# US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

Google it. 

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

Last time it was this low was 1973


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Last time it was this low was 1973



Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Last time it was this low was 1973
> ...


That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up


If a Republican was president, the unemployment rate would be around 9%; given how it almost always ends up higher than where they started.


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Last time it was this low was 1973
> ...


Carter took over in 1974??

Holyfuckingshit! 

Lemme guess ... you're a conservative ... am I right?


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up



And how many are of those illegals and still working minimum wage? Cheap labor. The Americans who can no longer qualify for unemployment benefits don't count in the statistics. The government leaves the homeless out as well as illegals. The government neglect to mention entrepreneurs working from home and retired people who have been released from their job position but still need extra income beyond SSI.

*Where do the statistics come from?*
Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor.  This does not include the people who don't file unemployment at Dept of Labor


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> If a Republican was president, the unemployment rate would be around 9%; given how it almost always ends up higher than where they started.



I guess your straw man fallacy is cause of neglect from education and research?

*UNEMPLOYMENT RATES UNDER PRESIDENT CARTER*
The first two-and-a-half years of Carter’s presidency saw slow by steady improvement in the unemployment rate, but the 1979 energy crisis, along with spiking oil prices that came with it, push unemployment back up to just under 8 percent.

*UNEMPLOYMENT RATES UNDER PRESIDENT KENNEDY*
JFK came to office in the midst of a recession. The economy did recover a little, but it was unconvincing and remained underperforming well into 1963. That was reflected in an unemployment rate that remained relatively high, hovering around 5.6 percent through much of 1962 and 1963.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.



Yeah, he sure did fix it alright, I mean contain the situation alright.


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > If a Republican was president, the unemployment rate would be around 9%; given how it almost always ends up higher than where they started.
> ...


Leave it to an idiot who thinks Carter was president in 1974 to point to Kennedy and Carter as examples of presidents who oversaw poor unemployment records.



Respectively, a president who presided over a period where the unemployment rate dropped almost one percentage point and one who left the unemployment rate where he found it.

And while you point to the two Democrats with the worst records in terms of unemployment, you look past *every single Republican president except one* who did worse than the two worst Democrats since the BLS has been tracking unemployment...


* Clinton    ** -3.3 *​*  -45% *​* Obama*     ** -2.8 *​*  -36% *​* Johnson    ** -2.3 *​*  -40% *​* Reagan     ** -2.1 *​*  -28% *​* Kennedy    ** -0.9 *​*  -14% *​* Carter     **  0.0 *​*    0% *​* GHW Bush   ** +1.9 *​*  +35% *​* Ford       ** +2.0 *​*  +36% *​* Nixon      ** +2.1 *​*  +62% *​* Bush       ** +3.6 *​*  +86% *​* Eisenhower ** +3.7 *​* +128% *​

_* = handed the worst recession since the Great Depression_


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> Leave it to an idiot who thinks Carter was president in 1974 to point to Kennedy and Carter as examples of presidents who oversaw poor unemployment records.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its funny how you attack typos like they were the KKK burning a cross at your front door. I hate to see how you treat your democrat presidents when they error? Is that all you have typo police, "nana nana nana" you made an error nana nana nana! I'm not the one running for POTUS. If a democrat POTUS leaves a mess, the GOP POTUS can't play the blame game. You librats are hypocrite shysters looking for excuses.


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Leave it to an idiot who thinks Carter was president in 1974 to point to Kennedy and Carter as examples of presidents who oversaw poor unemployment records.
> ...


Who knows what you're whining about ... There was no typo I attacked.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

Leading Democrat candidate.


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Leading Democrat candidate.


Spits the idiot who thinks Carter was president in 1974. 

At any rate, looks like she likes to have fun. Be sure to let me know when she mocks someone's disabilities....


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up



I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America!  He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO!  Thanks Obama?  That's farce of the highest order...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...


They like high unemployment. It keeps labor costs down.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...


Another major reason people can't find work is because companies don't hire the unemployed. 

And consider 2% of the 4% might not be employable. Aka pieces of shit who can't keep a job.

Companies are saying they can't find good help. The economy is back. If a Republican were President you'd be saying we can't change course in the middle of a recovery. Obama rules!


----------



## 80zephyr (Apr 21, 2016)

Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.

Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?

Apparently, the unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Mark


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Hell, if Obama were a Republican, the right would have him at legend status by now.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...


I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 21, 2016)

80zephyr said:


> Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.
> 
> Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?
> 
> ...


Right. Workers need to make more.

Did you know 47% of Americans couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency?

People used to go work for Ford or gm or a supplier of theirs. Now they work for walmart.


----------



## Faun (Apr 21, 2016)

80zephyr said:


> Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.
> 
> Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?
> 
> ...


Of course unemployment is only part of the picture. But unemployment is way down under Obama. So while there are still problems with the economy, unemployment isn't one of them as we are now at full employment.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

She doesn't need to mock the disabled vets, she just mocks their death. You underestimated your Queen Witch. She only lets you see what she wants you to see. You're her bitch pussy whipped.


















*



*
*



*
*



*
*



*
*Hilary's negro dialect*
**


----------



## couch protester (Apr 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Companies are saying they can't find good help. The economy is back. If a Republican were President you'd be saying we can't change course in the middle of a recovery. Obama rules!



Obama rules welfare recipients. The self reliant working America rule ourselves. Can't make change with a food stamp. Change his drawers and maybe his Islam name.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Who the fuck in their right mind would hire someone on the government dole for 99 weeks???????????


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up


What’s sad and telling is that many on the right want the American people to suffer so republicans might realize some perceived partisan gain.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> The Americans who can no longer qualify for unemployment benefits don't count in the statistics.


LIAR!


couch protester said:


> *Where do the statistics come from?*
> Early each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor. This does not include the people who don't file unemployment at Dept of Labor


LIAR!


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Who the fuck in their right mind would hire someone on the government dole for 99 weeks???????????


NOBODY is presently on UI for 99 weeks.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What’s sad and telling is that many on the right want the American people to suffer so republicans might realize some perceived partisan gain.


Exactly, the Right not only hopes Americans suffer so they can score political points, the worthless Right-wing scum ENJOY watching Americans suffer.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:  Joe the Plumber.  Now, *Joe the Plumber is an average citizen*

November 5, 2008
RUSH:* I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months*! There.

March 27, 2013
RUSH: We're talking about schadenfreude. You know what schadenfreude is. That is loving, that is *enjoying the discomfort of others*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck in their right mind would hire someone on the government dole for 99 weeks???????????
> ...




No shit Sherlock, btw I wonder what happened to all those people who got kicked off the gravey train in 2013?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


No you don't. You didn't care then and you don't care now!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




You don't want know the truth because you can't handle the truth....

The Unemployment rate dropped like a rock after the Republicans kicked off the 99 weekers.

Went from 7.9% Dec.2013 to 6.6% Jan 2014

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Prove to me it was not a job creation program by the republicans 



.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


They got jobs you dumb Republican


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 22, 2016)

Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism. 

Obama wins again.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism.
> 
> Obama wins again.


I remember telling Republicans about real unemployment back when bush had us in a 8 year recession. But the economy is near zero unemployment. What do they want Obama to do about unemployment? Do they want Obama to make companies hire the unemployable?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism.
> ...



If unemployement were in fact 0% they'd say Obama was Satan because he couldn't get it to -4%. It's the person they hate, not the actions. They are very inclined to cult of personality disorder, both positive and negative.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Then why were they crying? " Oh boo whoooo woe is us we have to get a job, those nasty republicans "


*You know they milked the 99 weeks*


.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


First of all, not all states got 99 weeks, only states over a certain % UE. Secondly those states that did have 99 weeks began ending them in early 2012, not Dec 2013. And thirdly the UE rate was already declining steadily before 2012.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!
They "milked" it by spending MORE time looking for work than those who weren't collecting UI.

Unemployment Benefits: Democratic Governors Call On Congress To Keep Benefits

a report, released Thursday, that finds workers who are eligible for benefits search for work more vigorously than workers who are not eligible.

“Since Congress enacted federal unemployment benefits, time spent looking for a job has tripled among the long-term unemployed who are out of work as a result of job loss,” the report says (PDF).

Citing data from the Labor Department’s American Time Use Survey, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee estimate that from 2008 to 2010, *the amount of time long-term jobless eligible for benefits spend looking for work increased 203 percent compared with previous years. For workers who are likely ineligible for benefits because their unemployment was not caused by job loss, the amount of time spent search for work increased 120 percent.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy!  Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate.  The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation!  It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


In fact, right during the great Bush recession, GOP governor Rick snyder cut unemployment down from 6 weeks to 5.  I couldn't believe he did that during a recession.  

But all one has to do is look at how he didn't care when he was poisoning flint citizens with led, so why would I think he would care about cutting people off during a great recession his party created on purpose?  It's called disaster capitalism.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You guys have a spin on everything.  

1.  Yes it did create jobs.  It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.  

2.  But lets say you are right, which in a way you are.  Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.  

So I'll conceed you are right.  But that means we were right all along.  We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs.  The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Why Some Still Can't Find Jobs As The Economy Nears 'Full Employment'

But the phrase doesn't tell the full story for millions of Americans either still out of work or who are looking for something better than part-time work.

To economists, it's when the number of people seeking jobs is roughly in balance with the number of openings. 

Economists say a healthy job market has an unemployment rate somewhere between 4.6 percent and 5 percent. Some people are quitting, some people are getting hired — there's churn but no despair. In December, the national rate was 5 percent and now many predictions have the rate gliding down to 4.6 percent by July. So bingo, we're basically there at full employment. If all goes as expected in 2016, people who want jobs will be able to find them, and employers who need workers will be able to attract them.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit.  Demand?  If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so.  Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not?  You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best.  If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that* profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.*
> 
> You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> *Giving companies tax breaks* does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.


That may have been the rule before Bush II, but it no longer applies after the Bush II tax cuts.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> [
> 
> 
> couch protester said:
> ...



Delusions of grandeur.



But the *109,631,000* living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all *309,467,000 people* living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015
*Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...*
economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-*welfare*-paints-a-d...
Obviously the government doesn't count these welfare recipients as unemployed if they are only working temporarily 8 hours a week at a Temporary Staffing agency on poverty level. Librats want so bad to believe their hero JObama.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Actually, most normal people understand the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  If you think conservativonomics work you're more brainwashed than you appear to be.  Are you a libertarian?


----------



## pinqy (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed?  I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered  unemployed.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Apr 22, 2016)

People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed. 
That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment. 
*If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is* *14%.*
If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
*So the figure is now - 12%.*
If 300 people have been out of work for longer than they can draw unemployment, then - again using this number -* the figure is now 9%.*

Get it dumbass OP? - you can't use this number to represent anything other than what it is - and what it is - has no meaning for how many people have jobs.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> But the *109,631,000* living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all *309,467,000 people* living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015
> 
> *Percentage of Americans Now on Welfare Paints a ...*
> economyincrisis.org/.../percentage-of-americans-now-on-*welfare*-paints-a-d...




Typical dishonest stat. They counted 6 different programs and if one person was eligible for all 6 they were counted as 6 different people.  Most poor people were eligible for more than 1 poverty program, in fact, when the Right like to claim that poor people make more than people who work, they count all 6 poverty programs combined.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

iamwhatiseem said:


> People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
> That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.
> *If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is* *14%.*
> If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...if you try to use this number to represent how many jobs there are.
> ...


All LIES, get it


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.
> ...



What are you talking about?
I am saying that you can't use a number that represents how many people file for unemployment anything other than how many people file for unemployment. 
The number cannot be used to insinuate more people have jobs.
Tell me how that is a lie.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

pinqy said:


> [
> It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed?  I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered  unemployed.



Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!


----------



## pinqy (Apr 22, 2016)

iamwhatiseem said:


> People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.


 No they're not.  Where'd you get that nonsense from?


> That is how dumb this figure is. It is is just a number. It doesn't represent how many people are employed, it is a number of people who filed for unemployment.


 No.
*



			If you have 10,000 employable people...1400 do not work - then your true unemployment figure is
		
Click to expand...

*


> *14%.*
> If 200 of these people have never had a job, because they were in school ect. - they are counted among the EMPLOYED people...


No.

Every month there is a survey. The survey universe are those in the U.S. age 16 and older who are not in the military, or in prison, or in an institution (nursing home, mental health, etc).  This is the Population.
Everyone in the Population is either in the Labor Force or is Not in the Labor Force.
The Labor Force is made up of the Employed (working or temporarily absent from a job) and the Unemployed (not working, but available and looking for work)
Everyone else (those not working and either not available or not trying to work) are Not in the Labor Force.

The Unemployment rate is Unemployed as a percent of the Labor Force (NOT the population).  Meaning the UE rate is Unemployed divided by (Employed plus Unemployed).  Those Not in the Labor Force are not part of the UE rate equation.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Actually, the only President under which anyone working was included as Unemployed was FDR (people working in the PWA were classified as Unemployed).

Otherwise, no one classifies someone WHO HAS A JOB as "Unemployed." It's nonsensical.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > But the *109,631,000* living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all *309,467,000 people* living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015
> ...



Show a liberal hard evidence, liberals say its inadmissible, bring a liberal witnesses and the criminal's testimony confession, liberals say it was false witnesses and a forced confession, the jury finds the criminal guilty on 12 charges, the libs say the criminal didn't commit one crime. Democrats love defending their politician criminals like Bill Clinton, Hillary, ISIS, Ted Kennedy, Southern Democrat Ku Klux Klan harassing and hanging blacks in the South for voting Republican and still blacks harassed today by bigots for being an Uncle Tom for voting Republican. No wonder libs condone their criminal behavior, they're the Mafia! You librats learn well from your master Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals


* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

iamwhatiseem said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


People who run out of UI are NOT counted as employed simply because their UI ran out, as you falsely claim, they are counted as unemployed until they find a job whether they are collecting UI or not as long as they made at least a token effort to find a job which can be as little as asking a friend if they know of any jobs. So your whole rant was based on the lie in your first sentence which I have highlighted in red for you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 22, 2016)

Deregulations collapsed our economy!!!! Remember that the next election. Vote democrat!


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope....wrong again.
I said that as a point showing how dumb the OP was using this number to insinuate that more people have jobs. 
The number, jobless claims, is a number of..wait for it... jobless claims. Trying to use that number to show anything else is wrong...my first sentence is an example of that - the note "that is how dumb that figure is" - what I really should have said it "that is how dumb it is to use this figure for that".


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 22, 2016)

iamwhatiseem said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


The number of NEW jobless claims, and the NEW is very important, shows that less workers are losing their jobs. The OP left out the NEW, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but the stat properly stated IS a good sign for the economy.

New Jobless Claims: Down 6K, Lowest Since 1973 - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

In the week ending April 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted *initial claims* was 247,000, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 253,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973 when it was 233,000. The 4-week moving average was 260,500, a decrease of 4,500 from the previous week's unrevised average of 265,000.

There were no special factors impacting this week's* initial claims*. This marks 59 consecutive weeks of* initial claims* below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


The wallstreet journal title reads " us joless claims 4 decade low", but you are right in the piece they said new. 

Still this is a good economy. Republicans wanted to blame Obama for a bad economy but won't give him credit for a good one


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

iamwhatiseem said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


I know guys who work construction or carpentry work or start their own business and do all cash under the table jobs while they collect unemployment. When unemployment is done we are done worrying about them. Especially in a good economy like this


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What exactly is "brainwashed" about wanting government that's efficient and not a burden on society?  What's "brainwashed" about wanting fiscal responsibility from our elected officials?  What's "brainwashed" about understanding that the American Dream isn't about entitlements but opportunity?  Am I a libertarian?  I would classify myself as a sort of Rockefeller conservative.  I believe in fiscal conservatism so that we have a healthy enough economy to afford social programs.  I don't believe we can spend our way to prosperity.  Nor do I think it's good for people to be given things.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


And I agree.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



Sealy...this is NOT a good economy!  I'm sorry but it isn't.  Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009?  Heck yeah!  And it should be!  We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now.  That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along.  I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years.  He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Dems give us 40 years of slow steady growth Republicans give us ten years bust ten years booms. Hard to survive gopanomics if you aren't rich. What do you do?

But I agree I hate interest rates being so low


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

iamwhatiseem said:


> People who ran out of unemployment and can no longer file are counted as employed.


I can't even begin to guess where you people get your information from?? It's like you're all drinking from the same kool-aid fountain. _<smh>_

No, unemployed people are not counted as employed. WTF are you talking about??


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What 40 years of slow steady growth have Democratic policies given us?  Please don't tell me that you're going to use the post WWII years as an example of how Democrats grew the economy, Sealy!  That period of prosperity was due in large part from our being the only major industrial power who's infrastructure hadn't been crippled by the war.  Our economy prospered because we became the world's supplier of material goods almost by default.  If you think that's something that can be recreated NOW I can only state that you're rather naive.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Will you admit WHY interest rates have been kept so low?  I'll give you a hint...it's NOT because the Fed thinks the economy is "good"!


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What do we need to do?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


Cries the imbecile who thinks Carter was president in 1974.


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yeah, this is just coincidence..... 


* Clinton    ** -3.1 ** Obama      ** -2.8 ** Johnson    ** -2.3 ** Reagan     ** -2.1 ** Kennedy    ** -0.9 ** Carter     **  0.0 ** GHW Bush   ** +1.9 ** Ford       ** +2.0 ** Nixon      ** +2.1 ** Eisenhower ** +2.5 ** Bush       ** +3.6 *

^^^ change in unemployment rate

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?



Who cares about Bush? Conservatives don't trust the gov. but you librats do. We want smaller gov. Less gov.

You libs want Big gov. Big Brother gov. Wipe your asses gov. Baby daddy gov. Welfare gov. Spy on you gov. Help me gov. Tell you what to do gov. Nurse Betty gov. Hold your hand gov. Be your friend gov. Hand out gov. Control gov. Defend me gov. Gestapo get their guns gov. Free gov.


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?
> ...


Thanks for proving my point.

You claim conservatives don't trust the government, yet you can't explain why y'all weren't bitching about moaning about how fake the unemployment rate was when it was 5% under Bush.

According to righties ....

5% unemployment under Bush is really 5% unemployment.

5% unemployment under Obama is really 40% unemployment.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed



You demoRATS are like a Pyramid scheme, looking for success in numbers, just so you can say that Obama had a great track record, while the 100 million Americans are in poverty. That's a great victory, just celebrate your ignorance. In the mean time you ignore your POTUS 8 trillion dollar spending debt. Of course his unemployment rate victory is just smoking mirrors to hide his enormous bad credit rating.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Thanks for proving my point. You claim conservatives don't trust the government, yet you can't explain why y'all weren't bitching about moaning about how fake the unemployment rate was when it was 5% under Bush.



Yes, you proved your point, that free stuff makes you happy and your POTUS raised the debt 8 trillion dollars more than bush? Now, stop trying so hard to desperately prove epic fail points and putting your foot in your mouth.


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed
> ...


_"Deficits don't matter" ~ A conservative Republican_


----------



## Faun (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving my point. You claim conservatives don't trust the government, yet you can't explain why y'all weren't bitching about moaning about how fake the unemployment rate was when it was 5% under Bush.
> ...


I'm thanking you for your help with my point and this is the thanks I get??


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Well, for starters...we need to gradually raise interest rates to something sane.  I say that for two reasons.  First of all it will give us a real idea of how strong the economy really is...but more importantly...if we do have another financial crisis we'll have that tool (lowering interest rates) to combat it.  As it stands right now...if we have another recession...our "quiver" of economic arrows to address that is basically empty.  All we've done for the past eight years is artificially prop up the stock market which allowed wealthy people who had credit to invest with to make a fortune.  You want to know why there is such "inequality" between the wealthy and the Lower Class?  It's because of things like what the Fed has done with interest rates.  Poor people didn't gain from the stock market rebound...wealthy people sure as heck did!


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?
> ...


This attitude is why your candidate is Donald duck.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We were telling them that. Back then it was true today we are at zero unemployment and Republicans are counting retirees in their numbers. Republicans don't know they are being stupid or lying. They are brainwashed
> ...


Keep pretending you give a damn about the people living in poverty.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Republicans say these white poor long term unemployed americans are lazy and won't do landscaping or housekeeping but then want to blame Obama because they aren't willing to do those jobs???


----------



## jillian (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?
> ...



it's so cute when rightwingnuts have nothing to say so they spam us with irrelevant and ignorant memes.

thanks for being true to form.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?
> ...


We want effective government. Yes we want welfare as a safety net. Don't you?

Don't you want the government spying on Muslim Americans?

What about physician assisted suicide?


----------



## couch protester (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> This attitude is why your candidate is Donald duck.



At least my candidate is not a Muslim baby daddy by the name Hussein Obama. Obama rules welfare recipients. The attitude of the self reliant working American is to rule ourselves. Can't make change with a food stamp. Change his drawers and maybe his Islam name. Uneducated McDonald wage having babies.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > This attitude is why your candidate is Donald duck.
> ...


