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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the real point is, if you are going to take an economist seriously, you should look for considered opinion. Not agenda. And Sowell is entirely agenda.

but so was Thomas Jefferson and Jesus Christ?? Does that make them wrong?? How stupid can you be???

Name an opinion, and you know what he is going to say, at least 95% of the time. So, why bother reading his agenda. It is a total waste of time. What you have then is entertainment value. No real objective analysis, because you know where the guy is going.

liberals may have the IQ to know that he's going toward less government but they don't have the IQ to understand the rationale so need to study it more and more even though its much like a goldfish studying calculus.

A liberal lacks the character to admit his ignorace so tries to stay in the debate with absurd lies:

1) Krugman is objective
2) NY Times is objective
3) Reagan tax increases prove liberalism
4) raising price of labor increases employment
5) priming the pump does not create malinvestment housing bubbles

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your opinion of Paul Krugman is your opinion. Sorry, I see him as a realist.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman see himself as on the extreme left!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

 

[Rshermr]

Your opinion of Paul Krugman is your opinion. Sorry, I see him as a realist.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman see himself as on the extreme left!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

The really good part about an ed post is that regardless how bad your day may be going, you know it could be much worse. For instance, if you are bitten by a rattle snake, it is still better than reading an ed post. Even a good ed post is worse than a root canal.
But the thing is, ed is mentally ill. So it is not his fault. It is simply bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your opinion of Paul Krugman is your opinion. Sorry, I see him as a realist.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman see himself as on the extreme left!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

The really good part about an ed post is that regardless how bad your day may be going, you know it could be much worse. For instance, if you are bitten by a rattle snake, it is still better than reading an ed post. Even a good ed post is worse than a root canal.
But the thing is, ed is mentally ill. So it is not his fault. It is simply bad luck.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

 

[Rshermr]

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman see himself as on the extreme left!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

The really good part about an ed post is that regardless how bad your day may be going, you know it could be much worse. For instance, if you are bitten by a rattle snake, it is still better than reading an ed post. Even a good ed post is worse than a root canal.
But the thing is, ed is mentally ill. So it is not his fault. It is simply bad luck.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

Now, now, ed. You're off your meds. Here. Go study these and you will understand yourself. It will explain to you why you are stupid. Again, just trying to be helpful. And remember. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The really good part about an ed post is that regardless how bad your day may be going, you know it could be much worse. For instance, if you are bitten by a rattle snake, it is still better than reading an ed post. Even a good ed post is worse than a root canal.
But the thing is, ed is mentally ill. So it is not his fault. It is simply bad luck.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

Now, now, ed. You're off your meds. Here. Go study these and you will understand yourself. It will explain to you why you are stupid. Again, just trying to be helpful. And remember. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

 

[Toronado3800]

But the real point is, if you are going to take an economist seriously, you should look for considered opinion. Not agenda. And Sowell is entirely agenda.

but so was Thomas Jefferson and Jesus Christ?? Does that make them wrong?? How stupid can you be???

Name an opinion, and you know what he is going to say, at least 95% of the time. So, why bother reading his agenda. It is a total waste of time. What you have then is entertainment value. No real objective analysis, because you know where the guy is going.

liberals may have the IQ to know that he's going toward less government but they don't have the IQ to understand the rationale so need to study it more and more even though its much like a goldfish studying calculus.

A liberal lacks the character to admit his ignorace so tries to stay in the debate with absurd lies:

1) Krugman is objective
2) NY Times is objective
3) Reagan tax increases prove liberalism
4) raising price of labor increases employment
5) priming the pump does not create malinvestment housing bubbles

Got it. Thomas Jefferson wanted to fund the whole country with protectionist tariffs and that is good. Jesus said the ultimate political/taxation power over Israel came from the centralized Roman Emperor and that is good.

Thanks for making your point about tariffs and centralized government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Got it. Thomas Jefferson wanted to fund the whole country with protectionist tariffs and that is good.

if I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???

Jesus said the ultimate political/taxation power over Israel came from the centralized Roman Emperor and that is good.

he did?? Do you have any idea what your subject even is????

Thanks for making your point about tariffs and centralized government.

who was even talking about tariffs??????????????????????? Why not try law school and then come back?

 

[rdean]

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

No, that information comes directly from the Republicans. It's available for all Americans. It's not like they hide it.

 

[rdean]

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

Now, now, ed. You're off your meds. Here. Go study these and you will understand yourself. It will explain to you why you are stupid. Again, just trying to be helpful. And remember. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

I watched Krugman on Morning Joe just this morning. He said he was getting tired of always being right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now, now, ed. You're off your meds. Here. Go study these and you will understand yourself. It will explain to you why you are stupid. Again, just trying to be helpful. And remember. It is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

I watched Krugman on Morning Joe just this morning. He said he was getting tired of always being right.

thats good deany bird brain, but you forgot to give us his best example of what he has been right about????

