revenue to pay DOWN the debt once you receive it.

So, you are wrong. For really obvious reasons. Bet you have no clue, eh, Oldstyle???

If you take the money that you've gotten in tax increases and spend it on other things instead of the debt then it doesn't take an economic "genius" to figure out that WON'T decrease the debt. Now would you like to show me where Barack Obama has done any paying down of the debt? I'll wait...

Well, oldstyle, what you do not understand, because you just do not listen, is that the tax increase is spent on STIMULUS. I have explained this, what, 25 times by now??? And stimulus crates jobs. As it did for Clinton. And as it did for Reagan. Now, since these people are employed, guess what, Oldstyle. Now they pay taxes. Honestly, since they are employed, they pay taxes to the gov. Now it should be obvious, but let me explain further. Those taxes are revenue to the federal gov. That means that it decreases the deficit, and thefor the National Debt. . By MUCH more than it cost for the stimulus. As it did for Reagan. And as it did for Clinton. After they increased taxes and spent on stimulus. And, as I told you before, the National Debt will only decrease, and has only decreased historically, when unemployment is under 7%.

You really think the CBO is estimating that the national debt is going to decrease over the upcoming years? God you're dumb! The amount of growth in the national debt may decrease but there is no way on God's Green Earth that the national debt is going decrease. How can it decrease when they are predicting trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and we haven't even seen the true costs of ObamaCare kick in yet.

Oldstyle, you are a clown. You really have no clue, do you. No one looks at the National Debt as a number in determining if it is raising or lowering. How stupid are you. It is always rising, except in very rare situations, such as the Clinton National Debt at the end of his term, and then for only one year. What is looked at by anyone with any economic knowledge, me boy, is the ratio of Debt to GDP. How long it takes to pay of the national debt as it relates to national revenues, or specifically GDP. Once the Deficit gets to something below $450B, the national debt begins to decrease. Which the CBO estimates to be from 2014 on. It is really sad that you are so ignorant that when you hear something about dcreasing the national debt that you would believe they were talking about decreasing the actual number instead of the ratio. You are simply to ignorant to believe.

Apparently your eyes can not see very far. You are again posting nonsense. I said the defict would decrease, and that is what the CBO says, also. Looks like those billion dollar deficits are not in the forecast at all. The last one was last year.

---Years-- -- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Deficit -1,128 -641 -387 -213 -186 -123 -79 -130 -142 -144 -213
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-22-2012-Update_to_Outlook.pdf

By the way, at this point, the CBO projects that the ACA (Obamacare to you) will decrease the deficit, but only slightly. The latest estimate, in July of last year, was about $109B over 11 years.

Once again...the "teacher of college economics" is the most clueless poster on the board when it comes TO economics. But you don't lie? Sure, Tommy...sure..

Right, oldstyle. You are an economic wasteland. And you think you can criticize what you can not understand. And, you understand very very little.

By the way, oldstyle, I never, ever lie. Which is why, try as you may, you can never prove I did. But you, on the other hand, lie, and lie, and lie. Proveably.

 

[rdean]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

Reason? Heck, Deanie...if you REALLY wanted something "reasonable" in regards to helping those that are unemployed get back to work you wouldn't have supported the tax increases that just went through. Only an idiot raises taxes in the midst of a slow economy with millions of people out of work which is what Barry just pulled off.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining to those poor bastards out there who DON'T have a job how what was just done is going to get them a job anytime soon? Your so called "tax on millionaires and billionaires" was really just a kick in the ribs to those people who are down and out because they can't find work only you're such a partisan hack you can't see it.

I told you THAT right from the start of this joke of a string.

Only an idiot CUTS taxes when a nation is at war. It creates huge deficits that cripple the nation. Invading the wrong country doesn't help either.

Those poor bastards will only get a job with an education. Something that if more Republicans had, they would know redistribution of wealth to the top 1% will only cause even more disaster. If you can't figure out why, let me know and I will explain it further. I don't mind at all.

 

[rdean]

Over two hundred posts and still, we are waiting for a reasonable explanation.

Reason? Heck, Deanie...if you REALLY wanted something "reasonable" in regards to helping those that are unemployed get back to work you wouldn't have supported the tax increases that just went through. Only an idiot raises taxes in the midst of a slow economy with millions of people out of work which is what Barry just pulled off.

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining to those poor bastards out there who DON'T have a job how what was just done is going to get them a job anytime soon? Your so called "tax on millionaires and billionaires" was really just a kick in the ribs to those people who are down and out because they can't find work only you're such a partisan hack you can't see it.

I told you THAT right from the start of this joke of a string.

All Deanie heard was, "republicanssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss evillllllllllll evil Republicanssss"

If you are an example of a Republican, then you are probably right. Everywhere you step, the earth dies a little more.

 

[Rshermr]

For the second time...it's LOSE...not LOOSE! Calling someone else "stupid" when you can't spell is the epitome of "stupid".

Can't spell...don't know a country in the Middle East from one in Africa...don't have a clue about economics? Are you always this ignorant or do you save it up for this chat site?

Nah. I just toss in a typo once in a while so that you can have something to feel proud about. God knows you need it.

I should feel proud that you supposedly went to college...yet are borderline illiterate? Not quite sure how that follows, Tommy. I feel some pride that I actually learned something during the time I spent in school unlike some others. That's about it though. I'm curious...do you feel "shame" because you supposedly have a college degree...yet you can't spell?

Is that all you have. You just proved yourself to be an economic idiot, but find it really cool that you can find an occasional typo.
Really, oldstyle??? is that all you have? Just more stupid personal attacks, just as I predicted? And it does not bother you that the person whom you are trying to criticize predicts your moves perfectly.

You told me once that you were a had job checking copy after college. You should be good at it. Apparently that is interesting enough to keep your attention still. It is not for me, Oldstyle. It would bore me to death. Which is why I always had someone to do that tedius shit for me when doing business correspondence. But then you spend your days at the restaurant posting to this blog. I have never, ever had a job so inconsequential that I would allow myself to do that. And my boss would have shit bricks. And washing dishes is just a bit lowly, for most of us. So, oldstyle, what I would feel ashamed of is not being nothing more than what you are. A simple dish washer. But I guess it is good enough for you. And you got a degree in History WHY??