Hey, part of me agrees. How many people would actually fend for themselves if the government wouldn't bail them out?

I knew a white girl in a upper middle class family back in highschool. She was 18 so her parents told her to get government welfare. If welfare wasn't there they would have figured it out.

Welfare needs to be denied if even the grandparents have money. If they won't pay for it why should we?

And I don't think deadbeat daddy ever paid a dime


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > This attitude is why your candidate is Donald duck.
> ...


And maybe more people who shouldn't have kids wouldn't if welfare weren't there.

I'll tell you this much if welfare goes away abortions will go up


----------



## couch protester (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Keep pretending you give a damn about the people living in poverty.



Because the POTUS does?




*Obama, Cameron and the Day of the 'Remains'*
Wall Street Journal-15 hours ago
Certainly, his efforts to accommodate millions of illegal immigrants suggest that, if it were politically possible, he might well countenance an ...














*Illegal Immigrants Cost U.S. $100 Billion per Year ...*
abcnews.go.com/Business/*illegal-immigrants*-*cost*-us-100.../story?id...
May 21, 2010 - Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost? ... spends money on the workers, and they almost never pay income taxes.


*Medi-Cal for immigrant kids in US illegally starts in May*
89.3 KPCC-Apr 21, 2016
Medi-Cal for immigrant kids in US illegally starts in May ... The legislature did not pass that measure; the final 2015 version of the bill only ... California will cover the cost of care for unauthorizedimmigrant kids, since they are ...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Keep pretending you give a damn about the people living in poverty.
> ...


Hopefully both sides hear loud and clear this is unacceptable.

Keep in mind who wants more bodies in this country. It's corporations. They want the cheap labor and consumers. They always want growth. I'm all for shrinking the US population.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> [
> And maybe more people who shouldn't have kids wouldn't if welfare weren't there.
> I'll tell you this much if welfare goes away abortions will go up



Probably but not possible if birth control is considered or women change their attitude and turn feminist by boycotting sex. We don't want to mirror China limiting babies, the goal is to practice responsibility, discipline and self reliance or condone lazy behavior. But liberals will spin this to attack Trump behavior, not Obama failure.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


That pic of the black dude with the shotgun. I thought you guys were cool with open carry?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Bottom line if we cut poor people off from welfare abortion will go up. Simple fact. Sure some will be careful and some will have it and give it up for abortion and some will figure it out without welfare but many will abort.

Republicans can't say poor people use welfare as a crutch then turn around and say people don't consider welfare when deciding if they are going to keep a baby or not.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> That pic of the black dude with the shotgun. I thought you guys were cool with open carry?



Not when its a democrat.

*WHY ARE ALL MASS MURDERERS DEMOCRATS? THE LIST:*

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.

– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter

– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.

– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.


– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.

– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat

– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.


– Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.

– Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.

– Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber – Leftist Democrat.

– Lee Harvey Oswald, Socialist, Communist and Democrat – killed Kennedy…


mostly pro-choice democrats are the ones usually doing all the murdering. 95% black households democrat 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35yrs.


Why are no conservative NRA members involved in mass shootings?


Curious, isn’t it? So I was thinking, maybe we should just make it illegal for Democrats to buy guns?



*Democrats More Deadly Than Republicans? In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ..*


In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States  who later died from the wound.


In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.


In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States . . .


In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.


In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.


In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.


In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.


In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.


In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.


In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.


In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.


In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.


In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.


In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.


In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.


In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.


In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people, mostly children, in a school.


As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.


One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.  Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, nor Republican conservative was involved in these shootings and murders.


ONLY SOLUTION:  It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.


*The very democrat party that opposes guns are the ones using it to kill *


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

Many people abort so they don't have to go on welfare. If they had the kid the need to go on food stamps. Lots of People abort because they can't afford a child


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That pic of the black dude with the shotgun. I thought you guys were cool with open carry?
> ...


Subjective cherry picking. Where would I start


----------



## couch protester (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> [
> Republicans can't say poor people use welfare as a crutch then turn around and say people don't consider welfare when deciding if they are going to keep a baby or not.



Why is a personal issue a governments concern? Power to the People! The gov won't have shit to say if individual citizens control their own lives without gov interfering.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That pic of the black dude with the shotgun. I thought you guys were cool with open carry?
> ...


So you are for gun regulations now? Now you admit not everyone should own a gun? That we should better screen and regulates who gets a gun? I agree.

But I'm a liberal and responsible gun owner.  I get to have one too. Otherwise I can't practice free speech


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Remember the truth is always somewhere in the middle. Yes we need to fix our welfare society but I don't want to eliminate safety nets but I agree we just give them $ and hope they do the right thing. We need to insist they do their part and too often these people are hopeless.

I don't know why people don't leave poor/bad communities. I know it's not that easy but it's not like moving to another country like my parents did


----------



## couch protester (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> [
> *The very democrat party that opposes guns are the ones using it to kill *


Subjective cherry picking. Where would I start[/QUOTE]

Start at deflecting. It always work when you only have an objective response. Over ruled. Librats learn well from their political spin masters how to use smoking mirrors. 

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals


* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...







That's because you don't understand the first thing about what you're trying to talk about, as usual.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Start at deflecting. It always work when you only have an objective response. Over ruled. Librats learn well from their political spin masters how to use smoking mirrors.

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals


* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.[/QUOTE]
Then read my replies to other peoples rational posts. I'm not responding to your trash.

But thanks for letting me know I'm infuriating you. Good!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



With all due respect, Sealy...Unemployment Insurance is a "safety net"...it helps people who through no fault of their own have lost employment.  Welfare, sadly is a trap...it trains people to be dependent on the government instead of being self sufficient.  I don't want welfare for anyone that I care about because I know what welfare does to people.  I want jobs for people.

I want the government tracking anyone who's a danger to society.  At the moment that list of people includes radicalized Muslims.  It also includes far right militia groups and far left anarchists.  I don't consider monitoring these people "spying"...I consider it due diligence!

I have absolutely no problem with physician assisted suicide.  We put down pets to keep them from suffering but don't do the same thing for our human loved ones?  That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...









Then you're not very bright.


----------



## Faun (Apr 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?


----------



## Faun (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That pic of the black dude with the shotgun. I thought you guys were cool with open carry?
> ...


Care to prove those? Or are you only capable of cutting and pasting?

Start with Columbine.... you know... Harris who just turned 18 about a week earlier; and Klebold who wasn't old enough to vote.

And don't forget about Timothy McVeigh... the NRA card carrying registered Republican who killed more people than everyone on your list.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2016)

couch protester said:


> * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.


November 11, 2009

RUSH: I think that's the fastest way to persuade people, you know, is to *ridicule and make fun of *the people that you're having problems with. 

May 14, 2007

RUSH: Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. *We were making fun of and laughing. *

January 24, 2007

RUSH: *One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule,* because there's no response to it. *When you get ridiculed and made fun of,* that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... *In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience,* because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them. 

June 23, 2008

RUSH: *Ronald Reagan said, "Just laugh at 'em, just laugh at 'em and just ridicule it,"*


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others.  Reagan for instance.  He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet.  Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down.  Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years.  He's kept interest rates at almost zero.  Why?  Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money.  He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates.  Why?  Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting.  He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard.  He does EASY.  Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down.


Typical Right-wing revisionist history. It was Carter's Fed chairman Volcker who tightened the money supply, and Reagan got his "job creating" tax cuts BEFORE he caused unemployment to skyrocket.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...






sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The Bush and Clintons are thicker than thieves and there has never been a surplus because USA.INC has always ran a deficit because there is interest attached to every fiat dollar created. Barrypuppet hasn't fixed anything and the huge bubble that burst in 2008  has reappeared and it's about to pop as well and it's even bigger than the last time. The warning signs are everywhere that the economy is about to implode and it's gonna be epic.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up



Just goes to prove that Capitalism works despite the best efforts of Obama and the Democrats to stop it. Oh for sure, they are the reason it took so long to recover, but even they cannot keep the US Economy down forever.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Barrypuppet has also been the beneficiary of the QE program that kept Wall Street propped up while debasing this fiat currency that is already in the system. Of course the wealthiest benefited the most from it because new money because it takes time for it to trickle down thus inflating and lowering the purchasing power of the dolllar.


----------



## Faun (Apr 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I notice you decided to avoid answering my question and respond with a bullshit non-answer instead.

Carter didn't hand Reagan a structurely broken economy like Bush handed Obama. As you point out, Reagan had tools at his disposal to work with... lowering taxes, lowering interest rates, driving down inflation... again I ask... what tools did Obama have to fight a massive recession...?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Since you have no clue as to how this system was intentionally broken down or the players behind it, your question is meaningless and you are just playing partisan politics. I have explained this many times as to what is really going on because I have spent lots of time trying to figure out things really work and politicians in D.C are just corporate offices and Barrypuppet is simply the face of the franchise and CEO of this corporation in name only. He does as he is told. We have a government that we see and there is one that we don't see and they are the ones really calling the shots behind the scenes.


----------



## Faun (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Translation: you can't answer the question, _What tools did Obama have at his disposal to combat the Great Recession, _ either.

Thanks for that utterly useless post.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He could have disbanded and nationalized the Federal Reserve Bank  and sign an executive order to have a top to bottom audit of the Fed. He could have done what Kennedy did and have silver backed currency printed because that Executive order of Kennedy's was never rescinded...just the money was taken out of circulation. Barrypuppet's masters at the Federal Reserve introduced the QE program where they dumped cheap money on Wall Street to keep it propped up. But Barry just does as he is told because he was groomed to be the CEO of this massive corporate entity and they own him. So much that you don't know and so much that you lack the ability to understand. The bottom line is that we are going to have an economic event that is going to make 2008 seem like a walk in the park. It's not a matter if if it's going to happen but rather when....


----------



## Faun (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Sorry, but you're too fucking demented. QE started under Bush.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bushpuppet was president in 2009? You are the one that is demented and totally blinded by an ideology and political party that doesn't give a fuck about you...but yet you cling too and defend the indefensible because you are so dug .


----------



## Faun (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not understand English? I didn't say Bush was president in 2009. I said QE started while Bush was president.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Porkulus


You can always tell a mindless DittoTard!


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Porkulus
> ...




I know more than you and if you are implying that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, let me assure you that I have no respect for him either or any rightwing talk show host. They are part of the controlled opposition. Before Limbaugh got his huge radio gig he talked about the criminality of the Federal Reserve bank and how unconstitutional it is.....once he got his sweet 20 million dollar a year radio deal? He never talks about how unconstitutional it is. His job is to keep us bickering with each other. I know more than you and I am here to share what I have spent thousands of hours researching and reading about because I care about the people of this country.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Sure you just mindlessly parrot him because you hate him so much.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I know infinitely more than Limbaugh or any other media creation. They wouldn't allow me to have a debate with any politician because I would call them on the carpet and ask them questions and debate them on policies that have been implemented that were kept from us and have them stuttering and stammering. I have what amounts to a PHD as to what is really going on and I am constantly adding to my bank of knowledge. I comprehend and understand things that would be hard for you to grasp. I am like a black belt in martial arts trying to convey knowledge to someone that signed up for the beginner's class.  Sometimes I speak over the head of the student and I need to work on that....but I know of what I speak and I have EARNED it through due diligence and a desire to learn the truth regardless of how ugly it is.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> I have what amounts to a *PHD* as to *what is really going on*


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > I have what amounts to a *PHD* as to *what is really going on*




Really? That's the best retort that you could muster? Why are you even here? I will just chalk it up to the fact that you have no decent rebuttal and that you are totally intimidated by the info that has been dumped on you......it's ok....it's a lot to digest. I am here to help.......


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Really!
How can you not see the humor in claiming to have a PHD in "What's Happening Now."


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



In what way was our economy "structurely broken", Faun?  Bush handed over an economy that was in recession but he also provided Obama with TARP in place in order to prop up the economy.  So what did Barry do upon taking office?  Did he work tirelessly to create jobs and grow the economy so that Americans could get back to work?  No...he decided that what we REALLY needed was to pass ObamaCare...legislation that hurt job creation.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 ROTFMAO........ok, I get ya.......Touche'.....


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 23, 2016)

With Reagan you had a President who actually understood economics.  It was his major in college.  Barack Obama doesn't have the faintest idea about economic theory.  His economic policies are based on his political ideology.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You are very proud of yourself.  But so far, you have suggested economic solutions that no actual economist would suggest, me boy.  Ranting about secret problems that only you know about, and suggesting economic solutions that no reputable economist would agree with, and solutions that have NO HISTORY of ever solving anything, is, me boy, stupid.  QE has been used in multiple countries, and in this country during Bush's and Obama's times.  But neither were actually the authors of the policy.  QE, in this country, is controlled by the Fed.  And the Fed is not controlled by the Executive branch.  And, according to most economists, it had some positive value, and did nothing in the way of causing or raising the inflation rate to worry about.  
If you are going to make economic arguments do folks a favor and provide links to your accusations.  Otherwise we are going to have to assume you are simply a tool trying to prove your knowledge, which so far is not working well for you.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> With Reagan you had a President who actually understood economics.  It was his major in college.  Barack Obama doesn't have the faintest idea about economic theory.  His economic policies are based on his political ideology.





Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Have you read any of my economic suggestions?  If so, please go back through my postings and tell me how they would not work. I have 8 very "do-able" ideas that could not only bring back prosperity to America but could  make every country solvent.
 I never said the the foreign owned Federal Reserve bank is controlled by any branch of this corporate "gubermint".

QE is a good thing? It debases the currency already in existence because the more money in circulation, the less it is worth. Let's just say that there were only 100 Mickey Mantle rookie cards with his signature....well, for collectors, that card would be very valuable....then the next thing you know, 1 million of those cards have been discovered....would that not make the 100 cards before the discovery to have less value? It's the same damn thing with this fiat currency. I know more than you...I have invested a lot of time trying to wake people up and give them the benefit of my heavy lifting and I ask for nothing. You have two choices, listen to what I have to say and do your own research or be a flaming asswipe that offers nothing....doesn't bother me either way. If you can enlighten me as to where I am wrong? I will gladly listen ....I have learned from experience that to have one set of beliefs etched in stone only sets you up for failure later on down the line.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Why isn't the economy good?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Are you one of those people who believes the federal reserve was taken over by private bankers in 1913? Me too.

But I'm not a libertarian. Are you?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 24, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The Federal Reserve WAS created by private bankers many of which are foreign.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I notice the info on this has changed in recent years. The powers that be will go to great lengths to keep this from the people. This country was taken over in 1913.

The debt one day has to explode. Capitalism relies on booms and busts. It's all a scam. Money isn't backed by gold. When they want to have another recession they'll let us know.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 24, 2016)

Which of your "8  very duable solutions" would you want to discuss.  First, me boy, you need to express why you think each is a solution.  I saw none. But I am more than willing to discuss them, one or two at  a time, but I am at this point not willing to believe that you have an argument for any of them.  
Next, me boy, though I have lots of economics background, and plenty of years looking at the subjects involved in our economic condition, I do not consider myself an expert.  First thing I look for is economic education, which you have shown nothing of.  There are those on this site that have PhD's, Masters Degrees, and years of work experience with the subject that provide them with a level of base expertise that you have not shown.  Not in the slightest.
Making statements like you do of "8 solutions" without explaining why you think they are solutions or providing links that provide proof of your assertions simply make you look, to me and obviously to others reading your posts, that you have nothing but what has become known as "shtick".  It is really hard to take you seriously, me boy.  You appear to be a major lightweight trying to make people think you are a person of substance, or maybe you are simply mentally ill.
Relative to your ignorant argument about qe, I would suggest, me boy, that you do some looking at the subject.  Find the many articles about the subject by impartial sources, and show me one that supports your assertions.  And stop with the silly trading card example.  Makes you look like you are still in third grade. me boy.
You see, me boy, the impartial experts on the subject do not believe that qe efforts had any real effect on inflation.  And without affecting inflation, there is no effect on the value of money.  Simple, me boy.  Which makes me think you are a congenital idiot.  
Perhaps you could start with the statement you made about the Fed being foreign owned, me boy.  Without proof (which. of course, you did not provide) it makes you look, again, like a reactionary alarmist.  And an idiot.

Those qe efforts made during the past two presidents terms by the fed (look it up, dipshit) were way too small to have the effects you so breathlessly suggest.  Then, to educate yourself further, try educating yourself on the effect of monetary tools on demand based recessions.  You will find that, in fact, there is a term used in economics called (pushing on a string) that explains why all economic experts expected very little effect from qe efforts made during either presidential term.  Both the fed and presidential economic teams found the results about what they expected.  Which was minimal.  And is why there was no effect on inflation or the value of money at all, me boy.  Though they did provide fuel for alarmists like yourself.  
Here, me boy, is a quote for you, relative to your naive statement that the fed is foreign controlled:

"The Fed is an American institution. About the myth: "This is simply wrong," says Charles Calomiris, Henry Kaufman professor of financial institutions at Columbia University.

"What we know is, at least on the surface, the Federal Reserve is run by a combination of the Federal Reserve board and the 12 Federal Reserve banks, who together form the governance of the system," says Calomiris, who also is a visiting scholar at the International Monetary Fund.

The Board of Governors is comprised of Americans. "Some conspiracy-theory types sometimes argue that vague international organizations secretly control the Fed and other central banks. Yet they provide no evidence for that, which of course they can't if it is really secret!" says Steve Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y."
5 Myths Debunked About The Federal Reserve | Bankrate.com 

The above, me boy, is a quote from an impartial source discussing myths of alarmists like yourself about the fed.  Try to learn, me boy.  You really need to educate yourself on fact rather than drivel.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Which of your "8  very duable solutions" would you want to discuss.  First, me boy, you need to express why you think each is a solution.  I saw none. But I am more than willing to discuss them, one or two at  a time, but I am at this point not willing to believe that you have an argument for any of them.
> Next, me boy, though I have lots of economics background, and plenty of years looking at the subjects involved in our economic condition, I do not consider myself an expert.  First thing I look for is economic education, which you have shown nothing of.  There are those on this site that have PhD's, Masters Degrees, and years of work experience with the subject that provide them with a level of base expertise that you have not shown.  Not in the slightest.
> Making statements like you do of "8 solutions" without explaining why you think they are solutions or providing links that provide proof of your assertions simply make you look, to me and obviously to others reading your posts, that you have nothing but what has become known as "shtick".  It is really hard to take you seriously, me boy.  You appear to be a major lightweight trying to make people think you are a person of substance, or maybe you are simply mentally ill.
> Relative to your ignorant argument about qe, I would suggest, me boy, that you do some looking at the subject.  Find the many articles about the subject by impartial sources, and show me one that supports your assertions.  And stop with the silly trading card example.  Makes you look like you are still in third grade. me boy.
> ...



One of the board's great idiots is holding forth on the need to educate yourself?  Too funny...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

You're the moron who when I asked you to tell me what economic school you based your contentions on...thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar university!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



it is not simply growth rate.  If it was, we would say the Carter years were much better, with growth rates of 9% to over 14%.  Reagan had early rates of over 9.5%.and later rates between 2% and 5%  So, based on your reasoning, carter had a much better economy.  But there are, of course, other factors.  If you compare carter or reagan to obama, you have to consider those other factors.  Like, neither of the first two had unemployment rates at the start of their terms anything like obama did, when loosing over 500,000 jobs per month as a result of the great republican recession of 2008.  And the inflation rate was controlled during his term to about 2%.  So, it is obvious that those were different times, and you have to ask yourself if you would prefer high gnp growth rates coupled with extreme high inflation, or if you would rather have low inflation and typical gnp growth af about 2.5%.  Makes the analysis less simple, of course, but more factual. 
Truth is, if you want a good economy, look at the Clinton years.  Though I am not a great fan of his overall policies, the results were the best this century.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom.  I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.  Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 24, 2016)

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom.  I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.  Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.[/QUOTE]

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual.  Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth.  Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
–_ Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.  
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks.  Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.
_


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


More important is that a democratic president won't return us to bushanomics.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Specifically...what do you think Hillary Clinton is going to do with the economy?  Did I miss her plans to create jobs and create growth?  You know what's going to be amusing, Sealy?  Listening to the excuses that you on the left are going to have to come up with to explain why the economy under Hillary doesn't boom the way it did under Slick Willie!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom.  I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.  Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.



Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual.  Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth.  Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
–_ Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.  
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks.  Try sticking to economics, if you are capable._
[/QUOTE]

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade.  It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth.  Thank you for proving my point!


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Hopefully we won't be talking about the trump recession and I don't get to say I told you so. And just like Obama's economy no matter how good her economy is you won't admit it.

And no matter how bad Bush's economy was you never admitted it. But the fact no Republican is running for president this year, that's all I need to know that you guys finally admit bush owned the great recession. If not you guys would have ran jeb. You know the bush name is mud now, right? Took you guys long enough to admit it


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom.  I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.  Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.
> ...