 

[Oldstyle]

No, unlike YOU...I'm quite comfortable calling Thomas Sowell what he is...a conservative economist who has been commenting on social issues as well as economic issues for decades. You're the buffoon that can't bring himself to even admit that Paul Krugman is a far left liberal.

As for where Sowell "posts"? He's a syndicated columnist to over 150 newspapers from coast to coast as well as a regular contributor to Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. Sowell does not post almost entirely in right wing nut case web sites as you have alleged...just one more of your usual lies.

Ah, but he does. Take a look, dipshit. Syndicate simply says he writes a single article and it is placed in lots of outlets. Newspapers, for instance. What I am saying is that his effort to write particular opinion pieces and post them is almost entirely to right wing nut case web sites.

But the real point is, if you are going to take an economist seriously, you should look for considered opinion. Not agenda. And Sowell is entirely agenda. Name an opinion, and you know what he is going to say, at least 95% of the time. So, why bother reading his agenda. It is a total waste of time. What you have then is entertainment value. No real objective analysis, because you know where the guy is going.

Your opinion of Paul Krugman is your opinion. Sorry, I see him as a realist. And I do not see him posting about social issues, with his nose up the ass of any political nut cases like the Koch brothers. Nor do I see him clinging to an economic theory that has never, ever produced a working economy. So, what does anyone see in Sowell. If you are honest with yourself, you see agenda. And if you look a bit, you see paid for agenda. Dipshit.

By the way, where are those left wing non economic issues that Krugman or some other progressive phd economist are writing and talking about. You know, the ones you were so amazed that I was suggesting he does not comment on. In the above post where you misquoted me. As usual.

You need to actually go and read some of Thomas Sowell's books, Tommy. What he's noted for is looking at things through a prism of practicality. He was a card carrying Marxist coming out of college, about as far left as could be but when he got out into the real world and started doing studies on how economics actually worked what he found was that capitalism was what really increased the standard of living for people...not socialism.

What people "see" in Sowell is common sense. When you read what he has to say about economics it's logical. He tells you why things occur as they do. He doesn't waste time with abstract concepts like fairness and justice. To Sowell the study of economics isn't about either of those things...it's about how people REALLY act and what REALLY happens when you adopt various fiscal policies...not what you'd LIKE to see happen.

Krugman comments on non-economic issues all that time. Do you really not know that? Oh, that's right...you don't actually READ anything but progressive web sites...do you? Krugman is an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times I COULD go on listing non economics based articles that Krugman has written practically ad infinitum. Would that make you happy? It obviously would make you more informed about WHO Paul Krugman is.

 

[Toronado3800]

Got it. Thomas Jefferson wanted to fund the whole country with protectionist tariffs and that is good.

if I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???

Jesus said the ultimate political/taxation power over Israel came from the centralized Roman Emperor and that is good.

he did?? Do you have any idea what your subject even is????

Thanks for making your point about tariffs and centralized government.

who was even talking about tariffs??????????????????????? Why not try law school and then come back?

Um Edward. You brought up the Jesus and Jefferson thing yet again so I chimed in.

Now that I know you just want to impose your religous views on the good people of the various states quite liberally I suppose this point is moot.

 

[Rshermr]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

Michael who?

What is the Democrats' fiscal policy?
Oh yeah, spend, baby, spend!

Yes even when $16 trillion in debt headed to $50 trillion. Greece here we come!! Liberals are totally irresponsible.

Yes, so says ed. Because he simply posts con dogma. And he does not want to see projections for the national debt. He would rather make them up. Because that is what he is paid to do.

 

[rdean]

thats because you're an absolutely brain dead pea brained libturd!! Even Krugman sees himself as " too hot handle" and on the extreme left, not a "realist" as you so ignorantly proclaim!!

No human being can really be that slow without significant brain damage. What other conclusiuon is possible??

I watched Krugman on Morning Joe just this morning. He said he was getting tired of always being right.

thats good deany bird brain, but you forgot to give us his best example of what he has been right about????

Why do I have to do research for you? You sit in front of the Internet. Learn to use Google. Anything I say you will simply call a "lie" because you don't know enough about anything to actually discuss. The GOP have so much pride and confidence in ignorance. Remember, these people view "Trickle Down" as sound economic policy. They believe you clan cut education and infrastructure and have a sound future. They believe lowering the minimum wage and cutting benefits will lead to high paying jobs. They have to be delusional. What else could it be?

 

[Rshermr]

I watched Krugman on Morning Joe just this morning. He said he was getting tired of always being right.

thats good deany bird brain, but you forgot to give us his best example of what he has been right about????