The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade.  It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth.  Thank you for proving my point![/QUOTE]
They never bitched about bills economic policies. All I remember was Monica Monica monica


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom.  I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.  Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.
> ...



The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade.  It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth.  Thank you for proving my point![/QUOTE]


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 24, 2016)




----------



## Rshermr (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom.  I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration.  Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.
> ...



The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade.  It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth.  Thank you for proving my point![/QUOTE]

Maybe, me boy, as you are a con tool, you are unaware that luck is a component of any president's term.  Check it out some day, and let me know if any president with an average or better economy ever had no good luck.  Jesus, you make stupid statements, me boy.
Most rational folks talk about those things done outside of luck.  Like tax policies, and stimulative spending.  There was, by the way, no mention of the dot com issue in the FactCheck article.  They did mention the spending on IT.  That is a different issue entirely than the dot com bubble, which, me boy, was about speculation on stock.  Different thing entirely.  And overall, the stock market has little effect on the economy.  
Nice try, but another case of trying dishonesty to prove a con agenda point.  
Wars?? Perhaps you can show me a time when a presidents economy was hurt by war or war preparation.  Perhaps you missed Reagan's spending spree on war and war preparation which was great for his economy. 
So, me boy, the point is, no president since Ike had a surplus until Clinton.  None.  That is over 66 years since a repub president has had a surplus.
Now Reagan promised one, but he:
1. Had the highest unemployment rate in US history at 10.8% in late 1982.
2. Spent more than all the presidents in US history COMBINED.
3. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, with deficits every year of his term.
4. Spent like a drunken sailor, greatly increasing the size of the US Federal Government.

So, really, me boy, you need to understand the fact that conservatives do not balance federal budgets.  Not in their dna. 
Now what was the point that you though I proved?? Oh yeah, the dot com statement.  Too bad you did not know what the dotcom boom was actually about.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


They never bitched about bills economic policies. All I remember was Monica Monica monica[/QUOTE]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America, Sealy.  Clinton had enough common sense to realize that the people had spoken at the polls and moved to the center.  Barack Obama ignored the message the voters sent him.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Maybe, me boy, as you are a con tool, you are unaware that luck is a component of any president's term.  Check it out some day, and let me know if any president with an average or better economy ever had no good luck.  Jesus, you make stupid statements, me boy.
Most rational folks talk about those things done outside of luck.  Like tax policies, and stimulative spending.  There was, by the way, no mention of the dot com issue in the FactCheck article.  They did mention the spending on IT.  That is a different issue entirely than the dot com bubble, which, me boy, was about speculation on stock.  Different thing entirely.  And overall, the stock market has little effect on the economy.
Nice try, but another case of trying dishonesty to prove a con agenda point.
Wars?? Perhaps you can show me a time when a presidents economy was hurt by war or war preparation.  Perhaps you missed Reagan's spending spree on war and war preparation which was great for his economy.
So, me boy, the point is, no president since Ike had a surplus until Clinton.  None.  That is over 66 years since a repub president has had a surplus.
Now Reagan promised one, but he:
1. Had the highest unemployment rate in US history at 10.8% in late 1982.
2. Spent more than all the presidents in US history COMBINED.
3. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, with deficits every year of his term.
4. Spent like a drunken sailor, greatly increasing the size of the US Federal Government.

So, really, me boy, you need to understand the fact that conservatives do not balance federal budgets.  Not in their dna.
Now what was the point that you though I proved?? Oh yeah, the dot com statement.  Too bad you did not know what the dotcom boom was actually about.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound each and every time you do your "me boy" thing?  What the heck is that?

Who has spent more...Ronald Reagan...or Barack Obama?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,


More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do you have any idea how stupid you sound each and every time you do your "me boy" thing?  What the heck is that?[/QUOTE]
Just a term of endearment.
I see you have hit the end of your ability to discus the economic subjects.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,
> ...



The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues.  At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses.  Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Just a term of endearment.
I see you have hit the end of your ability to discus the economic subjects.[/QUOTE]

Dude, discussing economics with you...is like discussing advanced physics with the village idiot!  You didn't even know what a school of economics WAS!  So much for your "ability"!


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Wake up and smell the coffee, Ed!  The reason you can increase taxes is BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom!  The liberal narrative that increasing taxes is what led to increased revenues is laughably simplistic yet you people keep trotting it out as "gospel"!


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Revenue began increasing right after the 1993 tax increases, but the dot com boom didn't even begin until 1995 and wasn't really booming until 1997.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You must want others to smell the coffee because you can not, me boy.  Or are you simply repeating the right wing economic plan.  Decrease taxes, decrease taxes. Of course you are.
Problem is, me boy, that you can not show a single time when decreasing taxes in a bad economy has ever worked.  But the rational world can show when it did not help, and when it generally hurt the economy.  Not, me boy, because taxes went down.  Now try to follow this, because generally this is where cons loose the argument.  Because the rational plan has more than one component.
While you say, over and over, decrease taxes and the economy gets better, there is NO history to point to that backs it up.  What rational people say is: If you increase taxes, it will do no real good, and some marginal BAD.  Not enough to worry about, but a little.  What will happen (now try to stay tuned in here, me boy) is that thinking people will suggest you increase SPENDING.  Since politicians are pushed to try to not increase the national debt, they need to raise money to spend stimulativly via taxes.  So, they see more than one component of the move (which is too complex for cons) and take the rational next (second) step and spend stimulatively.  And the result, always, is increased employment and a better economy.  Always.
So, there you go.  I know you will be unable to comprehend this two part argument, and you will want to stay with the republican economic plan, which is decrease taxes.  It is so simple, and you have been told it works.  But, of course, it has not.  And can not.  But you are told what to believe, and you are NOT a rational organism. Rather, you are a con tool.
So, me boy, consider the next (untrue) republican talking point.  If you increase taxes and spend, you will increase the national debt.  Why does that never occur?? Again, you will have to make a heroic effort to follow this multi part argument.  Again, you believe the one part argument provided you by the republican thought developers: If you increase spending, you will increase the national debt.  So why is that a stupid and incorrect argument?  For three reasons:
1. Because historically it has not increased the national debt.
2. Because stimulative spending causes increases in employment and decreases in unemployment.
3. Because increased employment increases incoming gov revenues which decreases the national debt.
Now, again, I know this is not what you have been told to believe.  But it is true.  And if you had a rational mind, you would check it out: THE NATIONAL DEBT ALWAYS INCREASES GREATLY WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH, AND DECREASES WHEN UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOW.  ALWAYS.

I know.  I know.  Two part arguments are way to complex for the con mind, which causes you a major head ache.  But truth is truth, me boy.  And that is the truth.  And what you are pushing is the great republican lie.
Do they pay you to post your drivel, or do you do it for free, me boy?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So when John F. Kennedy called for tax cuts back in the 1960's...that was a "right wing economic plan"?

You know what's amusing about you, Rshermr!  You actually think when you come on here and lecture about economics that you sound like you know what you're talking about...when in fact you ALWAYS make an ass of yourself!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You know what is amusing about you, me boy?  You do not know how to read, or to think, apparently.  I did not say there was a problem with lowering taxes, me boy.  Not in general  Now, PAY ATTENTION.  I said, me boy, that you should not cut taxes in a BAD ECONOMY.  See the difference//
In the case of Kennedy, there was never a problem with lowering taxes because the economy was....now, wait for it, me boy....GOOD. Unemployment was not high.
Now, see if you can follow this, me boy.  Your favorite person of all time, Ronald Reagan.  He had a somewhat bad economy.  about 7.2% unemployment when he took office in January of 1981.  So, being a supply side economist big time, and his economic team believing in the economic theory of supply side, he lowered taxes right away.  And what do you suppose happened.  Good things like in Kennedy's economy?  Of course not.  The unemployment shot up over the next 21 months to over 10.8%.  SECOND HIGHEST IN OUR HISTORY.   So, with a big recession on hand, what did ronnie do?  Actually what did his team do?  Why, they raised taxes 11 times, me boy.  Note, I said RAISED.  And spent like a drunken sailor.  Tripled the national debt.  Spent more than all the US presidents in the history of the US COMBINRD.  And the economy thrived based on his hew found Keynesian economic principles.  Thrived, me boy.  Even though he was a supply side guy (can you say Reaganomics?) he used democratic Keynesian principles to fix his mess.
You are welcome, me boy.  Let me know if you need more lessons.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You really are determined to show how little you know about economics...aren't you!

If the economy was "GOOD" under Kennedy...then kindly explain why a Democratic icon like him was calling for tax cuts?

What Reagan inherited wasn't a "somewhat bad economy"...what he inherited was full blown Stagflation.

As for the liberal myth that Reagan was really a tax raiser?  Yes, he raised taxes 11 times during his two terms in office but anyone with half a brain who looks at those 11 tax increases and compares them to the tax cuts that Reagan made would never arrive at the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy because he increased taxes.  One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending.  Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not.  As for the other tax increases?  Most of them were increases of consumption taxes on things like cigarettes and gasoline...tax increases that pale in comparison to the tax cuts that he made to American's income taxes.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not.


LIAR!
Tip O'Neil and GOP Senate leader Bob Dole reached a spending cut deal and it was REAGAN who torpedoed it, because it made tiny cuts to St Ronnie's Star Wars slush fund pork barrel money laundering scam!!!!!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Me boy, me boy.  You are so ignorant.  I know, you just do not have the time or interest in the truth.  The ue rate at the time was about 5.5%  The top tax rate was 70%  Under such circumstances, me boy, no one has a problem with tax cuts.  So, again, the concept is YOU DO NOT LOWER TAX RATES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS BAD.  BAD, me boy.  Nice try, but another miss.
Relative to Reagan:
No one said, me boy, that reagan saved the economy because he raised taxes.  What allowed the economy to get out of the mess he had created was simple:  He spent like a drunken sailor.  Do you really need me to explain that again, me boy??
So again, let me try to explain to you.  It was not that he lowered and then raised taxes.  IT WAS THAT HE SPENT LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR.  And please do not blame it on the dems.  Ronnie spent and spent and spent.  And the economy took off.  As for the tax cuts, me boy, let me again explain.  Tax cuts are tax cuts.  They all provide revenue for the fed gov.  And that revenue was used to SPEND. 
What you need to ask yourself, of course, is simple to a thinking person.  If tax cuts and Reaganomics worked as he said they did, WHY DID REAGAN AND HIS ECONOMIC TEAM FOLLOW KEYESIAN RULES ONCE HIS ECONOMY WAS AWFULL?  AND WHY DID THOSE PRINCIPLES WORK?
Again, as I keep trying to educate you about, it is not RAISING TAXES, or lowering taxes.
Really, your attempt to revise history by lying about what your hero did is tacky.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So spending like a "drunken sailor" is the key?  Gee, then why hasn't the economy gotten better with Barack Obama spending more in his time in office than almost all the other Presidents combined?  Hmmm...it seems that higher taxes coupled with higher spending doesn't work.

And as for who gets blamed for spending?  Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Congress control the "purse strings" in our system of government?  Wasn't Tip O'Neal...a Democrat...Speaker of the House?  So are you claiming that Dutch Reagan figured out some way to circumvent that?

As usual, Rshermr...your attempts to explain economics and our government fall flat on their face.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

And I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain Kennedy's call for tax cuts!  Typical for you...

Once you've responded to that...then you can attempt to explain why even Bill Clinton is now calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain Kennedy's call for tax cuts!  Typical for you...
> 
> Once you've responded to that...then you can attempt to explain why even Bill Clinton is now calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy!





Oldstyle said:


> And I notice that you didn't even attempt to explain Kennedy's call for tax cuts!  Typical for you...
> 
> Once you've responded to that...then you can attempt to explain why even Bill Clinton is now calling for tax cuts to stimulate the economy!



Me boy, me boy.  I did explain the Kennedy tax cuts to you.  Are you incompetent, or just a liar??  I explained it in detail, dipshit.

Is bill clinton president?? Did you notice that no one is listening to him??


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Did you seriously post that?  That Bill Clinton's opinion shouldn't be listened to?  So let me see if I've got this straight...

You on the left constantly hold up Bill Clinton's tax raises as an example of proper fiscal policy...but when that same Bill Clinton calls for tax cuts...we shouldn't listen because he's not President any more?  God but you're an imbecile!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Did you seriously post that?  That Bill Clinton's opinion shouldn't be listened to?  So let me see if I've got this straight...
> 
> You on the left constantly hold up Bill Clinton's tax raises as an example of proper fiscal policy...but when that same Bill Clinton calls for tax cuts...we shouldn't listen because he's not President any more?  God but you're an imbecile!



I DID NOT SAY YOU SHOULD NOT LISTEN.  BUT NO ONE MUCH TAKES HIM SERIOUSLY.  HE IS, ME BOY, A POLITICIAN. TRYING TO GET HIS WIFE ELECTED.  BUT THE CONCEPT OF LOWERING ALREADY HISTORICALLY LOW  TAX RATES IS STUPID, IN MY OPINION. By the way, provide me a link to him saying he suggests lowering taxes.
And no, me lying con tool, I do not hold up bill clinton as an example.  He had a great run, but I do not believe he is an economic expert. 
And again, as in the past, I keep trying to educate you to understand that I do not think tax increases are a solution to anything.  Though they provide a source of revenue for what does help: STIMULUS SPENDING.
So, you are a con tool stating con talking points, not at all capable of conversation.  I have never said raising taxes helps the economy.  I have said, over and over, that stimulus spending does help the economy.  And that raising taxes simply provides revenue to stimulate the economy in a revenue neutral manner.  Which is what politicians want. There are other ways of providing revenue to fund stimulus spending, of course.
Now, me boy, back to the bat shit crazy con web sites for you.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!


lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan.  Period.  As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy.  Kennedy did not have a bad economy.  He had a good economy, me boy.  Which means that tax decreases made sense.  
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.  
Ignorance is your thing.  I can not help you.


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Actually, it started in November of 2008...

Financial Crisis Timeline: Collapse and Bailout | Bankrate.com

But at least we're in agreement that it started under Bush, not Obama.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!
> ...



Time for you to run away?  Typical...

If Kennedy really did have a good economy (which he didn't) then why would he be seeking tax cuts?  Tax increases make sense in an overheated economy like Clinton had during the Dot Com Boom...tax cuts make sense when an economy is stumbling.  Bill Clinton understands that.  It's why he now will admit that he shouldn't have raised taxes as much as he did back when he was President and why he advocates tax cuts now.

Here's how it works...you raise taxes and interest rates in an economic boom to cool things off...you lower taxes and interest rates in an economy that is losing steam.  If you really WERE an econ major you'd understand this kind of thing...but you're an econ POSER...who thinks that the Chicago School is a college in Illinois!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped.  An actual time, me boy.  But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped. 
How, I know you say I am wrong.  But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped.  And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD.  What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1.  The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2.  Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good.  His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time.  But you are trying to spread untruth.  What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect.  But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma.  Because that is your job.  Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you.  Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad.  Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy.  And it worked.


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You're lying again, gramps. It's already been pointed out to you the tax increase came before the dot com boom. Tax revenues began increasing before the dot com boom. The deficit  began falling before the dot com boom. All those also predated the GOP taking over the Congress in 1995. They all continued until 2000. The dot com boom certainly contributed to the economy; and it certainly contributed to the economic slow down which followed the bust -- but the economy began improving before the dot com boom.


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I already had this discussion with him. He apparently doesn't allow pesky facts to interfere with his delusional agenda.


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


WTF? The Congress can't pass spending bills without the consent and approval of the president. If Democrats didn't keep their end of the deal, then Reagan shouldn't have signed the bills. Even worse for your rhetoric... Republicans controlled the Senate. So even if the Democrat-led House passed spending bills, the Republican-led Senate could have cut spending from the bills.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Not to be rude, but you don't have a fucking clue about what this country has done to it's people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the massive wealth that it's shareholders of USA.INC are sitting on.  The "gubermint" that you have such loyalty to and cling to like it's your momma and daddy is sitting on Trillions of dollars of wealth . Do some research on the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Do that and you will find that this composite  for profit corporate "gubermint" owns majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries. They own amusement parks, racetracks, golf courses, land, etc, etc. When USA.INC went bankrupt again, it was taken into receivership by the IMF which is just another banking operation that is also controlled by the same people that own the Federal Reserve bank. Your idea of how things REALLY work is so far from reality that it would take me HOURS to explain to you what has been done to us.

 Why do major corporations pay little to no taxes on their profits? Because it would affect the dividends that the stockholders receive. Why are they allowed to offshore jobs? Because cheap labor and lax environmental laws pads their bottom line We are not under the protections of the U.S constitution that was done awa with when America became incorporated in 1868 and made it official in 1871 with the Act Of 1871. The debt slavery system happened in small increments but it's pretty much in place now. It's not the lack of money or resources that is the problem, it's the system that is ran by people that don't give a shit about us. We are just a human resource with diminsihing returns. They toss out just enough scraps in order to keep us on the hamster wheel. Wake the fuck up, my friend....we are not in Kansas anymore.


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Tell it to someone who was talking about that. I care not that you feel compelled to throw non-sequiturs in my direction. If you want to respond to what I posted, feel free. Otherwise, fuck off.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Income taxes or any other tax doesn't mean shit...you seem to think that if taxes were higher that you would benefit...you are 100 percent wrong. I just gave you a starting point to research about the type of wealth that is being amassed off of our backs.


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Again ... because you're hard of learning ... that has nothing to do with what I posted.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## fbj (Apr 25, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up




If you believe that you need to be in a mental institution you retarded  mutherfucker


----------



## fbj (Apr 25, 2016)

Those are FAKE NUMBERS


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal.  Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 25, 2016)

fbj said:


> Those are FAKE NUMBERS


If even you're keeping your job we are close to zero unemployment. Do you know what that means? That means if there are 100 companies looking for help there are 100 people looking for work. The problem is companies need people with skills. You can't just give those people those jobs. You have to know what you are doing. So companies keep looking for someone with experience.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So Reagan wasn't as great as they say? Stupid? Gullible?


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Funny.  Did you think anyone cares what you think, me boy.  You are a con tool.  What can you prove?


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again..... since you ignored it ... the Republican-led Senate was under no obligation to pass the spending bills from the House if they didn't contain any cuts you claim were promised.

Even if they did, Reagan didn't have to approve them.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy?  According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now!  Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy?  They didn't call for more government spending.  Why is that?


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again, proving you are a con tool.  Relative to debt racked up by president, you have taken actual amounts as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers.  Are you still buying cars at 1980 prices, me boy.  Obviously you do not, as you know.  So, lets take an impartial source that looked at all presidents over the past 50 years, and use inflation adjusted numbers.  And then, me boy, lets be rational.  If I make $30K per year, what I pay for a car is of more concern than if I make $200K.  So, you see, experts on the subject use inflation adjusted numbers and compare it to GNP.  Any other method is nonsense.  Which, of course, you would like.  Because you are a con tool.  So lets see how the experts rate the presidents:
Reagan had the highest increase as a percentage of GNP, with GW bush second, and Obama third.  
That, me boy, is not bad for a president facing the worst recession since the great depression. Not bad at all for a president following GW Bush.  Now, relative to the slow recovery from the great republican recession of 2008, it was simple to explain.  That you say you do not know proves you to be either incredibly ignorant (highly possible) or a con tool (undoubtedly true)/  It is well known by every rational mind in the world.  There was great need for a stimulus when Obama took over.  He got a watered down stimulus with tax decreases for the wealthy, and way to little actual stimulus dollars.  Every single republican voted against it, by the way, even after watering it down with tax decreases.  So, the stimulus was insufficient to improve the economy to the extent that economists wanted.  And the no action congress continued to block many, many stimulus bills proposed by the president.  The result, of course, was hundreds of millions of people suffering from a slow recovery caused and continued forward by republicans.
Why did Kennedy and Clinton not ask for more gov spending?  Really, me boy, you know I have explained when stimulus is needed.  It is as I have told you over and over because it is needed when the economy is bad.  Like, me boy, after Reagan destroyed his economy.  So, dipshit, quit asking really, really, really stupid questions.  And quit being an ass hole.  Now do us all a favor and fuck off.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr!  Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!  

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare?  Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all.  Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING!  For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > One who also knew the history of those tax cuts would also know that one of those tax increases...the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act of 1982...was a deal between Reagan and Tip O'Neal where Reagan would sign off on raising taxes if Democrats in Congress would cut spending. Reagan kept his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not.
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal. Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.


So typical of the lying scum Right, I nailed you on this lie earlier in this same thread only to have you lie again.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the deal between Reagan and O'Neal was a three for one...spending cuts for tax increases...deal.  Reagan reluctantly signed off on the Tax Equity and Financial Responsibility Act and gave O'Neal and the Democrats what they wanted only to have the Democrats renege on their part of the bargain when they balked at spending cuts.
> ...


Lying welsher is more like it!


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, _save or create jobs_, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a  _con tool._


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You know, I do not claim to be smart.  But I do claim to be old.  And I have spent a lot of time trying to understand several friends and a couple relatives who are right wing nut case.  Like Oldstyle, you can take ANY subject and know what they are going to say before they open their mouths or type their responses.  And I understand, at this point where it is coming from. 
I also know that what they are saying is a response provided for them by well paid right wing operatives who develop the talking points, and that if you simply assume that what they support will be good for the very rich (who pay the bill for the talking point development and distribution) and bad for the middle class you will be correct.  And, in the case of Oldstyle and several others out there, I know that they are paid to post their drivel. 
So, with oldstyle, you get the normal right wing dogma, and you see it repeated over and over and over again.  You see that he acknowledges only those opposing views that he has talking points to attack them with.  The other opposing views he ignores, pretending over and over that he never heard them.
As I said, I have friends and relatives who are caught in this nonsense, who believe it fully, and attack those who do not buy their dogma as the enemy.  To them, we are the enemy.  To us, of course, we simply are trying to ferret out the truth.  Which, unfortunately, they do not want to hear and do not want said to their audience. 
So the real problem is determining which are simply right wing nut cases.  My relatives and friends are typical examples.  But then there are the web sites out there where discussion is encouraged.  And there you find PAID right wingcon tools.  Paid, that is, to post their dogma and to end discussion not going their way.  Sad cases, of course, who are willing to lie for money.  Most people have more integrity than to be paid tools, but some are willing to post their dogma.  Whether they believe what they say is immaterial.  They are part of the paid right wing force out there working for the wealthy that support them. 
It is  a breath of fresh air whenever I run into those willing to take on the "oldstyles" of the world, and look for what the rest of the world knows as truth.  Truth which is not what you want to believe, not what a group of others believe, and not what makes you angry because you like being angry.  But truth based on evidence, studies, journalistic principles, and in general what the majority of the population believes based on those principles. 
And thanks for your open minded look at the real world.  I love the fact that the majority of us believe what we believe based on an effort to be correct and fair with the subjects we look at. We can sit back, to some degree, and simply laugh at the oldstyles of thie world.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Reagan was a politician.  Which is the same thing as saying he was a liar.  But in his defense, he had alzheimer's. Poor guy could probably not help himself.  Just keeping people from seeing his keepers wiping the drivel off of his chin was a major concern for them.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## rdean (Apr 26, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...


Actually, how many of those are Republican.  Remember, Republicans are against education.  How do we know?  They tell us through their policies and party platform.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


It's rather revealing how the right took credit for the housing boom until it went bust. Then suddenly, it was the fault of Democrats. Many of them still take credit for it unwittingly. They credit Bush for the strong economy in 2003-2006. Those are the ones who don't realize they're actually blaming him for the Great Recession as they don't understand it was the housing boom which fueled the economy during those years.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies!  Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created".  Why?  Because that number was something you could accurately count.  It wasn't a number that you INVENTED!  The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them.  They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money!  I'm a "con tool"?  You've fallen for a con job!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Nah, you just claim to have a college degree in economics...yet you didn't know what the Chicago School referred to!  You're so full of shit it's laughable!  You're not here on some noble search for the truth...you're here to tell lies.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*Again... *

That term was already used *before * ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That's right.  


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Now, now oldstyle.  We all know who you are.  But about my degree in economics.  This is about the 50th time you have tried that old lie.  Now, as I have always said, find the correct person to judge if my credentials are true, and I will meet any bet you would like to put out there.   $10K ok with you?  We simply let them look at the diploma I have and judge if it is valid, call the college if you would like to require it, and if it is a valid degree, you pay.  Otherwise, you just made $10K. If a person with integrity makes a claim like you just did and have in the past, they would back up their claim.  But you, me poor ignorant con tool, you simply make claims and run.  You can add my other degree, if you would like, and we can agree to $10K each.  Show your integrity (like you had any!!) and lets make some money flow.
But, of course, you will not, because you know better.  Just another personal attack, and another lie.  Poor little dish washer.
Thing is, as you know, I have a couple years of experience with your personal attacks.  You have lots of attack, but NO ability to back up your mouth.  Lets see, once I mentioned a secretary I had had years before, and you attacked that.  I suggested a bet, and you gave up on that one.  Then I mentioned working with some executives at BP in Alaska, and you said I claimed to be a BP Executive.  So I showed you my post, and that I said no such thing, and you had to back off again.  Really, dipshit, all you have shown over the years is that you have no integrity at all, and that as soon as you loose your "economic argument", you scurry away.  No nerve, no integrity.
Here is your problem, me poor ignorant con tool, I never ever lie.  I do not feel I have anything to lie about.  Lying is your purview, not mine.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Anyone who claims to be an econ major but doesn't know what the Chicago School refers to is such an obvious liar the discussion stops there.  It would be like someone claiming to be an electrician who doesn't know what an amp is.  You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr...and not a very good one!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Simple question for you then, Faun...why did every administration before the Obama administration use another statistic to measure job creation?  Why did the Obama White House switch from simply stating how many jobs were actually created to guessing how many jobs were "created or saved"?  I think we both know the answer to that.  They used "created or saved" to hide how few jobs they created.  You know it...I know it...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd?  So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with.  And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind.  None.  He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll  for short.  Poor little minded clown.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where is the link to W's statement, me boy? Or are you making the obviously stupid claim that anyone should believe you.  Dipshit.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

_[cue the Barney song...]_


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Well, me poor ignorant paid con tool, lets look at that jobs saved statement.  Do the experts
understand the concept of "created or saved"?
"In a report released on Jan. 13, 2010, the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 1.77 million jobs and 2.07 million jobs were *created or saved* by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2009.

Separately, the council's report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here's what those groups found:

• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) *saved or created.*

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs *saved or created*.

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs *saved or created.*

• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created."
Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created
Yup, they all know what it is.  Only the bat shit crazy con world has been saying saved does not count. Which simply proves: They, and you, are liars, and they and you are apparently incapable of understanding that a saved job is the same as a created job in terms of unemployment.
Jesus, you are a waste of space, dipshit.  If we wanted someone to parrot dogma, we could get a copy machine.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I have no integrity?  I'm not the person hanging out on an internet chat site pretending to be something I'm not.  That would be you.  You claimed to have a degree in economics but didn't know what the Chicago School was.  My advice to you is that if you're going to pose as something you're not...at least study up on the subject a little so you don't embarrass yourself like you have here.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What a shame you just can't stop lying. Not in your character, huh?

*Again.... *

Those words appeared in his plan before it was implemented. Accusing him of creating that term because you _think _ his plan failed doesn't even make sense since the the term predates the implementation. 

As far as your question of which prior administration used that term.... the Bush administration did when pushing CAFTA...

_This will *save jobs* and make U.S. exports much more competitive._

... now will this get you to stop lying? No, of course not. Why?

Because if the truth and the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Look at what you've posted, idiot child!  You've got a CBO estimate of between 800,000 jobs and 2.4 million jobs "created or saved" and you can't see that there's a problem?  You've got variances of over one and a half MILLION but you think those numbers should be taken as meaningful? 

I don't know what's more amusing...that the Obama Administration thought they could fool anyone with the bullshit they put out...or that you FELL for the bullshit they put out!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Really, Faun?  Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?

Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics.  You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem?  Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I value your opinion. 
So are you running from my offer of a bet, me boy?  Do you simply make accusations and then run from them when challenged??  Of course you do, No integrity, no nerve. Go wash some more dishes, me boy.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Only Bush knew he'd be shipping 700,000 jobs a month overseas.  No shit those workers couldn't pay their mortgages.  

U.S. Rep. David Cicilline says the United States has been growing jobs for 24 months

Who fucking knew???  Other than Bush.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, Bush was warned about 9-11 and did nothing about that too, right?


----------



## pinqy (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Really, Faun?  Did you just attempt to say that because the Bush Administration used the words "save jobs" when pushing legislation...then that equates to the Obama Administration changing the measuring statistic from jobs created to jobs created or saved?
> 
> Once again...show me another Administration that used "jobs saved" as part of their employment statistics.  You can't because nobody else would have the stones to push such an obvious cover up of failed policy as Barry's folks did.


ummm, "jobs saved" is not part of any official statistics.


----------



## rdean (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment.  Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue.  Then the two wars on credit cards.  Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers.  He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Too funny. I show you how Bush used the term, *"save jobs,"* to push  CAFTA just like Obama used that term to push ARRA; and to a con tool like you, that doesn't meet your standards to show the Obama administration is not even the first administration to use that term to measure jobs saved.



Regardless of your lack of integrity, you challenged me to show you a prior administration using the term, _*"saved jobs,"*_ as a measurement to push legislation; and I did. I certainly do not require your approval now because you're not happy I met your challenge.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I never denied Bush warned Congress.

Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....

*Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...*


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes, well I am sure your estimate was much more precise,  Oh, yeah, that's right.  You made no estimate. Because you are a dishwasher, so you have no clue.  You see, me poor little ignorant con tool, CBO always make upper and lower estimates and refine them as they get close.  Dipshit. The only problem there is that you are an idiot.
Now I, unlike you, utilize the estimates and findings of published impartial sources.  Experts.  Nothing at all funny about that.  No problem at all for thinking persons.  Only problems for people like you who believe what they are told to believe.
Now, there was the term "created or saved".  Sorry you have no integrity and as such can not admit the measurement exists among actual economic experts.  Now, I know you prefer the bat shit crazy con web sites that lie as a normal course of activity.  But, that is what you are supposed to post.  Lies and bs.  
I wold explain why the economists use the term saved, but it would be a waste of time with you.  It does not have anything to do with your specialty (dish washing). Really, me boy, you are totally showing everyone your ignorance,
To others besides oldstyle:
paid con tools like oldstyle are paid to post dogma, and to kill any threads of discussion that does not parrot the right wing nonsense.  That is what oldstyle has done for years.  As you can see, he is incapable of discussion.  You can prove your point rationally, and meaningfully to any thinking organism, but oldstyle, like all paid con tools, simply ignores the proof and continues on with his dogma.  Not many people in the world are so short of class that they can do that, but con tools have that malady.  Soon, he will just be posting personal attacks.  Anything from keeping the thread from being meaningful.  
You see, rationally, oldstyle is not capable of rational conversation, because rational conversation will question his right wing dogma.


----------



## rdean (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You gotta stop.  Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It isn't true.  All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President.  This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China!  That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it.  This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.  What did he give us with all that power?  ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"...Old and fat gay Jew..." Really, R-Derp?  It's always interesting when one of you "tolerant" liberals pulls back the curtain and reveals your real feelings about homosexuals and Jews.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I may call them faggots but I want them to be able to get married, share social security with their spouses, adopt, not get fired for being gay.

We may make an occasional jew or gay joke but that doesn't make us as bad as you not even close.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What I asked you was to show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as their primary means of measuring job creation.  What you did was Google "save jobs" and desperately try to come up with an example of Bush or any other Republican using "jobs created or saved".  You obviously couldn't come up with anything so you provided the "save jobs" CAFTA reference and pretended that it was the same thing.  

This isn't about Obama using the term "jobs created or saved" to push the ARRA...it's about his Administration replacing the previously used economic statistic jobs created....something which was a concrete and measurable number...with jobs created or saved...which is nothing more than a guess.  And why would they want a guess instead of a measurable number?  Because they spent almost a trillion dollars of tax payer money and created very few jobs.  THAT is what "jobs created or saved" is all about...THAT is what it's always been about!  It's smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Since I also want them to be able to get married and have the same rights as everyone else...but I don't tell "jew or gay" jokes or refer to them as "faggots"...you'll have to explain how it is that I'm worse than you!

To steal a line from Love Story...it seems that being a Progressive means never having to say you're sorry even when you're a homophobic anti Semite.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Same with that Soros guy.  Who by the way donates to Republicans too.  But the fact is we have every rich person in the country giving money to Republicans and Soro's by himself is supposed to make us even just because we have one guy vs. all them.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I may not be better than you.  I'm just better than all the Republicans you side with.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Very modest of you.  But you are better than oldstyle.  You try to be honest and rational, oldstyle does not bother.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow.  Who would think that oldstyle would post a whole list of right wing talking points with NO links or proof of anything.  Am I missing something, or is this a totally useless post.  Relative to the success or failure of the administration, that would be your opinion [actually what you are told to believe) and you know how much we respect your opinion.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Neither the cbo or any other impartial econoic source I am aware of believes what you just posted.  Only the well paid right wing bat shit crazy cons creating the talking points you spout believe what you just posted.  Thanks for not changing and being a paid conservative tool.

Consider:
When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration.
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf
And I can provide you many more similat quotes.  All of which show you are not worth trying to help.  Because you are, me boy, a paid con tool.

Me poor ignorant con tool.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> You gotta stop. Republicans believe that one old and fat gay Jew, *Barney Frank, had more power to run this country than the entire Republican Party*.


AND while a member of the MINORITY Party!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!


Well the GOP controlled the House, Senate and White House at the time.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



As you know...or should know, President Clinton never had a surplus.  What APPEARED as a surplus was money going into the general fund from Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> > Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.
> ...



Of course, you know you are wrong so why do you make such false statements?  You might consider chucking the Kool Aid!

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's?  That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.  Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> As you know...or should know, President Clinton never had a surplus. What APPEARED as a surplus was money going into the general fund from Social Security and Medicare withholding taxes.


Then by that same accounting Bush never had a $161 billion deficit in 2007 that The Right habitually touts.
Do you agree?


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism.
> ...


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? *That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.*


That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. *Ninety million Americans are not working*, Donna, *but they're eating.* What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are *not working. But they're eating*, which means *somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody* is somebody else, *is the government*. They are eating.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What excuses? His job approval is right up there with Reagan's at this point in his presidency. And other than that, no other Republican president except for Eisenhower had a higher JAR than Obama after 87 months in office.

If Obama has failed ... what does that say about all those Republican presidents with lower job approval ratings?

Librul media??


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Sorry, but I can't teach you something as basic as knowing Republicans controlled the House in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and the Senate in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2001 -- the year Bush first began warning the Congress that reform of the GSEs was needed.

So for a third time, since you avoided answering twice now...

*Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...*


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that* profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.*
> ...


.


I'm sure you thought you had a point when you posted  only the first year of the Lame Duck Obama administration.  Might you share it with us?


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > But the *109,631,000* living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all *309,467,000 people* living in the United States at that time.Sep 9, 2015
> ...



Same way it has always been counted.  Do you have a point?


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

The lengths you'll go to to maintain your idiocy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




They both used saving jobs as a reason for pushing through legislation. Even Bush, who promoted such a measure to get CAFTA passed. You complained there is no way to measure jobs saved (which is just another falsehood of yours anyway since the CBO managed to measure it) yet had that been true, there would have been no way to measure Bush's claim to save jobs.

And again, just to expose your lie again how Obama made up that term (that Bush used) Because you think his stimulus plan failed ... *he used that term BEFORE any jobs were saved or created under his plan. * How could he possibly use that term to compensate for a failed plan that hadn't Ben implemented yet??

You really have no fucking clue of what you're talking about.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Simple...

Answer to all your questions.  Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016.  Need I explain it to you?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr, you asked about the 8 things we could do that would return this country to greatness.....here it is but I added three more. I was revisiting the thread and just saw your question...all of these are very doable.

#1 Top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve and publicly name the 12 families that are the shareholders. Then we nationalize it, tell the banking oligarchs that the debt belongs to USA.INC which is being dissolved and not the debt of the people. Then we confiscate the ill-gotten wealth and put it into a trust AFTER dissolving USA.INC. We repatriate the golden that was confiscated and stolen from the people due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933. We will follow the paper trail and I suspect that the nation's gold is sitting in a vault in the Bank Of London. We then audit the IMF, the Bank For International Settlements and the World Bank and write off any and all debt this thieves have stolen from the third world countries.

#2 We then open up ALL Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the hidden holdings of USA.INC and it's 185,000 subsidiaries. What you would find is that they are sitting on 145 TRILLION dollars in assets not just in U.S holdings but overseas corporations as well that pays them a hefty dividend every year. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries take in more wealth in a year than the entire GDP of the private sector. That money is also put into a trust and that is what will finance the nineteen essential services that the IMF contracted for when USA.INC was taken into receivership when it went bankrupt in 1950.

#3 Then we nullify all the unfair "fair trade agreements" that has allowed a flood of cheap goods into this country made by what is basically slave labor and we place tariffs on it like we did before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This would eliminate the need for any taxation whatsoever and Allodial rights to property could be restored to the people....which means they own it outright...no property tax whatsoever.

#4 There are over 6,000 patents for everything from zero point energy to a better way of creating GOOD food that has been suppressed under the guise of "National Security". We release them and allow a TRUE free market to run with them which would create MILLIONS of jobs without harming the environment at all.

#5 We bring every soldier back that has been working overseas protecting the interests of the multinational corporations and use them to secure our southern border. Only those that came here legally and signed the guest book should benefit from the changes...not those that came over here, flopped and sucked off of the public teat.


#6 We use our influence to bring about these changes in every other country that is under the thumb of the banking oligarchs and return the wealth and resources that were stolen from them by the IMF and Bank For International Settlements back to the people from which it was stolen. It would be a domino effect. Once we expose the thievery of the IMF, BIS and World Bank, we put that money into a world trust to rebuild the infrastructure of these third world counties.


#7 We put every globalist on trial for their crimes against humanity and confiscate their wealth. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers come immediately to mind, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrice, Prince Phillip, etc, etc. Everyone that sits on the Committee of 300. It's a very tiny group of powerful elites that have foisted this debt slavery system upon humanity at the expense of 100's of millions of lives and it's way past time that they paid for their crimes. It would be Nuremburg on steroids. 


#8 We restore the Republic which means a return to Common Law which is the law of the land instead of admiralty law which is the law of the sea with all it's acts, statutes and codes. Re-train the administrators that were acting on behalf of the bank under the guise of being a judge that was raising revenue for the corporation.... into administering Common law.

#9 Hire peace officers instead of police that have been nothing but glorified mall cops and enforcers of acts, statutes and codes that produced revenue while producing no real victim of violations of said acts, statutes and codes.

#10 Make the people the trustee of their corporate fiction that was created the day they were born with the birth certificate that was written on bond paper.... as a bond was created in that all caps name that has gained value over the life of that corporate fiction and instead use it to fund the retirement of the real man or woman of the land...thus eliminating the need for any kind of social security tax on both the employee and the employer freeing the employer to pay more since he/she will not have to figure that cost into what he/she decides to pay you. Only under real time hardship cases like disability would the funds from this bond be released if it's not at the age of retirement......like the age of 60? Heck, we might even be able to lower it to 55.

#11. Legalize hemp....it has a 1000 and 1 uses from being a bio-fuel to curing many forms of cancer.

We have been abused, we have been raped, pillaged and plundered by a debt slavery system that rivals that of Rome before the birth of Christ and we don't even realize it.

BTW, there are millions of people that know the things I do...especially in Europe....America? Not so much but there are some. The tipping point is about to be reached and the point of no return is approaching unless people wake up as to what is being done to them. We ARE the change...we are the solution. These bought and paid for lackeys in D.C that is the corporate headquarters of USA.INC have no power...it's all theater. KNOWLEDGE is power and trust me, they do not want you to know what I have posted here. If you want change, you are not going to get it as long as the for profit corporate entity exists in D.C ...etch that in stone.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Many people abort so they don't have to go on welfare. If they had the kid the need to go on food stamps. Lots of People abort because they can't afford a child


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you really think increased corporate profits produces more jobs in this day and age????

Clearly cutting corporate taxes to increase their profit will NOT produce more jobs!
Get it?


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's?  *That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.*  Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.


Emphasis added to shine a spotlight on the dumbest post of the week.

The drop in the labor force participation rate means no such thing. That you think it does only serves to reveal just how ignorant you are on the subject.

Here are just a few examples of people who would not be counted in the labor force, contributing to its decline -- none of whom just gave up looking for work...


senior citizens retiring

teenagers turning 16

people getting hurt on the job and taking disability 

women having babies and choosing to stay at home to raise them

men choosing to stay at home to raise their kids because their wives or girlfriends make more money

folks who come into a windfall and choose to stop working

folks who work in the shadow economy and don't report their income

While there are certainly some who, for whatever reason, can't find a job and gave up looking, the vast majority are among those listed above. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

I can't believe you actually said something that stupid. It's mind-boggling that there are people like you who think that way.


----------



## Old Yeller (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?


----------



## Old Yeller (Apr 26, 2016)

LFPR is big.  Supply & Demand.  10s' of million forced out, need or want to work.  Cannot.  those working end up paid less?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Okay.

Reagan's GDP his last year in office was 7

Reagan's Unemployment rate was 5.5%, down from a maximum of 9.7%

Labor Participation Rate was 65.8% in April of 1988 and it is 63.0% under the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama.

Any way you want to describe it, President Obama's economy is another Carter malaise compared to that of President Reagan.

More?


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!
> ...