Why do I have to do research for you? You sit in front of the Internet. Learn to use Google. Anything I say you will simply call a "lie" because you don't know enough about anything to actually discuss. The GOP have so much pride and confidence in ignorance. Remember, these people view "Trickle Down" as sound economic policy. They believe you clan cut education and infrastructure and have a sound future. They believe lowering the minimum wage and cutting benefits will lead to high paying jobs. They have to be delusional. What else could it be?

Greed. Not for ed. He works for pennies. For his heroes, the Koch bros., for instance. And their friends.
Watch his posts. If it is good for the koch bros, ed is for it.

 

[Oldstyle]

thats good deany bird brain, but you forgot to give us his best example of what he has been right about????

Why do I have to do research for you? You sit in front of the Internet. Learn to use Google. Anything I say you will simply call a "lie" because you don't know enough about anything to actually discuss. The GOP have so much pride and confidence in ignorance. Remember, these people view "Trickle Down" as sound economic policy. They believe you clan cut education and infrastructure and have a sound future. They believe lowering the minimum wage and cutting benefits will lead to high paying jobs. They have to be delusional. What else could it be?

Greed. Not for ed. He works for pennies. For his heroes, the Koch bros., for instance. And their friends.
Watch his posts. If it is good for the koch bros, ed is for it.

Trickle Down only exists in the minds of progressives like you, Tommy...lemmings that don't understand economics and have been brain washed by MSNBC and Think Progress. Koch Brothers? Right back to posting progressive "crap"...aren't you? At the same time you accuse others of getting their information from "bat shit crazy" web sites you're here spamming nonsense gleaned from exactly those kinds of places. Raising the minimum wage is your solution? Why? It's been proven over and over again that doing so simply causes the people with the fewest job skills to lose their jobs or not be hired at all. So why would any rational person advocate for that? Because they are naive and uninformed? That pretty much sums you up...doesn't it?

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle is out posting dogma again. Because it is dogma, he can not find a single nonpartisan source to back up his statements. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites, which he does not want to use. Because then people will understand where he gets his dogma. Lets look:

Trickle Down only exists in the minds of progressives like you, Tommy...lemmings that don't understand economics and have been brain washed by MSNBC and Think Progress.

Right, oldstyle. Your definition of trickle down is your opinion. Now, my definition came from the source. The person who was the Budget Director for Ronald Reagan when the the term was first used. You know that. His name is David Stockman. And he was there, among the originators of the term. And who first used the term publicly? Why, David Stockman. See the link below:
http://connerforus.com/david_stockman_quote.htm
Here are your problems, Oldstyle.: 1. Some of the people who originated it are still around. 2. There are recordings of who used the term, over and over. 3. In the beginning, those people were not trying to duck trickle down, they were using it to justify Supply Side economics. 4. Lots of people remember that. 5. There are all kinds of non partisan sources that will explain that to you. 6. There are NO non partisan sources that back up your statement that supply side was invented by critics of Supply Side. 7. Your statement that it was invented by critics of supply side just does not pass the giggle test.

Koch Brothers? Right back to posting progressive "crap"...aren't you? At the same time you accuse others of getting their information from "bat shit crazy" web sites you're here spamming nonsense gleaned from exactly those kinds of places.

What about the Koch Brothers is progressive crap, oldstyle?? That they are buddies with your conservative libertarian economist??? That the fact that he posts on bat shit crazy con web sites is true, and I documented it??? I know you hate even a little research, which is all that I did. Because you do not want anyone to notice your hero, the libertarian economist, is posting there. But, unfortunately, he is. Over and over and over and over.

Raising the minimum wage is your solution?

No, I did not come up with that. Economists did. Not your favorite economist, of course, but a large majority who disagree with you and your economist.

Why? It's been proven over and over again that doing so simply causes the people with the fewest job skills to lose their jobs or not be hired at all. So why would any rational person advocate for that? Because they are naive and uninformed?

If what you say had any truth, you would be able to see your link to the experts who would back you up. But instead, all we see is a statement from a guy who had two classes in economics. One from a libertarian economist (No, that is not an oxymoron. An economist can take the koch money, for instance, and then write about the wonders of libertarian economic thought.) Where is that link, oldstyle?? Oh, I get it. It is your opinion. And you know how much we value your opinion.

That pretty much sums you up...doesn't it?

No, but it does sum you up.