The unemployment rate when President Kennedy took office was 6.7%, highest in many years.  The GDP was 3.5% which was down from 8.4% in 1959.  So  NO, the economy was NOT great when President John F. Kennedy took office.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I've read some of "oldstyle" posts.  Of those, every one was 100% accurate.  Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value.  Seen that on other threads too.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing but corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? *That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.*
> ...



I provided the FACTS and the link.  What was difficult for you to understand?  I'll be happy to explain it to you.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...



Uh, read your post.  It seems, me boy, that technically speaking, you are full of shit.  You are providing untrue right wing talking points and calling them fact.  You need to show a source, because your information is unsupported and simply incorrect.  Here is an example of an impartial source, me boy:

"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 80zephyr said:
> ...


You are in way over your head, me boy.  The labor participation rate dropping 3% is not much of a problem normally, but economists have told us to expect it to drop and it did.  And partially for reasons of the general economy.  You seem to be insinuating it happened because a democratic president took over.  But the truth, me boy, is that the downturn coincided with the great republican recession of 2008.  Which caused a whole lot of unemployment as well as a large number of workers discouraged by same and waiting for improvement.  Really, me boy, pretty obvious.  Then, there was this other factor apparently you missed.  Which was a whole large number of folks in the baby boom retiring early.  Then, me poor ignorant tool, there were the results of being able to afford insurance outside of work under ACA.  So, me boy, quit spreading gloom and doom about participation rates.  Rather ignorant of you. 
Oh, by the way, if you look at the rates at this time, you will find them improving.  Must be Obama's influence, eh?????


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Markle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There are so many posters here that should be nominated for "Moron Of The Year" on this board with Faun being one of them but Rshermr gets my vote...his flames are lame and he doesn't have a fucking clue either. His schtick is beyond lame.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs *




White House News 




Setting the Record Straight 



In Focus: Economy 

*For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.*  President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.  Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.  

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I only found this site a short while ago but in that short time, I agree with your assessment 100%.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Really, me boy, personal attacks all you have left?? Truth is, he is less amusing than you, in my humble but correct opinion.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Let's be upfront, I am no fan of the Bush crime family that is thicker than thieves with the Clintons, but the fact that you have NO fucking clue as to what caused the housing bubble burst along with all the other "crashes" tells me right away that you are an intellectual lightweight and that you don't know a fucking thing about the fractional banking system, Promissory notes and the "boom and bust" cycles that they create in order to gain access to hard assets because bankruptcies and foreclosure are built right into this debt slavery system.

Spare us all your attitude of superiority...you are as naked a jaybird....you have got nothing.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're joking, right?  If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.  The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are *choosing* not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people *choosing* on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Your posts are neither amusing nor informative....not even accidentally and you don't know much which is why you avoid me......good choice.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the _'not in labor force'_ group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Tom delay George w bush and Dennis hastert fucked us good.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Both parties (which are really just one at the very top) have fucked us over because they didn't have the guts to stand up for the people. I am sure that they were compromised....hell, I know that Hastert was...the powers that be knew that he had "diddled" his students long before he ever got into politics and rose so quickly through the ranks. Barney Frank? Totally compromised.....hell, I would say that 99 percent of everyone in Congress have skeletons in their closets or they wouldn't be where they are.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Illegal immigration and NAFTA and breaking unions and outsourcing all started when the rich won the white house in 1980. Reagan seemed good at the time but little did people know bushanomics for started in Reaganomics. And Reagan would be a moderate Democrat today


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Me poor ignorant con tool.  Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory.  Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea.  Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save.  Not increase production.  Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit.  Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008.  There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions.  And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do.  According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value.  But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan.  You know the drill by now, dipshit.  Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%.  Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct.  But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt.  Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works.  Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You sound like a liberal to me


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Your fellow yahoo wouldn't answer ... maybe I'll have better luck with you (not really expecting to, though)....

Bush first raised the issue in April of 2001. Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress at the time. A few months later, the lost control of the Senate when Jeffords switched parties but still maintained control of the House for the remainder of 2001 and all of 2002. Republicans regained control of both chambers for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

That's 6 years of control of the Executive branch.

6 years of control of the House of Representatives.

And 4½ years of control of the Senate.

Most of that time while the housing markets were ballooning out of control....

Now here's the test, which you are programmed to fail.....

*Show me the GSE reform bill(s) those Republican-led Congresses passed.........

*


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Son, you are amusing.

Please show us where a THREE PERCENT DROP in the Labor Participation Rate has been normal.

Lame Duck President Obama gutted the 1996 Welfare Reform Act between the "Stimulus" package and Obamacare.

Progressives, like yourself, need to operate in a static economy.  It is the only way they can con people into believing their malarkey.

You make a statement about baby boomers leaving the labor market is the cause of the Labor Participation Rate dropping so precipitously.  What you, and other Progressives intentionally "ignore" is the FACT, that millions of 16-year-olds ENTER the Labor Market every year as the baby boomers retire.
I know...oops!  Forgot that didn't you son?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


But supply side does work.  For them. But not small business owners because they only make money when we all have money. So why do they think they are Republicans. Bush shipped demand overseas.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I answered that question.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


That you think toying with strawman arguments works for you speaks volumes. As before, you are arguing something other than what I am arguing. I have said nothing about the quality of jobs.I am talking about the health of the job market, which is at full employment; and the idiocies spouted how the labor force participation is the new unemployment indicator in place of the unemployment rate.

You have your own personal agenda, which at this time, interests me not. You're obviously welcome to spew your logorrhea to your heart's content. I shall do nothing more than remind you it has little, if anything, to do with what I'm talking about.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


You provided no facts and no link. All you did was parrot your MessiahRushie's lies.


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?


----------



## Markle (Apr 26, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Let me get this straight.  You need a LINK to prove to you that millions of young people are turning 16 and entering the labor market.  WOW!  You are amusing!


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The same people who argued in 2007 that the economy was good while we were clearly falling into a great recession, are now telling you Obama's economy sucks. Never forget you are talking to fools and brainwashed liars. Certainly not being intellectually honest. Arrogant + ignorance = middle class republicans


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


So you admit you lied when you said you provided a link.
Just because someone turns 16 does not mean they enter the labor market, most 16 year olds choose to stay in school and not enter the labor market and thus enter the "not in labor force" reducing the LPR.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Hillary! Hillary!! Get used to 8 more years of the clintons. Maybe Paul Ryan and the new democratic Senate majority leader will work with hillary. Us liberals know she will triangulate negotiate and get er done


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You REALLY believe that we have a healthy job market????? If you can't eek out a living, it doesn't matter how "healthy" it is....what part of that don't you get???? "Hey! I sleep in a box but I got 5 hours today at Burger King for 7.50 an hour...let the good times roll!!"......holy shit.....seriously.......


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




New boss will be the same as the old boss...nothing will improve for the average Joe but what they will attempt to do is disarm the public. I have real doubts that you folks will even have an election. Yet another orchestrated dollar crash is on the horizon but if it doesn't happen by election time, it will happen soon after.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Funny I saved a lot in the Clinton years and started saving again last year. I work in manufacturing and I know manufacturing is up. Sales are good. We can't find service techs. It blows me away because it pays $60k plus but you have to travel mon-fri. People are picky because companies are hiring and wages are going up.

Compare it now to 2007 when we were clearly in a recession and you and McCain were saying the fundamentals of our economy were strong.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


No one is discounting that. It's just not enough to offset the aging population.

*Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall*

A major factor responsible for this downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the baby-boom generation.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



The orchestrated housing bubble hadn't happened in 2007 and even though unbeknowst to most, we were about to step over the cliff.... the shit had yet to hit the fan. Just like the Crash of 1929, the bankers cleaned up on hard assets but claimed "empty pockets" so we bailed them out on our dime that Bushpuppet and Barrypuppet agreed was the right thing to do. As I recall, not one single banker stood trial for any fraud....seems that Eric Holder gave them a pass and it was business as usual...because after all, it's just one big club and we ain't in it....but that's ok for you because Barrypuppet is "demcrat"..... (rolls eyes).

2008 and 2009 was the best opportunity we had to rid ourselves of the parasitic entity that creates money out of nothing, loans it out and then wants to be paid back three times the Promissory note with our sweat equity....but no one had the balls to step up to the plate....must be because they don't want to take the chance of losing their ill-gotten wealth.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Ahh, the ever popular declaration of answering when you didn't. 

All you said was millions of 16 year olds turn 16. That doesn't answer the question.  And a higher percentage of _young (65-69)_ baby boomers are working than 16-17 year olds. More Baby Boomers are retiring than 16 year olds are going to work.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 
Your particular industry may be up but not so much for the rest...and I am glad that you are doing ok....but if I were you, I would be using that money to attain some essentials for when the dollar bubble bursts. I am doing ok but I have 20 plus years in the industry that I am in and it's hard to find techs that knows the things I do. Young people are more interested in computer stuff then they are repairing equipment where they might get dirty...LOL!


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I sincerely doubt that.....with the shitty buying power of this fiat currency, more and more "baby boomers" are staying in the workforce because they can't count on what they have saved. I don't give a shit what your alleged stats show. I also know that on the rare occasion that I eat at a fast food joint, I can count on one hand with fingers to spare as to how many teenagers are working there. Life must be surreal with them rose colored glasses on...where might I buy a pair?


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


In reality, it's about million teenagers turning 16 and entering the the labor market each year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

See what happens when you rely on links rather than opinion?

The truth emerges.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I asked somebody at work if the recession hurt them and they said not really. Of course sales were down but people still need our products to measure parts. Aerospace, defense, auto, medical, manufacturing etc.  I hope I never have to look for another job. 17 more years unless they raise the retirement age


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


You can doubt them all you want ... my _alleged_ stats come from the BLS...

Employment Level - 16-17 yrs.
Population Level - 16-17 yrs.
Employment Level - 65-69 yrs.
Population Level - 65-69 yrs.

And I hate to break the news to ya -- but your personal anecdotal evidence is no match for any one of the numerous studies which attribute as much as half of the decline in the labor force participation rate to retiring baby boomers.


----------



## rdean (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure?  You must be delusional.  What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Keep on believing that things are looking up and that the average Joe is just one more election cycle away from prosperity. I am in the real world, I see the real world. I was in Detroit, Michigan from January of 2013 to July of 2015 and I never saw a fucking thing get better for those people there. I came back to Dallas Texas and I see the cracks in the economy and friends of mine hoping to get even so much as part-time gig at Home Depot or Lowes and it's much worse than when I left in 2013. I am here in Florida where there is a HUGE divide between the haves and the have nots and  if you are a "have" you are gonna pay through the nose and this system will drain you for every dime they can......it is fucking insane....but morons like you act like we are sitting in high cotton. You must be doing coke....no one could have the optimistic attitude that you have concerning the condition of this country unless they were on some kind of drug....seriously.

Studies? Have these "professionals" go out into the real world instead of crunching numbers this corporate "gubermint" gives them in order to paint a rosy picture that doesn't fucking exist in the real world


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Politics is nothing but theater because the bankers that pulled the rug out from under the economy are the ones that call the shots and the ones that prospered from our pain...but just so I can bust on you...I will play your little game. Leftards controlled both Houses of Congress the last two years of Bushpuppet's term. They gave Bushpuppet every dime he asked for to continue the raping, pillaging and plundering of Iraq while attaching pork for their constituents in each and every funding bill that they signed off on. None of them gave a shit about the ever growing bubble and neither party gave so much as a fly's fart about the GSE that was Fannie and Freddie because hey, if it fails? No sweat off of their ass...they will simply send the bill to us....which they did. Neither party gives a flying fuck about you.....those like you are just useful idiots. You wave your little rainbow colored leftard flag while never bothering to look around you. You are the biggest "buck passing" troll on this site. You are so fucking blinded by ideology that Barrypuppet could sexually assault someone for the whole world to see and you would swear up and down that it was a neocon plot. Anyone that takes your rants seriously is just as ignorant as you are........carry on, "comrade".....


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



How about some truth:
 GDP his last year was not 7, it was, of course, $8.9 Billion.
Reagans maximum unemployment rate was 10.8%, second highest in US history.
His labor participation rate ranged from 64.1% to 66.4%.  
President Reagan did not have a near depression, and enter the term with the previous president loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.
Ron Reagan, after his great tax decrease in 1981, achieved his record unemployment level of 10.8%.  He then acted like an actual democrat, raising taxes 11 times, using that revenue to spend stimulatively to the point that he nearly tripled the national debt.  He actually spent more than all the previous presidents in US History.  And, during that period of tax and spend, he achieved an economy nearly as good as that of President Clinton.
Now, that, me boy, is the honest truth.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



What's amusing, R-Derp...is that you honestly believe that Obama's stewardship of the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression is a plus for Barry!  Where we are now is a testament to the strength of the American economy not to Barack Obama's fiscal policies.  Our economy has managed to come back DESPITE having a President who is utterly clueless about job creation, economics in general and hasn't had a plan to create jobs or grow the economy since Larry Summers left six years ago!


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Hey, moron......income taxes does not go towards funding this corporate entity that is USA.INC, it goes towards paying interest to the Fed bankers for the privilege of using a fiat currency extended by credit that they pull out of thin air. USA.INC has always had their own source of revenue on and off the books from which to draw from. I guess you have no clue as to what the CAFR is.........no wonder you avoid my posts....you just keep getting your ass thoroughly kicked....(snicker)


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



There's no "may" about it, Sealy!  You're worse than me...you simply refuse to admit it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 

This economy blows.....QE has debased the currency causing inflation and it has caused another giant bubble that is about to burst...everyone on the inside knows it and they have been preparing accordingly. The derivatives market is what will end up blowing things all to hell. Tick, tick, tick......just a matter of time before it implodes.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Welcome to the board, Markle.  I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters!  He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad!  Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics.  His kind of stupid is a rare thing!  Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I have the moron so flustered and confused that he can't even muster a reply to me. ...talk about kicking someone's ass?


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Lets look at actual numbers, shall we?
The unemployment rate was 6.6% when he took office.  Which is not a bad rate.  It was under 5.5% when he died almost three years later.  That is, of course, a pretty good economy overall.  Really, me boy, if you want to quote me, try being honest.  I did not say that Kennedy;s economy was great.  I said, you see, that it was good.  And trying to say that GDP had been dropping was a clumsy lie.
Now, if you are looking for a BAD economy, look at Reagan's,  His was about 7.3%  (Not awful, but not good) when he took office, and about 10.8% 2 years later.   Now, that is bad.  Second worst ue rate in US history..
Uh, gdp was 3.5% of what, me boy?  GDP was (and is) measured in trillions of dollars.  Not percentage points.  GDP was 3.3 Trillion at the start of his term, January of 1961.  It was $3.06 trillion in 1959.  Jesus, you have a problem understanding, me boy.  GDP is not a measure of economic condition on it's own.  It is a one of several indicators over time, looking at change not size.
US Real GDP by Year

So, the output of the economy was increasing throughout kennedy's term.  And the unemployment rate was, as I said, good.  I did not say great, and it was not great.  But it did not require stimulus.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Sorry you are so delusional.  Is it congenital, dipshit.   I am sure you will get along well with oldstyle.  both of you are liars.  Have fun.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


So, you are the idiot who was quoting gdp as percentages.  Wow.  And after doing that, you have the nerve to call anyone a moron.  I just responded to your post, which was stupid.  Nice try, though.  Explained gently why you were wrong.  Stupid, actually.  Percentages!!!!! Really, dipshit????


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Anything specific, or do you just like to hurl insults.  You have obvious mental problems, but those are yours.  What I posted is true, and provable.  What you post seems to be from a position of fear.  Really, dipshit, all of your bravado is totally lost on me. If you want to argue what I am discussing, be my guest.  But trylinks and truth.  Unlike what you want, I am not in the slightest impressed with you.  So far you have no argument, just opinion.  Prove it with some backing, if you can.  I suspect, however, that you are spending time putting together conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories require proof.  If you have it, I will read it.  If not, then you are just another clown telling all who will listen how smart you are.  Which is totally unimpressive. 
I have spent my life with people that have class, and learned over that time that people who brag about their knowledge are ALWAYS clowns.  If you are an exception, prove it, me boy, with links and truth.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



I would never avoid you, at least not yet.  I fear you may be a complete liar, which, in the end, is probably why most do avoid you.  Relative to your expressed opinion of me, I am so hurt.  You know how much I value your opinion.
And really, me boy, I have learned over the years that stupid people do not have a sense of humor.


----------



## Markle (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## Markle (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics.  I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


We are out of the great Bush recession dummy


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



This became the "Obama Jobless Recovery" years ago, Sealy!  We've been grinding along with less then 2% economic growth for years with the Fed unable to raise interest rates because the economy isn't strong enough.  Barry OWNS that...not Bush.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"!  He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it?  Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks.  It's his stock response.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Pot meet kettle. You are one to whine about insults. I guaran-fucking-tee you that there is more proof that the banking oligarchs were behind this asset grab then you have any proof that "da gubermint" is at fault. Playing the blame game when the economy tanks when it's actually the owners of USA.INC (The Fed bankers) just shows how ignorant you are about what we are facing.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 

He is definitely clueless....just another water carrier for the Barrypuppet.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Uh, personal attacks.  You mean posts free of discussion about the issues?  You mean like this one?  And every other post you make?? Like the list of posts by you and your friends above?
I will defend myself from your baseless attacks, but much prefer discussions about economics.  You know, what you say I know nothing about but are unwilling to engage in due to your desire for...your personal attacks on me.  Really, me boy, try discussing the subject and backing yourself up with proof.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



And another......personal attack.  Incapable of discussion??


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Ok, me boy.  Try stopping with the personal attacks.  I do not disagree with much of what you say, if you could simply try to back up your broad statements with some evidence it would possibly set a platform for discussion. If you think I am incapable of discussion with you, then go find someone more in line with your thought process.  And leave the insults out of your dialogue.  Unless you simply want to end this thread by making it too crowded with meaningless posts to bother with.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Again, kpersonal attacks like this post from you?  Are you capable of rational discussion??  Just wondering.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Waaaa!!!  The Feds can't raise interest rates!  Waaaaaa!  So why don't we go back to losing 700,000 jobs a month all while President Bush/Cruz/Kasich/McCain/Romney tell us the fundamentals of our economy are strong?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Guys like Oldstyle argue one way when a Republican is in the White House and hold Democratic Presidents to a completely different standard.  They nit pick the Democrat and let the Republicans tank the economy and still want to re elect them.  Ever hear Republicans talk about "real" unemployment or the long term unemployed when Bush was president?  Fuck no.  They called all those people lazy slackers who have only themselves to blame.  Today they blame Obama.  In other words they are just cherry picking and using the unemployed as political footballs, because we all know Republicans don't have a plan to help those people.

Just remember they wanted to elect McCain and carry on with Bushanomics.  They never once admitted Bush sucked.  But now look at how Republicans treat not only the Bush name but any Republican who wants to be president.  What did Cruz get last night 10% of the vote?  So it isn't just us liberals who hate the Republicans.  Every Republican that votes for Trump hates them too.  In other words no one wants a Republican to be president.  No one.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Obama Is One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time. Here’s Why

Wait. One of the Greatest? you ask, your thumb emoticon poised to turn up or down on me. The guy haters love to hate with their very best hate game? Like 20-Dollar Bill great? Like Mount Rushmore great?

Yep. (We just won’t build Mount Rushmores anymore.) In so many ways, Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved, and far, far better than his enemies will ever concede, but the great thing about being great is that the verdict of enemies doesn’t matter.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

In fact, and I say this as a Bill Clinton fan, I now feel certain that, in the coming decades, Obama’s star will rise higher than Clinton’s, and he’ll replace Bill in the public mind as the Greatest Democrat since FDR.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You seem to take the Fed's ability to set interest rates lightly, Sealy.   Perhaps you should think about what our options are if we slip into another recession?  The normal solution for that is for the Fed to lower interest rates.  We can't do that however because interest rates are almost at zero now.  That's a dangerous situation and is why the Fed keeps rumbling about possible raises to the interest rate only to back off because the economy is so shaky.  

The fundamentals of our economy ARE strong!  If they weren't then the lack of leadership by President Obama for much of the last six years would have been extremely damaging.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Who, me boy, owns congress?? Who, me boy, has stopped every bill on the economy that the current president has put forward?  What bill has the repub  congress put forward, me boy.  Let me know what they have done EXCEPT block any effort this pres


Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...





sealybobo said:


> In fact, and I say this as a Bill Clinton fan, I now feel certain that, in the coming decades, Obama’s star will rise higher than Clinton’s, and he’ll replace Bill in the public mind as the Greatest Democrat since FDR.



Obama faced the worst economy since FDR.  Another great republican recession.  And heading to a true depression at record speed.  It was a true aggregate demand based recession, getting worse weekly.  Losing over 600,000 jobs per MONTH.  PER MONTH.  
So, you had two options. The republican version was do nothing except lower taxes.
Or the option of nearly all economists, use STIMULUS.  FAST.
And so there was a vote for a stimulus bill.  Dems and repubs, and all impartial economists, said we were going toward a depression if we did not get a major stimulus package.  And FAST.  So, in their normal way, they lined up to vote, all wanting the bill to pass, all willing to vote for it, "if necessary". Because, you see, no repub wanted to admit he had voted for it.  So, the package passed WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE.  
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html?_r=0
Since then, of course, every republican talking point, every republican voice, has in lock step said that the package did nothing.  That, after every republican INSISTING on a major part of the bill being tax decreases. Which economic sources stated would hurt the bill.  And it did.  The stimulus, thanks to republican input, was too weak to get the job done in a reasonable time frame.  
So, republicans, having control of the congress after the death of Kennedy, have REFUSED TO PASS A SINGLE BILL PUT FORWARD TO HELP THE ECONOMY SINCE.  EVERY SINGLE ONE.  And while doing so, with their foot on the throat of every american worker, they continue to stop progress.  Which, in many people's opinion, is un-American.
So, we here every conservative tool, especially the paid ones, saying the stimulus did nothing.  Which is, of course, simply partisan bullshit.  One should not listen to political pretenders or politicians on anything, because they lie as a matter of course.  So, what does a group of experts tasked with scoring such things say?

Did the stimulus work?

Certainly not according to Republicans, who regularly blast President Obama’s “failed” economic policies on the campaign trail. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called the $787 billion package of temporary tax cuts and spending hikes “the largest one-time careless expenditure of government money in American history.”

But on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

Elmendorf’s testimony came in response to questions from Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), a member of the tea party caucus. Huelskamp asserted that the stimulus was a failure because it did not keep the jobless rate below 8 percent, as the Obama administration predicted.

“Where did Washington mess up?” Huelskamp demanded. “Because you’re saying most economists think it should’ve worked. It didn’t.”

Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus

So, there you are.  Politicians, and their conservative tool mindless helpers, have hurt, badly, the middle class.  They have, in their normal way, made sure that the wealthy came out well.  Bankers and corporatists and very wealthy are doing better than before the great republican recession of 2008.  Provably.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Obama Is One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time. Here’s Why
> 
> Wait. One of the Greatest? you ask, your thumb emoticon poised to turn up or down on me. The guy haters love to hate with their very best hate game? Like 20-Dollar Bill great? Like Mount Rushmore great?
> 
> Yep. (We just won’t build Mount Rushmores anymore.) In so many ways, Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved, and far, far better than his enemies will ever concede, but the great thing about being great is that the verdict of enemies doesn’t matter.



Better than we imagined?  Really, Sealy?

Let's see...he did give us ObamaCare...a piece of legislation that was so flawed that it's proponents had to lie to the American people to get it passed and even the people who wrote it admit that it needs to be overhauled or it can't survive!

He did give us the Obama Stimulus...something that turned into a liberal pork fest that created so few jobs that they had to invent a new economic statistic to hide how bad it was!

Fast & Furious?  Benghazi?  That joke of a nuke deal with Iran?  The JV team?  Putin and Russian aggression?  Syria?  

Then there is his domestic agenda.  Using the IRS against political enemies?  The most "transparent" Administration ever?  Racial tensions at the highest levels since the 60's?  Political partisanship worse now than at any time since the Civil War?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



"In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise."

Gee, you spent billions in stimulus and what do you have to show for it?  That economists agree the unemployment rate would have been higher if you hadn't?  Think about that, you drooling idiot!  Talk about using statistics to convey something that is absolutely meaningless!  How much higher?  A half a point?  You're so fucking gullible that you buy the bullshit this Administration has been shoveling!

What's laughable is that 20% of the economists out there believed that the unemployment rate would have been lower if you hadn't spent anything!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Again, you have no proof.  No links.  Do you expect that we would take what you say on your word?  
Interest rates have done little.  They normally do little even if they are high.  What would work, of course, according to economists, would have been more stimulus.  But repubs voted against every bill put forward for stimulus, including obviously needed infrastructure investment.  Because, simply, repubs and folks like you do not want the economy to get better under a dem president.  That, me boy, is un-american in most people's mind.  
We have had three major downturns in our history, and numerous small corrections.  The three were:
1.  The great republican depression of 1929.  When unemployment went from about 4% to over 25% while our great republican president sat while doing NOTHING.  Nothing good happened until stimulus bills after Hoover was out of office (though he finally came to his senses just before he left office, and pushed forward a stimulus bill).
2. The Second Republican Downturn during Reagan's admin, resulting from a great tax decrease and massive gov layoffs to pay for the tax decrease.  That downturn got better when the economic team raised taxes to pay for gov spending (stimulus).  
3.  The Great Republican Recession of 2008.  What we have today.
So, interest rate were already historically low.  Tax rates were very low, not lower since the 1950's.  You have one, and the best, option available.  And you water it down with massive tax cuts and then refuse to do anything the current pres wants.  Then, having your foot on the neck of everyone but the very rich, you attack any solution that would work.  
Nice.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Obama Is One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time. Here’s Why
> ...



Wow.  Who would expect a list of conservative talking points from Oldstyle.  What a surprise.  And with no links of any kind.  Another totally useless hit job.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Obama couldn't get *Democrats* to vote for his second attempt at stimulus!  Why?  Because none of them wanted to vote for another fiasco like the first stimulus when they were up for reelection!  Or have you forgotten the whole "shovel ready jobs" thing?


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Perhaps if you would read the report by clicking on the link, you would find that that it was also said that:
Most economists not only think it should have worked; they think it did work, Elmendorf replied. CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, *and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.*
So, apparently you believe that the CBO is part of the presidents administration.  It is independent.  It is well respected by repubs and dems and economists.  Really, you do so hate any source of information that is impartial and not part of the conservative nut case web sites.
And, nice try but an obvious lie about the number of economists who thought there was no help from the stimulus.  It was 80%  of the economist who thought the bill worked to help the economy.  It was *NOT 20% OF ECONOMIST OUT THERE THAT BELIEVED THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER IF YOU HADN'T SPENT ANYTHING.  Really,, me boy, misquoting is tacky.  Shows you lack integrity. * Here is what the director ACTUALLY said:  "Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”" 
So, sorry for the attack.  But not that I did attack your post, but that you felt it necessary to lie about what the article I link said.  Very, very tacky.  And so much like a paid con tool.
ry to


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Obama Is One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time. Here’s Why
> ...


A.  Obamacare was corrupted by the insurance giants.  Single payer didn't get a seat at the table.  That's right, social security for everyone!  Would you like that?  Well that's why we have Obamacare, because you don't want what would have worked.
B. His stimulus worked.  We're out of the recession, right?  A stimulus is supposed to help us while we are getting out of a recession, which Obama got us out of.  
C. Every president has a fast and furious and Bush had 100 bengazi's.  Get over yourselves.  Obama has been money.  Did you forget he got Osama?
D.  I guess if you nit pick you could say every president was horrible.  

Now let me see your list of why Bush was the worst.  Lets see if you can be fair and balanced.

A.  Lied us into war
B. Lost war
C. Cause Global Recession
D. Was anti science
E. Got hit big time on 9-11

Imagine if Obama was half the failure Bush was.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Can  you tell us what you expect to happen when stimulus money is spent?


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Perhaps you just have comprehension problems.  Here is the record on that vote:
"For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans voted in unison to block “jobs” legislation, which the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders have made central to their agenda.

T*he majority of Democrats then blocked a second "jobs" measure offered by Republicans.*

The first measure, a piece of President Obama’s larger jobs package, failed in a 50-50 vote after *two Democrats and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) joined Senate Republicans* in voting against moving to the measure.

What a difference being honest can make.  Two democrats of the total group.  See the difference, me boy? As long as repubs vote en mass against the bill, there was no chance.  There are always a couple of dems from republican states who vote with the repubs.  Because they want to be reelected.  Because, you see, they are politicians.  And like the repubs could care less about the working men and women of this country.  LIKE YOU.
So in your post, you made two points.  In both, you took actual quotes and changed what they waid. Lied, me boy.  And really, so obviously.  Odd thing is, in my mind, that you can lie, change the wording of quotations to fit you your want,  and then pretend like you did nothing wrong.  Normal people have integrity.  They would feel ashamed if they did what you did.  But not you.  



ADVERTISEMENT


----------



## rdean (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Well of course.
Detroit ruined by manufacturing jobs moved overseas.
Texas is a cesspool run into the ground by Republicans for decades.
Texas ranks number one in a many categories of pollution and environmental degradation. For example, Texas is:

#1 in the Emission of Ozone Causing Air Pollution Chemicals
#1 in Toxic Chemical releases into the Air
#1 in use of Deep Well Injectors as method of Waste Disposal
#1 in counties listed in top 20 of Emitting Cancer Causing Chemicals
#1 in Total Number of Hazardous Waste Incinerators
#1 in Environmental Justice Title 6 complaints
#1 in production of Cancer causing Benzene & Vinyl Chloride
#1 Largest Sludge Dump in Country
Texas is Number 1

Florida is a Rick Scott disaster.


----------



## rdean (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


When I read "Republicans jobs package", I wonder what's the trick?  What's the agenda?
You don't really think Republicans are going to help people get jobs?  They're Republicans.  They help people die, not get jobs.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

rdean said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Amazing, isn't it.  But they do have other agendas.  Like:
1. Ending labor unions.
2. blocking minimum wage legislation.
3. Making their wealthy benefactors happy and wealthy.
5. Destroying the US Auto Industry. (that failed)
6. Deregulating everything.
7. Blocking regulation of the financial industry.  (That deserves it's own entry)
8. OF COURSE, LOWERING TAXES.
9. Destroying the middle class.

And many, many more.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Poor guy is an idiot.  Next he will post more bs and think he has won the respect of others with such a smart post.  It is apparently too difficult for him to look it up, since he has no clue.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Last time it was this low was 1973


JESUS H. CHRIST. ME BOY.  YOUR PAGE IS AWFULL.  HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO PAY YOU TO GET IT FIXED.  IN GENERAL, IT LOOKS (TECHNICALLY) LIKE PUKE.  THEN YOU POST SOMETHING, AND THE COMBINATION IS A SICKENING MESS NEEDING SOMEONE TO FEEL SORRY FOR YOU.  
JESUS.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Rshermr, you asked about the 8 things we could do that would return this country to greatness and I already posted it once to you but you conveniently ignored it. Every single one is doable but only if we develop a spine and wake up.


#1 Top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve and publicly name the 12 families that are the shareholders. Then we nationalize it, tell the banking oligarchs that the debt belongs to USA.INC which is being dissolved and not the debt of the people. Then we confiscate the ill-gotten wealth and put it into a trust AFTER dissolving USA.INC. We repatriate the golden that was confiscated and stolen from the people due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933. We will follow the paper trail and I suspect that the nation's gold is sitting in a vault in the Bank Of London. We then audit the IMF, the Bank For International Settlements and the World Bank and write off any and all debt this thieves have stolen from the third world countries.

#2 We then open up ALL Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the hidden holdings of USA.INC and it's 185,000 subsidiaries. What you would find is that they are sitting on 145 TRILLION dollars in assets not just in U.S holdings but overseas corporations as well that pays them a hefty dividend every year. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries take in more wealth in a year than the entire GDP of the private sector. That money is also put into a trust and that is what will finance the nineteen essential services that the IMF contracted for when USA.INC was taken into receivership when it went bankrupt AGAIN in 1950.

#3 Then we nullify all the unfair "fair trade agreements" that has allowed a flood of cheap goods into this country made by what is basically slave labor and we place tariffs on it like we did before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This would eliminate the need for any taxation whatsoever and Allodial rights to property could be restored to the people....which means they own it outright...no property tax whatsoever.

#4 There are over 6,000 patents for everything from zero point energy to a better way of creating GOOD food that has been suppressed under the guise of "National Security". We release them and allow a TRUE free market to run with them which would create MILLIONS of jobs without harming the environment at all.

#5 We bring every soldier back that has been working overseas protecting the interests of the multinational corporations and use them to secure our southern border. Only those that came here legally and signed the guest book should benefit from the changes...not those that came over here, flopped and sucked off of the public teat.


#6 We use our influence to bring about these changes in every other country that is under the thumb of the banking oligarchs and return the wealth and resources that were stolen from them by the IMF and Bank For International Settlements back to the people from which it was stolen. It would be a domino effect. Once we expose the thievery of the IMF, BIS and World Bank, we put that money into a world trust to rebuild the infrastructure of these third world counties.


#7 We put every globalist on trial for their crimes against humanity and confiscate their wealth. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers come immediately to mind, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Beatrice, Prince Phillip, etc, etc. Everyone that sits on the Committee of 300. It's a very tiny group of powerful elites that have foisted this debt slavery system upon humanity at the expense of 100's of millions of lives and it's way past time that they paid for their crimes. It would be Nuremburg on steroids. 


#8 We restore the Republic which means a return to Common Law which is the law of the land instead of admiralty law and the UCC which is the law of the sea with all it's acts, statutes and codes. Re-train the administrators that were acting on behalf of the bank under the guise of being a judge that was raising revenue for the corporation.... into administering Common law.

#9 Hire peace officers instead of police that have been nothing but glorified mall cops and enforcers of acts, statutes and codes that produced revenue while producing no real victim of violations of said acts, statutes and codes.

#10 Make the people the trustee of their corporate fiction that was created the day they were born with the birth certificate that was written on bond paper and monetized. This bond has gained value over the life of the corporate fiction and instead use it to fund the retirement of the real man or woman of the land...thus eliminating the need for any kind of social security tax on both the employee and the employer freeing the employer to pay more since he/she will not have to figure that cost into what he/she decides to pay you. Only under real time hardship cases like disability would the funds from this bond be released if it's not at the age of retirement......like the age of 60? Heck, we might even be able to lower it to 55.

#11. Legalize hemp....it has a 1000 and 1 uses from being a bio-fuel to curing many forms of cancer.

We have been abused, we have been raped, pillaged and plundered by a debt slavery system that rivals that of Rome before the birth of Christ and we don't even realize it.

BTW, there are millions of people that know the things I do...especially in Europe....America? Not so much but there are some. The tipping point is about to be reached and the point of no return is approaching unless people wake up as to what is being done to them. We ARE the change...we are the solution. These bought and paid for lackeys in D.C that is the corporate headquarters of USA.INC have no power...it's all theater. KNOWLEDGE is power and trust me, they do not want you to know what I have posted here. If you want change, you are not going to get it as long as the for profit corporate entity exists in D.C ...etch that in stone.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2016)

rdean said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



A leftard slanted website making claims? Too funny. While I am no fan of Bush, we have had leftard governors like


rdean said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, Detroit is the by-product of a very uncaring, for profit composite "gubermint" that is being controlled by the IMF. They have no problem with sucking the people dry and then discarding them. USA.INC is sitting on a mountain of wealth that exceeds the GDP of the private sector each and every year but yet they run a deficit...why is that? Because they can pass the debt off on us while tucking some of the wealth away in tax havens like the Cayman Islands, Puerto Rico, Switzerland, etc, etc and re-investing the rest. They are already the majority shareholders in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries and here lately they have been investing overseas. You are so convinced that the "demcrat" party is the end all be all but they are just as much to blame as the neocons at the top that know about this outrageous fraud, extortion and outright thievery. They make the mafia seem like mere pikers. Get out of the paradigm because your beloved "libruls" are not gonna save you or anyone else. There is no Santa Claus....hate to be the one to break it to you but you need to know.


----------



## rdean (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Did you forget you links to back any of your bullshit?  Oh, you didn't add links because you KNOW it's bullshit.  Then why bother, nitwit?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2016)

rdean said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I have posted links ad naseum proving that USA.INC is a corporate entity. I have posted links from CAFR1.com showing the mass amount of wealth that this composite "gubermint" is holding. I have posted links from Dun and Bradstreet  proving my point. This shit is common knowledge to me and I shouldn't have to post a fucking link every damn time I write a post. Look it up yourself and dis prove that the CAFR isn't the holy grail of information that proves that they have been skimming off the top for decades. Walter Burien and others that worked in HUGE corporations  and had to participate in the writing of a CAFR because it is required by ALL corporations. If USA.INC and all it's subsidiaries were not corporations, they wouldn't have to fill out a CAFR...get it now? I shouldn't have to take you by your little hand and guide you down the path since I have been posting about this for almost 9 months...and frankly, I doubt that you have the brain power to digest the information anyway, ya numb fuck....


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



WELL, ME BOY, you certainly have a way of wearing out your welcome.  I conveniently ignored nothing. Nor have I ignored your insults.  I, me boy, am an old fart with plenty of experience.  What I know is that the older I get the more I know, and the more I know I do not know.  You have made a number of accusations, and insinuations, with absolutely NO proof at this point.  While I believe you are probably correct on some issues, I have no reason to believe the others.  But, if you post links, I will look over the information.  Though I am not promising I will spend a lot of time with any specific issue.  All depends on the sources you are quoting.  
Sorry to say it, but my best guess is that you are a nut case.  But then, I have been wrong before.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Can't argue with you there...I thought I knew a helluva lot more than I actually did. The blinders fell off accidentally and my whole belief system was turned upside down. Once I had the epiphany that everything I believed in was wrong and how I had been played for a fool, I got physically sick to the point that I lost twenty pounds that I could ill afford to lose. I could only sleep in two or three hour increments, frankly, it was a living nightmare and it lasted for a month. Once I got over it, I got mad and so pissed that I put my TV out on the curb (first come, first serve) and cancelled cable. I started downloading books, I started listening to lectures, watching documentaries from accredited researchers like Antony Sutton, Dr John Coleman, Jordan Maxwell, etc, etc. I became very astute at looking up information and vetting it and tying things together. It basically became my obsession because I wanted the truth of how we got to this place.

Getting rid of the TV was the best thing I ever did. At one time I couldn't even fall asleep if it wasn't on. When I got home, it was the first thing I did. After a month of it being gone, I felt stronger mentally and the ability to retain information, discern it a got better the longer I went without it. I don't know everything nor would I ever claim to...but I do have a decent grasp on what has been done to us...not only here in the United States but the rest of the world that has a central bank that attaches usury to every piece of fiat currency created. It is a perpetual debt machine with bankruptcies and foreclosure built right into the system like a game of musical chairs....the one that doesn't find a seat, loses. I went back through our REAL history...not the bullshit that was taught to us in school and I found that the international bankers have always been after this country and like a parasite, attached itself to the body every chance it got. Even when it wasn't able to get it's clutches into us when we refused to renew the charters for their central banks, they had the money to create financial havoc and economic downturns. What I propose would not only work in America, but every other country. Currently there are only three major countries that do not have a Rothschild central bank...North Korea, Syria and Iran. Now you know why these three countries are in the cross hairs of USA.INC. Central banks are designed to send countries into debt spirals that they can never recover from because like I said, it is a perpetual debt machine.

It is no accident nor is it a coincidence that nearly every country is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of it's collective debt. Once the collapse happens, the global elites will own it all and the only two classes will be the serfs that survive the chaos and the elites. That is their plan...believe it or not. Lots of proof out there and in their own words...that is how brazen they are.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Last time it was this low was 1973
> ...


I'm totally lost. Huh? My page?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

rdean said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Could you repeat that, R-Derp?  I was busy trying to push an old lady off a cliff!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I think Rshermr was hitting the pipe tonight...just saying...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 27, 2016)

Please Kiddies...don't smoke crack and then try to post on chat sites.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Wow.  Not as lost as me, obviously.  My appologies.  I was posting when I was out of gas to a guy you were conversing with, name of  couch protester .  Now I can not find his post that I was responding to.  You were needling him for having the dates of Jimmy Carters administration wrong.  Guy has a page with all sorts of animation, and a front page of Time magazine, and on and on.  Kinda funny, but nuts.  I was in no way talking to or about you.  Sorry about that.  First time I ever managed that


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I'll try to find it.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Name was couch protester.  Just edited it to the last post.
In an effort for full disclosure, I was on some version of oxy.  Got out of the hospital a month or so again, had a couple really nasty operations. open heart after a heart attack, then just for giggles, really nasty aortic aneurysm.surgery.  All over now, but recovery is a bit long.  
At any rate, just trying to explain my mental state, or lack there of.  Not looking for any pity, believe me.  I am feeling better than in  years.  But explains my vacancy from this board for a couple years.  And from now on, if I take some really cool drugs again, I will avoid any posts.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Another of our posts relative to couch protester was post #360.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I'm smoking weed right now


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 27, 2016)

Hopefully will not effet you


Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Well, I hope to stay of the oxy for a few days.  try to use it sparingly, cause it knocks me for a loop.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Hopefully will not effet you
> 
> 
> Rshermr said:
> ...


I can tell you're making lots of mistakes. Don't Prince on us. You'll be the poster formerly known as rshermr


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Inflation is currently 0.85%. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The dollar has lost 98 percent of it's value since the Fed Act of 1913.....you are the one that is fucking clueless. You know nothing about how this fiat currency works or fractional reserve banking. You live in a child like world that wears rose colored glasses because a leftard is in charge.


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh, my.