"Two decades of rigorous economic research have found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss. While the simplistic theoretical model of supply and demand suggests that raising wages reduces jobs, the way the labor market functions in the real world is more complex. Researchers have examined the scores of minimum wage increases that have occurred at the state and federal level and found that these raises have not cut jobs or slowed job growth."
The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

"Increasing the Minimum Wage During Rough Economic Times Does Not Kill Jobs"
The Facts on Raising the Minimum Wage When Unemployment Is High | Center for American Progress Action Fund

How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy
How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy LearnVest

So, your statement about minimum wage is supported on the web, but ONLY by bat shit crazy con sites, as far as I can find. So, here you are again. Saying that you are not a con tool. Yet all the non partial sites disagree with you. And you are perfectly aligned with the only sources that AGREE with you. The bat shit crazy con web sites. And I am sure fox agrees. So lets do the Koch test, oldstyle. Why would the Koch bros. benefit from no minimum wage? Pretty obvious, eh, Oldstyle. Why, because it would keep their costs down by allowing them to pay poverty wages. Funny how the Koch test always explains your postings. Must be just a coincidence.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle is out posting dogma again. Because it is dogma, he can not find a single nonpartisan source to back up his statements. Only the bat shit crazy con web sites, which he does not want to use. Because then people will understand where he gets his dogma. Lets look:

Trickle Down only exists in the minds of progressives like you, Tommy...lemmings that don't understand economics and have been brain washed by MSNBC and Think Progress.

Right, oldstyle. Your definition of trickle down is your opinion. Now, my definition came from the source. The person who was the Budget Director for Ronald Reagan when the the term was first used. You know that. His name is David Stockman. And he was there, among the originators of the term. And who first used the term publicly? Why, David Stockman. See the link below:
David Stockman on Supply Side an
Here are your problems, Oldstyle.: 1. Some of the people who originated it are still around. 2. There are recordings of who used the term, over and over. 3. In the beginning, those people were not trying to duck trickle down, they were using it to justify Supply Side economics. 4. Lots of people remember that. 5. There are all kinds of non partisan sources that will explain that to you. 6. There are NO non partisan sources that back up your statement that supply side was invented by critics of Supply Side. 7. Your statement that it was invented by critics of supply side just does not pass the giggle test.

Koch Brothers? Right back to posting progressive "crap"...aren't you? At the same time you accuse others of getting their information from "bat shit crazy" web sites you're here spamming nonsense gleaned from exactly those kinds of places.

What about the Koch Brothers is progressive crap, oldstyle?? That they are buddies with your conservative libertarian economist??? That the fact that he posts on bat shit crazy con web sites is true, and I documented it??? I know you hate even a little research, which is all that I did. Because you do not want anyone to notice your hero, the libertarian economist, is posting there. But, unfortunately, he is. Over and over and over and over.



No, I did not come up with that. Economists did. Not your favorite economist, of course, but a large majority who disagree with you and your economist.

Why? It's been proven over and over again that doing so simply causes the people with the fewest job skills to lose their jobs or not be hired at all. So why would any rational person advocate for that? Because they are naive and uninformed?

If what you say had any truth, you would be able to see your link to the experts who would back you up. But instead, all we see is a statement from a guy who had two classes in economics. One from a libertarian economist (No, that is not an oxymoron. An economist can take the koch money, for instance, and then write about the wonders of libertarian economic thought.) Where is that link, oldstyle?? Oh, I get it. It is your opinion. And you know how much we value your opinion.

That pretty much sums you up...doesn't it?

No, but it does sum you up.

"Two decades of rigorous economic research have found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss. While the simplistic theoretical model of supply and demand suggests that raising wages reduces jobs, the way the labor market functions in the real world is more complex. Researchers have examined the scores of minimum wage increases that have occurred at the state and federal level and found that these raises have not cut jobs or slowed job growth."
The Job Loss Myth | Raise The Minimum Wage

"Increasing the Minimum Wage During Rough Economic Times Does Not Kill Jobs"
The Facts on Raising the Minimum Wage When Unemployment Is High | Center for American Progress Action Fund

How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy
How Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help the Economy LearnVest

So, your statement about minimum wage is supported on the web, but ONLY by bat shit crazy con sites, as far as I can find. So, here you are again. Saying that you are not a con tool. Yet all the non partial sites disagree with you. And you are perfectly aligned with the only sources that AGREE with you. The bat shit crazy con web sites. And I am sure fox agrees. So lets do the Koch test, oldstyle. Why would the Koch bros. benefit from no minimum wage? Pretty obvious, eh, Oldstyle. Why, because it would keep their costs down by allowing them to pay poverty wages. Funny how the Koch test always explains your postings. Must be just a coincidence.

Let me get this straight...

Did you REALLY just accuse me of using "bat shit crazy" sites and then cite the ones that you did to provide "proof" that raising minimum wage doesn't cost jobs? Do you even understand how much of a hypocritical idiot you are when you do stuff like this?

What about the Koch Bros. is "crap"? That they pay everyone on the planet to hold the conservative views that they do. According to you...they pay me to blog here and Thomas Sowell to write what he writes. THAT is what is "crap".

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you really want to get into another discussion about "trickle down" economics? You know you're going to once again demonstrate how little you know about economics and I'm going to bust your chops about being a fraud.

You can't help yourself though...can you? You read that nonsense on your progressive web sites and you just HAVE to push it here.