14 million jobs gained in this recovery and you're actually dumbed-down enough to call it a _*"jobless"*_ recovery.

You really do expose just how ignorant you are by posting such nonsensical rightwing talking points.


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Great, now everyone gets to see how you change your position when it's exposed to light like cockroaches. Thanks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




You claimed QE has caused inflation.

I counter that idiotic claim by pointing out that in reality, inflation is currently less than one percent.

Being a retard with zero integrity, you're incapable of simply admitting you're wrong; so instead, you change the time frame of your claim from 2008 (when QE started) -- *to 1913. *

Your claim turned out to be so outrageous, you felt compelled to shift it by nearly a century.



And I thank you for that since, like Oldstyle, you expose your dishonesty AND ignorance to everyone perusing this thread.

That's a great service you provided for me and I just wanted to let you know it didn't go unappreciated.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



How many have been lost during that time and what kind of jobs are they? What do they pay? You do know that part-time work counts the same as full-time. Keep those blinders on.....


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Really? t


Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


What the fuck is this "USA.INC" entity that you keep blabbering about in several threads?

Is it a new cartoon or video game, or what? Or are you just a very mentally disturbed person?

What does your psychiatrist tell you?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




The government in D.C is actually a for profit corporation. All states are incorporated and a subsidiary of USA.INC....nearly every town, city and county are incorporated and a subsidiary of the state which are the subsidiaries of USA.INC. Al the alphabet agencies are incorporated even the Supreme Court is incorporated. You can find their listings on Dun and Bradstreet Why is this significant and why does it matter? That's your assignment.......

Here's a hint...all of these entities have to file a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) which is required of all corporations.


----------



## Old Yeller (Apr 28, 2016)

I keep hearing need ~200K jobs/mo to keep up w/population growth.  True? ~2mil*8yr=16mil.  Just point that out.

Dale is correct on less ounce trick per/pkg same price or even up


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That depends Dale.  What are you qualified to do?  Every company in America is looking for good help.  Programmers, sales, etc.  If you are a dishwasher don't expect to make what I make.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Who the fuck is Dunn Bradstreet?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I make a very decent living but it's not all about me....you see, I care about other people.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...




Dun and Bradstreet is a registry that allows you to look up corporations and their credit rating and other financial information.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That is the NET change in jobs, so lost jobs are already included.
As for part time vs full time:


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


There is a rate of inflation that is required to keep an economy working well.  It is not 0%  and it is not 50%.  Now, we could ask right wing nut cases, or others with agendas and get all kinds of answers.  But it is a fact that economists pretty much universally peg the target inflation rate at about 2%, to 2.5%.  So, trying to scare the crap out of everyone that inflation is eating away at our wealth is stupid, or just an attempt to push an agenda.  
That claim, by the way, completely ignores the increase in value based on interest rates on money.  Assuming, of course, that neither the person nor the government put their money in their mattress.
Then there is the whole push by a large number of nut cases to go back to some standard to value currency.  Like the gold standard.  Which no country in the world wants to do.  Because, you see, real history shows that in the days when the gold standard was in place we had very frequent and severe recessions.  Booms and busts of epic proportion.  But the fact is, a gold standard would make a lot of wealthy people much richer, and a lot of poor less so.  
I wonder who is pushing the gold standard???


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Dayam. You imbeciles with your talking points are relentless. No matter how many times they're debunked, y'all keep repeating them. Part time jobs added during the recovery account for less than 2% of all the jobs gained...

*Part time jobs (191,000)*

2/2010: 27,627,000
3/2016: 27,818,000

*Full time jobs (12,669,000)*

2/2010: 110,778,000
3/2016: 123,447,000

*99%* of the 13 million jobs gained during the recovery were full time jobs. Oldstyle is an abject imbecile for describing the recovery a *"jobless"* recovery. 

Oh, and the gains I posted are *net gains*.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 28, 2016)

num_nut said:


> *I keep hearing need ~200K jobs/mo to keep up w/population growth.*  True? ~2mil*8yr=16mil.  Just point that out.
> 
> Dale is correct on less ounce trick per/pkg same price or even up


You may keep hearing it, but no matter how much GOP hate radio repeats it, it still won't be true!

The real number is 116,779 per month to maintain our present 5% U-3 rate.

Jobs Calculator


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Everyone here saw you change your position. Sure, you can deny you did, but that only increases the perception of just how fucking deranged you are.

You went from saying QE, which started in *2008 *, caused inflation ... to ... the U.S. dollar has lost 98% of its value since *1913*. That's an epic position change. But hey, if ya need to move the goalposts because your argument doesn't hold water, oh well.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Conveniently for you, there are few records of inflation rates before 2013.  However, as of 2013, rates were over 10%.  They were over 9% until about 1920, and then under 6% every decade thereafter.  The average inflation rate since 2013 was under 3.2%, and averaged under 2.5% since 1990.  So, no, inflation has not been hurt by the change from the gold standard.  Quite the opposite.  And, in deference to you insults, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with dem or rep presidents.  Perhaps we should be particularly angry at the fed for keeping inflation low and eliminating a large number of recessions.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Uh, the inflation rate has been low for years.  Under 2.5% per year since 1990.  Right where economists want it to be to ensure economic growth of the economy.  That specific costs are going up fast is generally a problem of monopoly (general or regional) and population growth. 
But inflation??? Sorry, that is simply a stupid argument.
And saying QE had any influenced is equally a stupid and mindless argument.  The inflation rate during those and later years proves that beyond question.  Anyone pointing at QE as a big deal just pointed at themselves as idiots.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 
Yeaaaah, dumping more fiat currency created from nothing into the system is a wonderful idea! This can go on forever! Having a central bank that charges usury for every note created from nothing is a GOOOOOOOD thing! You betcha.....the only idiot in this conversation is you and faun. Only an IDIOT would say that things were splendid and that we are on solid footing because nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't understand that the Fed bankers are parasitic POS that has been sucking this country dry as well as every other country that has one, you are too ignorant to continue "chatting" with.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Damn.  I am going to miss you SOOOOOOOOO much.  In closing, me boy, you are not able to back up your argument.  Which is too bad for you.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm not the one that believes a central bank ran by foreign bankers that print money from nothing could ever be a good thing. Inflation is never a good thing either because it is a hidden tax. Even at two percent or three percent per year adds up quickly and especially if wages are not keeping up. You sincerely have no clue at all.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



NICE POST.  You know, Faun, I understand oldstyle.  He is a simple conservative paid tool.  There are a number of them on this board.  They simply post conservative dogma, and lie without compunction.
Now, D. Smith, on the other hand, seems to be a true conspiracy theory advocate.  I gave his view a chance, checked the sources he named as making up his beliefs (most all considered nut cases by the rational world), and tried to counter his nut case conclusions.  And to no avail.  I applaud you for trying to reason with this troll.  But I believe he is simply a waste of time.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You know, there are problems with this economy.  You see it as gov, I see it as money in politics.  I could care less if the us is incorporated.  Hell, that is not news.  Has been true for years.  And is true of most countries.  But you warning about an upcoming cliff has been being given by conspiracy theorists and conservatives for years.  Has not happened.  Just like your rantings about inflation, and about QE, me boy, are nuts.  You are listening to people feeding you bullshit.  Most know better than to eat it.
Inflation for christ sake, is only of issue if the prices resulting are greater than your current earnings.  Simple, me boy.  You see, we are not (at least most of us) living on 1913 earnings.  Get a grip.  Reality is somewhere else, not where you are currently living.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nice, accurate, backed up post. 

And Oldstyle says:
Jeeees, ya mean the recovery is not jobless??? Let me wipe the dribble off my chin.  Then I will post the same thing again.

Any way you say it, drivel is drivel.  And what oldstyle posted is Drivel.  With a capital D.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



That I have no clue is your opinion, me boy.  And you know how much I value your opinion.
I do, however, value the opinions of economists.  And nearly all say that mild inflation is indeed a good thing.  That you are incapable of understanding that is not my problem.  You read conspiracy theory drivel.  I prefer information from educated economists with no axe to grind.  And by the way, me boy, you are misinformed again, and passing that untruth on to anyone who would like to hear it.  The FED does not print money.  
But, economists disagree that simply printing money, in some cases, and in appropriate amounts, can and was a good thing.  
To prove your lack of rationality, saying that 2 or 3% inflation adds up quickly is not true, me boy.  Unless wages and interest are close to ZERO.  DIPSHIT.


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Thanks, but I disagree with you about Oldstyle being a _*paid con tool*_.

There's no way anybody is paying that moron to post the stupid ass shit he's posting here. He's such an idiot, all he accomplishes is making conservatives look retarded. And while they don't need his help in that department, they're certainly not going to pay an imbecile like him to reinforce that stereotype.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


All you have to know is no one in his party is even going to get to run for president this year unless one of them runs 3rd party or as an independent. That's how wrong people like oldstyle are. Still saying the same shit they were saying during the bush administration. And not even Republican voters are buying it anymore. Kasich and Cruz are combined getting 20% of the votes in the primaries.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I was totally stunned by your post and not in a good way. Before the Fed Act, inflation was no existent so you don't have the slightest fucking clue....see the link attached below after I get done smacking you around. So you think it doesn't matter that Washington D.C is the corporate headquarters  for USA.INC and all it's thousands upon thousands of subsidiaries? You have no fucking clue about the ramifications of that because you don't know who owns said corporation....and guess what, it's not we, the people. The Act of 1871 tossed the organic constitution and replaces it with a corporate constitution charter and it was not intednded to benefit the Republic. It was created to only benefit USA.INC that operates only within it's corporate charter and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.

Instead of unalienable rights, we were granted "privileges" like the right to travel that requires a license, marriage, requires a license...to pull a bass out of a lake requires a license......see the pattern? A corporation can't pass laws, it can only pass acts, statutes and codes.  It also took us away from Common law and put us under admiralty law using legalese then in 1966, we went under the UCC. USA.INC is a for profit venture that is currently owned by the International Monetary Fund that is nothing but a subsidiary of the Fed bank, BIS and World Bank. It was taken into recievership to provide the 19 essential services of "gubermint" while making a profit. The fact that our "gubermint" is actually a corporate entity  should not only piss you off but open your eyes to the thievery that has been done to all of us. I doubt that it will make any difference to you...you seem to have embraced the debt slavery system.


Inflation – Before and After the Federal Reserve by Tim Iacono


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Bottom line is deep down everyone has cognitive dissonance when it comes to this. We all know the systems corrupt and this isn't even the only proof we have that the entire system is corrupt. But what are we going to do about it? I was once one of you but I realized the system is what it is. As long as America has a prosperous big fat middle class and comfortable retirements, no one cares that the system is rigged. But since Reagan the system has been rigged more against us.

Republicans cry class warfare but meanwhile since Reagan the rich have waged war against us. The rich have got too greedy. They weren't happy with 75% of the wealth they wanted 90%. Well they have it. This doesn't work. Start giving employees raises not ceos


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You really are fucking deranged. No license required to travel. I can get in a car, a bus, a plane, etc.; and travel wherever I want in the U.S. and as long as I'm not driving, *no license is required.*


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You have a pretty good grasp on things but you have a blind spot as to which political party is to blame but the fact of the matter is that both parties are just different sides of the same coin at the top. That is why you have so many politicians on both sides that make a career out of working in D.C. Don't think for even a minute that they don't know that this is all theater...sometimes the Repubs are the "good guys"....sometimes it's the Dems that are the "good guys". They tag team each other to deflect the blame from the real puppet masters that are pulling the strings. The demise of the middle class started in the early 70's and they keep lowering the bar as to what defines "middle class" these days. What spooked the shit out of me was the Department of Labor report that showed 71 percent of the people that even have a job make between 30,000 to 49,999 a year. 51 percent make 20,000 to 29,999  year and a staggering 38 percent that have a job make 5,000 to 19,999 a year...that shit just blew me away. Through lots of reading and research, I found that USA.INC and all it's composite subsidiaries have been skimming off the top and investing that in the Stock Market  as well as in foreign markets. The amount of hidden wealth is beyond staggering. It's all in the CAFR, the mac daddy of all financial documents...the  holy grail. Since this has been exposed, it's harder to get a copy of it because they will no longer put it on line...you have to request it and jump through hoops. What I have found out is that since 2010, USA.INC and all it's subsidiaries are sitting on 145 TRILLION dollars in assets and they receive close to 10 percent returns in the way of dividends which is more than the GDP of the private sector. They have been taking those profist and re-investing them to the point that composite government owns the majority of shares in every Fortune 500 corporation and their subsidiaries......certainly makes sense to me now as to why huge corporations pay little to no taxes, USA. INC always operates with a deficit because they can simply pass that bill off on us while keeping the profits....the rabbit hole of corruption simply boggles the mind.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Really? You can get on a bus or a plane without a government ID? Shit, I have to show my DL three times before I can even get on a flight....how do you do it?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I can't argue if I agree.


----------



## Old Yeller (Apr 28, 2016)

Reg: "recovery"..it does not seem worth the massive$11T debt added.  Jobs bare min to keep up w/population growth?  Miserable GDP compared historically.   Spin away but it ain't worth thd debt dumped on the kids of USA. shameful disgrace. I can't posf links and crunch numbers right now, thx to those who did.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

num_nut said:


> Reg: "recovery"..it does not seem worth the massive$11T debt added.  Jobs bare min to keep up w/population growth?  Miserable GDP compared historically.   Spin away but it ain't worth thd debt dumped on the kids of USA. shameful disgrace. I can't posf links and crunch numbers right now, thx to those who did.



The every day Johnny Lunchpail is hurting...you are dead on about that but the blame lays at the feet of the ones that are pulling the strings behind the scenes. I believe that we are on the precipice of real change and in a good way because people are waking up. The elites are wanting us to point fingers at each other and the tribal allegiances we have to a fake political party that is really a one party system. Stay upbeat and be positive......good people are working behind the scenes.


----------



## Faun (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


All that's needed to get on a commercial plane is a picture ID. There's no requirement that it's a government issued ID. My kids fly using their student ID's. Flying on companies' private jets typically require no ID. Flying on a friend's private plane requires no ID. What you're talking about isn't a restriction on travel; it's a restriction on flying.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Well, me boy, perhaps you should look your chart.  It has been over 45 years since my last econ class.  And economic history classes do not spend a lot of time on the gold standard, which you seem to love.  It is a favorite of the Libertarian crowd.  Are you a libertarian?  Maybe that explains you lack of rationality.
During the years before the us got rid of the gold standard, there was less inflation than since. Though on average, when there was inflation, it was higher than today.
Now, if you would look at the graphs on your link, you would see something odd, me boy.  It was years of DEFLATION.  Which meant, me boy, that GDP decreased.  Your money was worth more, but it bought LESS.  The other things you see is that there was great volatility.  Inflation, deflation year after year.  Huge recessions and recoveries.  Not something anyone, except an idiot, would like.  It did, however, concentrate wealth in a few people's hands.  Made the very rich very rich.  And the push toward libertarian economics, or if you prefer, Laissez Faire economics created some of the richest and monopoly oriented corporations and corporatists EVER,    It was the build up to the great repression of 1929.  The only thing worse than high inflation is deflation.  Which is why no nation today is under the gold standard.
Your web site, also, is a laugh.  I mean, really, using a source like 24HGold.COM proves you to be an idiot.  You may want to try an impartial site some time, in order to have a chance at being taken seriously.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Did I say that a gold back currency was necessary? What I am saying is that a central bank that attaches interest to every note created from nothing is a perpetual debt machine...which it is. If you will notice that the "volatility" was created by agent provocateurs of the international bankers that intentionally caused  bank panics by using their wealth to manipulate the market place. Monopolies like the ones the Morgans, Harrimans, Rockefellers, Carnegies and a few others set up were given "seed money by the House of Rothschild and working between each other, they made sweet deals that competitors were not given. If you have a pal that needs to ship oil and you own the railroad, you give him a sweetheart deal while charging full freight to his competitors. Same thing with Carnegie steel......pretty soon you are able to buy out your competitors because you can sell your product cheaper because your costs are cheaper...simple economics.

The game Monopoly is based on what happened during the late 1800's and early 1900's. JP Morgan is the caricature on the cards...the short, fat fuck with the mustache and top hat. The free market system was made a joke of by a POS Rothschild banker to try and bring USA.INC back under his control. I can't EVEN believe that you don't have the slightest clue on what caused the Great Depression because it mirrors what Amschel Rothschild did when he took over England's economy during the war between England and France in the early 1800's and his sons and grandsons knew the lesson. Do a little research about how his informant made it through the lines a full 24 hours before the others to let Amschel Rothschild know that Boneparte had been defeated....enlighten yourself. The Market Crash happened because a margin call was made that required everyone that had borrowed cheap money in order to get into the stock market as that was a stipulation of the loan. The run on the banks caused the market to crash and the banking oligarchs that had already pulled out of the market when it was at it's highest collected and then when it crashed, they swooped in and bought majority shares in corporations that they coveted for pennies on the dollar and unaffiliated banks where they guaranteed to pay half of the deposits that were lost in exchange for ownership....it was a huge swindle but not as big as the one 4 years later. That is all for your history lesson tonight...one last thing, the Fed  Act of 1913 was put in place to prevent the very thing that they caused....a bank crash by contracting the money supply.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Video: Roundtable: Jobless Recovery?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 28, 2016)

Market Expert: Jobless Recovery in 2011


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 28, 2016)

video jobless recovery - - Yahoo Search Results


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 28, 2016)

Sorry guys but I've got to go again...need to push more old ladies off cliffs!  A conservative's work is never done!

Good thing I'm making so much money posting on this site!

(god, but you're a bunch of idiots!)


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You're right...I AM still saying the same shit I was during the Bush Administration!  I'm still saying the Federal Government is rife with waste and mismanagement and needs to be downsized.  I'm still saying that forty years of giving people entitlements hasn't won the "war on poverty" but it has created a whole class of people who think they have the right to be supported by society.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Clinton and the GOP turned welfare over to the States. My governor, scumbag Rick Snyder, changed welfare so you don't get it for life. 5 years is the max. I agree with that. So, problem solved. No ones on welfare for life. 

What state do you live in and who's your governor?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Florida and Rick Scott.  The problem is hardly "solved" when you've got groups like "Occupy Wall Street" demanding a "living wage" which translated means having the government subsidize your pay if you work at an entry level job.  Americans 100 years ago would have understood that low skill jobs bring low pay and would have gotten more skills to get more pay.  Now you've got an entire class of people who feel they should be able to afford to raise a family of four working at McDonald's.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Why Michigan can't fill its 76,000 job openings

This is just as true today as it was back then.  There are jobs available but the citizens of Michigan can't fill them because they don't have the skills/education.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What the fuck is wrong with young Michiganders?  They need to start looking to see what jobs are available, then go to college and get an education in those fields so they can find work when they graduate.

As good jobs finally arrive, few Detroiters have the skills to fill them


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I would agree that even they could not be that stupid.  Except for two words.  Trump and Cruz.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

num_nut said:


> Reg: "recovery"..it does not seem worth the massive$11T debt added.  Jobs bare min to keep up w/population growth?  Miserable GDP compared historically.   Spin away but it ain't worth thd debt dumped on the kids of USA. shameful disgrace. I can't posf links and crunch numbers right now, thx to those who did.



Got it.  So you would rather have the alternative, loosing 600 to 700 thousand jobs monthly, major depression, heading toward a 25% unemployment rate, no jobs.  Perfect.  GDP took a dump, as it always does during a major recession.  But it long ago recovered.  Take a look and think before you post. Debt has been going up anually for decades.  What is important is debt to GDP.  And that, if you should look at it, has been going down some over the past few years.  
Here is the deal, me boy.  You never see the national debt go down with high unemployment, but you always see it decrease as a percentage of gdp when unemployment is low.  So, congress, specifically EVERY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, voted AGAINST bills that would have lowered unemployment faster.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Market Expert: Jobless Recovery in 2011



Fox Business???  Really.  Just a minute, I'l go get a link to some lame left wing web site, me boy.  Ever try an impartial site.  
2011, looking at recovery in 2010 and earlier.  Did you think that says anything about the recovery overall.
Really, your agenda is showing.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Well, oldstyle, me poor ignorant con tool, you say you believe the obama recovery has been jobless.  Lets take a look at that statement.  Cause it is a simple thing.  It is either true, or a lie:

The unemployment rate at it's highest during the great republican recession:
October 2009 - *10%*
Unemployment Rate this year:
The unemployment rate in January of 2016 was *4.9%*
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948

So, It is not true, it is a *lie*.  Because, you see, 4.9 is less than half of 10.

Really, if you would stop lying, you would save us trouble proving you are a lying con tool,


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


There is something seriously wrong with you. You're truly fucked in the head. To defend your idiocy that our recovery was a *"jobless"* recovery, you actually posted a video from July, 2010, *only 4 months (5%) into the 73 month recovery.*

Meanwhile 13 million jobs have been added since that video aired.

Posting a 6 year old video as though it's relevant now is as moronic as claiming last year's super bowl was a *"scoreless"* game because despite 34 points scored in the game, there was no score within the first 3 minutes (*5%*).


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


There's been nearly a 40% decrease of federal workers.

Over the last 40 years....

Carter ...... 110,000 
Reagan ...... 197,000 
Bush41 ...... -66,000 
Clinton .... -339,000 
Bush43 ....... 33,000 
Obama ....... -16,000 

There were 2,851,000 federal employees in January, 1977. There are fewer today at 2,770,000.

That's a 3% decrease during the same period the civilian noninstitutional population increased 60% from 157,688,000 to 252,768,000.

Federal Employees
Civilian Noninstitutional Population

Federal workers, as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population...

1/1977: 1.8%
3/2016: 1.1%

*That's a decrease of 39.3%.*


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > video jobless recovery - - Yahoo Search Results
> ...



I am willing to bet that within minutes he will be back calling the recovery jobless.  Cause, of course, he is a congenital idiot.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So dem presidents down 240,000.
Repub presidents, up 160,000

How could that be.  Reagan said he would greatly reduce the number of fed employees.  Oldstyle has stated that dems increase the size of the fed government.  Could not believe oldstyle AGAIN.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That rightard is actually claiming because ABC aired a segment titled, "a jobless recovery," just a few months into the recovery -- that it still holds true today .... 6 years and 13 million jobs later.



That imbecile is seriously deranged.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Market Expert: Jobless Recovery in 2011
> ...




Lmao Fox business slants right?????

What is the next tall story you are going to fib about, you don't listen or watch Fox sports because you think it is to conservative?

Retards on the left all of them...




.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Market Expert: Jobless Recovery in 2011
> ...


The link Oldstyle gave to that Fox Business video provides excellent proof how Fox lies to their audience and literally dumbs them down.

In this case, we see Oldstyle mindlessly referring to a video Fox purports they aired on *May 5th, 2011*. But in reality, it aired in *November, 6th, 2009*.

Oldstyle, being the ever diligent idiot he is, doesn't even bother to review the very evidence he provides as proof to establish his insane claims.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Why would they do THAT, Sealy...when they have progressives telling them that they deserve a "living wage" for working an entry level...no skill job!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



In the immortal words of Cankles..."What difference does it really make?"  You declared that I was pulling the idea of a jobless recovery out of my ass and I provided several examples of pundits discussing why we were in fact HAVING a jobless recovery...one of which is Paul Krugman.  So is Krugman "insane" when he speaks of a jobless recovery?  Duh?


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You provided no evidence the recovery was a *"jobless"* recovery.

The video with Krugman came just a few months into the recovery. It provides no evidence when looking back over the last 73 months to total.

Then you posted a video from 2009, 5 months before the job recovery even began.



You're fucking insane.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the millions of Americans in the Private Sector who couldn't find a job for YEARS because you progressives were more interested in getting ObamaCare passed and protecting your supporters in the Public Sector unions?  How many Americans watched helplessly as their life's savings melted away because Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't give a shit about them?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What's "insane" is for someone to look at 2009 and 2010 and maintain that there WASN'T a jobless recovery!


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wasn't those the two Summers that Joe "Plugs" Biden said "We are in the Summer of recovery"??


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I think it's cute how you blame Progressives when those folks lost their jobs due to the conservative policy of not adding oversight to the GSEs when the real estate markets were ballooning out of control while Bush was president.


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 29, 2016)

I'll just leave this here for now. 






PS. The latest figures are that - under O'bummer- Disposable Household Income rates have dipped (again) below the GDP. 

But hey. . .  as long as the jobless rate is down, it's all good. 

Right?


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


There was no job recovery in 2009. No one is claiming there was. The Great Recession had just ended only a few months before that Fox video aired. The recovery began in March, 2010. But three months later in June, the overall numbers dropped *due to the government laying off ¼ million temp census workers*. Meanwhile, the private sector continued growing.

Over the last 73 months, there hasn't been one single month the private sector _(14.4 million jobs added)_ lost jobs and the only months we lost jobs overall _(14.0 million jobs added)_ was due to collecting census data.

That's what you moronically call a _*"jobless"* recovery_.

You're every bit the con tool Rshermr figured out you are.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> I'll just leave this here for now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The latest figures are not current, though. Your chart goes to 2013, so is hardly indicative of current conditions.

When current information is not available, you can't use older information and pretend it is still relevant.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Just because we added a small number of jobs each month instead of losing them doesn't mean that it wasn't a jobless recovery, Faun!  It was.  The Private Sector has indeed grown but it has done so not because of the economic policies of Barack Obama but DESPITE the economic policies of a President who struggles mightily when it comes to economics in general.

And Rshermr hasn't figured out anything in so long it's laughable!  He's the guy who uses the internet to pretend he's something he isn't...educated!  He's the George Costanza of the US Message Board!

george costanza architect - - Yahoo Search Results


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yes, he said that in June, 2010. Over the summer after Biden said that, the private sector added 460,000 jobs...

June ........ 123,000
July ........ 101,000
August ...... 115,000
September ... 121,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

But at the same time, the federal government let go of hundreds of thousands of folks hired that spring to work for the census.

June ........ -223,000
July ........ -142,000
August ...... -106,000
September .... -76,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> I'll just leave this here for now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those are not the latest figures. <smh>


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



That was a conservative policy?  Since when?  It was Bush that warned of impending problems because of a lack of "oversight" with real estate markets and his concerns were pooh poohed by liberals like Barney Frank!


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Your insanity worsens. 

We need somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 jobs to be added each month to keep up with population growth.

Since March, 2010, when the job markets began recovering, we've added 14 million jobs ... or 192,000 jobs per month on average.

You know, what you idiotically call a *"small number"* of jobs in a *"jobless"* recovery.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Is it your position now that conservatives are pro-regulation??


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just leave this here for now.
> ...




I'm not going to cut and paste the entire content. 

But here's a link to some of the more *Recent Trends.*


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So we've had an average net gain of a little over 40,000 jobs per month in a country the size of America with millions out of work and you label that as a recovery full of jobs?  Really, Faun?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It's a liberal myth that conservatives are anti regulation, Faun...we simply don't think we should be passing bad regulations to fix problems made worse by other bad regulations!  It's my "position" that you on the left think you can legislate common sense and it NEVER works for you!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Really, me boy.  So the great republican recession of 2008, which by late (October) of 2009, had reached its worst, should have, in your opinion, been fixed by the obama team in a month or two????  Are you really that stupid?  Oops, of course you are.  Have an impartial source who agrees with you?  Of course you do not.  Because your accusations are totally stupid.
The fact is, me boy, that when W left office in January of 2009, we were hemoraging jobs at over 600,000 per month.
Now, do us all a favor and show how the recession should have been turned around to the point that the unemployment rate was what it was before the start of the great republican recession of 1997.  No economist in the known world would agree with you.  
Then, explain why all republicans voted against every recovery bill brought forward by the obama team.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Let's examine the priorities of the Obama "team" when they took office...shall we?  The things that Americans were most concerned about were jobs...jobs...jobs...and then the deficit.  So what was the Obama team's priority?  Healthcare reform that most economists said would have an adverse effect on job creation.  What were they proposing before losing the Congress in 2010?  Cap & Trade legislation that would have had an even greater adverse effect on job creation.  Yet you stand here now and ask what they should have done back then?

Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you're George Costanza...economist!  You've got no more of a clue about what Obama's "team" should have been doing back then to create jobs then THEY did!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, oldstyle, did you stop studying math in 1st grade?  Because there have been 80 months since the stimulus began.  That would mean that only 3.2 million jobs have been added.  That would be, me boy, under 25% of the actual number of jobs that have been added.  Really, Oldstyle?
Do you EVER stop lying.  You have NO integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

It didn't matter if all the Republicans voted against Obama's original stimulus because he had the Democratic votes to push it through regardless...just as he did with ObamaCare!

The second stimulus that Barry asked for...he couldn't even sell to his fellow Democrats!  That's how bad the first stimulus was at creating jobs.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If you don't like the math...talk to Faun...those are the numbers that he quoted.  I simply pointed out that they weren't indicative of an economic recovery rife with jobs!

To put it in terms that even George Costanza might understand...if there are 30,000 cities and towns in the US and you're only creating 40,000 jobs over what you need to keep up with population growth that means you're creating 1.25 jobs per town across the nation.  If you're a tiny town in Iowa that might be HUGE...if you're New York City, Chicago or LA...it's a joke!


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Stop lying. One of the first things Obama did was to pass  a stimulus bill for the economy. Healthcare came after that. Cap & Trade, which never went anywhere anyway, also would have come after that.

If truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie all the time like you do.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Median household income is not the same as disposable household income.  And 2014 is not much more relevant to 2016 than 2013 is.

We just don't know for sure what household income is doing right now.  But as a rough comparison....here's median personal income (latest data 2014), and median real weekly earnings, which is current in 2016, both indexed to the official end of the recession:


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So you admit that Obama went after two pieces of legislation that were job killers when jobs were the number one priority of Americans?  Why would anyone do that?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

And if you were someone in the Private Sector back in 2009...what in the Obama Stimulus could you count on to save your job?  If you were a teacher, cop or firefighter you were feeling pretty comfortable...if you weren't you were quickly coming to the conclusion that Barry, Harry and Nancy REALLY didn't care about you!


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




oldstyle is a paid con troll.  He gets his points from his bat shit crazy con web sites, and nutcase con bosses, and posts the "information" as though it is true.  He knows many will want to believe him because they too are cons.  And that is what cons get their beliefs from.  They believe what they are told as long as they WANT to believe it.  The rest, he assumes, will not bother disputing his dogma.  But when challenged over and over, he will revert to personal attacks. Just the wy it is.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So I use the numbers that Faun provided as the basis of my rebuttal...yet you accuse me of getting my points from "bat shit crazy con web sites"?  You're amusing, Georgie...


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Which affords you a better perspective on your financial health and prospects for your future? Is it your financial relationship to the current Median income figure for the nation? Or, is it the amount of disposable income you have left after all of your bills are paid?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Gotta go cash my Koch Brothers check before the banks close...see ya laters!


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, the average net gain was 192,000 a month.  


You don't seem to understand what "net gain" means.   If 150,000 jobs/month are needed to keep the employment-population ratio the same, then a net change of 192,000 is not a net change of 40,000.   It's a net change of 192,000.  Net gain is LEVEL..."needed to keep up" is in reference to "RATE."


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, at least you are not proveably lying this time.  Just wrong:

1.  The great republican recession of 2008 was the largest recession since the great republican depression of 1929.  And, me boy, no economist expected that it would replace all the jobs lost to the great republican recession in one or two years.
2.  The recovery went  for some time.  And the efforts of the obama team  replaced all the jobs  lost to the great republican recession.  Took a couple of years, because repubs demanded that no jobs bill would be passed.  
3. So, since over 13 million jobs were created or saved by the obama team, it was in NO WAY a jobless recovery.

So, the question is, why do you keep claiming the recovery was jobless.  Other than that you parrot your con heroes.  Because, as I have proven by posting CBO statements that you are wrong, me boy.  That you keep it up is normal, since you are a lying con tool.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You're the one that switched from disposable.  But lacking current disposable, current median earnings are the best we can do.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




No, he did not.  That would be you, me lying con tool, lying again.  What did happen, however, was that cons killed every effort at speeding up the recovery.  And produced no bills of their own.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And if you were someone in the Private Sector back in 2009...what in the Obama Stimulus could you count on to save your job?  If you were a teacher, cop or firefighter you were feeling pretty comfortable...if you weren't you were quickly coming to the conclusion that Barry, Harry and Nancy REALLY didn't care about you!





Oldstyle said:


> Gotta go cash my Koch Brothers check before the banks close...see ya laters!


Another way of saying he has to go to work.  Lots of dirty dishes by now.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, that's not what it means.


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




I am the one who introduced "disposable income" into this discussion and now you are dodging my question. "Which affords you a better perspective on your financial health and prospects for your future? Is it your financial relationship to the current Median income figure for the nation? Or, is it the amount of disposable income you have left after all of your bills are paid?"


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



And there he goes, lapsing into personal attacks.  Normal for the poor ignorant boy. 
And, me boy, it has ot been a small number of jobs.  Try dividing 14 million by 72.  Oh, I forgot.  You never got to division.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You're asking which is more relevant to me and my personal future...my relationship to current Median income or my personal disposable income.  Obviously disposable, but you showed Median disposable.  Which is not MY personal disposable income and is no more relevant to my personal future than median total income.

Which is more relevant to understanding the income situation in 2016: Disposable income in 2013 or median weekly earnings in 2016?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> We need somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 jobs to be added each month to keep up with population growth.


Actually to keep up with population growth at 5% UE you need only 116,779 new jobs per month.

Jobs Calculator


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Ah, but I do.  And so do you, though you choose to lie about it.  And really, me boy, the costanza thing is stupid.  You have been trying it for years.  But at any rate, having a dish washer saying he is examining anything is a joke.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Sorry, me poor ignorant con tool.  You do not use anyone's numbers except those you choose to use.  Because, truth is of no interest to you.


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



I provided links to BOTH



> Which is more relevant to understanding the income situation in 2016: Disposable income in 2013 or median weekly earnings in 2016?



It depends on what specifically you are looking for. 

For example, if the tax rates and the cost of living climbs as fast or faster than the Median income rate does. . .  what difference will that climbing number (Median income rate) make to someone who is trying to make ends meet? Put a kid through school or buy a home? 

NADA.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


A little over 40,000 jobs a month?? Really. 

Show your [fuzzy] math that resulted in 40,000 jobs gained per month...


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


  And what difference would knowing that 3 years ago median disposable income was dropping or rising? None

No median or average number makes any difference to in individual.

But when judging the health of the economy in 2016, which is the better indicator: data from 2013 or from 2016?


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It didn't matter if all the Republicans voted against Obama's original stimulus because he had the Democratic votes to push it through regardless...just as he did with ObamaCare!
> 
> The second stimulus that Barry asked for...he couldn't even sell to his fellow Democrats!  That's how bad the first stimulus was at creating jobs.


What a fucking rightard you are. You have no shame at all, do ya?

It's a flat out lie to state Republicans could not have blocked passage of the ARRA just as it's a lie to pretend they were helpless to stop it just like they couldn't stop ObamaCare, which was passed with a filibuster-proof Senate.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I never posted job creation averaged about 40,000 per month.

You just can't stop lying, can ya?

If the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like you do.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You're insane, remember? No character either. You don't even feel any need to apologize after getting caught in yet another lie.

You claimed ObamaCare and Cap & Trade were his top priorities. Point out to you that you're full of shit, and you just drudge along like your lying is no big deal.


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


What he's doing is saying that if the number of jobs gained is enough to keep up with population growth, then that's a net gain of zero.

No I don't understand how he thinks that works


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Quote where your defective brain _thinks_ said we've gained about 40,000 jobs per month on average...?

Consider what I actually said...


Faun said:


> Since March, 2010, when the job markets began recovering, we've added 14 million jobs ... or *192,000 jobs per month* on average.


But in all fairness, you did say, _"a little over 40,000 jobs per month," _were created. So if you wanna plead insanity and claim that in your warped mind, 192,000 a month is a _"little over 40,000,"_ I can accept that.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That's also not what he said. He said, and I quote.....


Oldstyle said:


> So we've had *an average net gain of a little over 40,000 jobs per month* in a country the size of America with millions out of work and you label that as a recovery full of jobs?  Really, Faun?


_(emphasis added)_


----------



## pinqy (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Right, and he got that by taking the 192,000 actual gain and subtracting the 150,000 needed to keep up with the population. And then calls that 42,000 the net gain.

Again, it doesn't make sense


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Right, and he got that by taking the 192,000 actual gain and subtracting the 150,000 needed to keep up with the population. And then calls that 42,000 the net gain.
> 
> Again, it doesn't make sense


But it only takes 116,779 jobs to keep up with population growth at a 5% U-3 rate, so there is actually 75,221 "net" jobs each month to further reduce the U-3 rate.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So, you should be embarased by now.  Pinqy, in his calm way, has made you look like what you are.  You are really getting obnoxious.  Try as you will, you are a lying con tool, and everyone is seeing what your game is.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You got your numbers based on a different metric.  And you liked it because you could use the number as the TOTAL of new jobs.  Which, me boy, is fooling no one.  Just you being dishonest again.  Which is what you always do.
Funny thing is, you are easy, me boy.  If you post something, you are lying.  It is that simple.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't matter if all the Republicans voted against Obama's original stimulus because he had the Democratic votes to push it through regardless...just as he did with ObamaCare!
> ...


I think poor little oldstyle is incapable of telling the truth.  Probably a congenital idiot.  And he loves lying.  Typical of Sociopaths. So, that is the question.  Is he a sociopath, or just a congenital idiot.  Both, of course, are not his fault.  Just plain bad luck.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 29, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


He does not care that it does not work.  Not in the least.  Your problem, Pinqy, is that you are dead honest, always.  And you understand unemployment to the point that I am blown away.  I mean, to the smallest point.  Thanks.  It is always a joy to read your posts.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Dude, you've been claiming to have taught economics at the college level for years now which is humor at it's finest since you didn't know what I was referring to when I mentioned The Chicago School.  Care to take a stab at explaining THAT?  People like you are your own worst enemy...you claim things...like expertise in economics...and then don't even know things that you would have learned in intro level courses!  It's pathetic.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't matter if all the Republicans voted against Obama's original stimulus because he had the Democratic votes to push it through regardless...just as he did with ObamaCare!
> ...



I love how you progressives want to pretend that the GOP had the power to stop Barry, Harry and Nancy that first year.  It's simply untrue.  They couldn't stop ObamaCare...how would they have been able to stop the Obama Stimulus?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What exactly did the Obama team do that created jobs, Rshermr?  Tell me the economic plan that they used to grow the economy and create jobs!  The truth is...time after time...they pushed an agenda that hurt job creation and it was things like fracking (which Obama and you progressives fought to stop!) that created good paying jobs for Americans.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I simply pointed out how utterly full of shit you are when you claim to have a degree in economics!  YOU on the other hand accuse me of being a dishwasher.  You also accuse me of being "paid" by some nebulous deep pocketed conservative cabal!  So which is it...am I a lowly dishwasher...or am I a paid shill...sent here to antagonize liberals?  Oh, that's right...you're just making up this shit as you go.  Kind of like your supposedly teaching economics at the college level as an undergrad!


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I can't help you're too retarded to know that Senate rules allow for filibusters. I can only hope you can read and learn....

Filibusted


----------



## Markle (Apr 30, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



*Lame Duck President Obama SETS ANOTHER RECORD FOR ALL PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

FIRST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY TO COMPLETE TWO TERMS WITHOUT A SINGLE GDP OVER THAN 3%
*
*Worst recovery ever!*

*DP growth annual averages  *

*2009 . . .  -2.8%*

*2010 . . .   2.5%*

*2011 . . .   1.6%*

*2012 . . .   2.2%*

*2013 . . .   1.5%*

*2014 . . .   2.4%*

*2015 . . .   2.4%*

*2016 . . .   0.5%*

*(Q1; 1st est.; Annualized)*

*Overall Average 1.3%*

*Source US Bureau of Economic Analysis*


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I love how you progressives want to pretend that the GOP had the power to stop Barry, Harry and Nancy that first year. It's simply untrue. They couldn't stop ObamaCare...how would they have been able to stop the Obama Stimulus?


And yet the Right claim that minority congressman Barney Frank was singlehandedly able to stop Bush and the GOP controlled House and Senate from reforming the GSEs!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I love how you progressives want to pretend that the GOP had the power to stop Barry, Harry and Nancy that first year. It's simply untrue. They couldn't stop ObamaCare...how would they have been able to stop the Obama Stimulus?
> ...



LOL...when did the GOP control the White House, House and Senate?  Barney Frank was the chairman of his committee because DEMOCRATS controlled his branch of the legislature!  What part of that concept don't you grasp?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case.  So who was right?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Through most of Bush's economic reign of terror. What planet were you on at the time?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case.  So who was right?


That was in 2003, and at that time Frank was correct.
After that Bush appointed HIS man to head Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and the lending INCREASED!!!! Bush owns the housing crash.


----------



## Old Yeller (Apr 30, 2016)

I think I remember way back,  3 turncoat R voted for phony stimulus.  Susan Collins (useless lifer), Spector? Brown? This stolen waste could have been stopped or modified to actually help taxpayers.   But RINO graze in DC,  must be hunted eliminated. It all a big game to them.  Keep the party going, drinks golf homes retire early well.  Take look on Zillow DC home prices, yep.


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

The GOP controlled the White House, House & Senate from 1/2001 to 6/2001 and from 1/2003 to 1/2007.

Barney Frank couldn't have chaired any committees between 1/1995 and 1/2007 because the GOP controlled the House for those 12 straight years.

Do you understand now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Barney Frank for the meltdown when Republicans controlled the government, especially the House, during the critical years when the housing markets were ballooning out of control and the GOP-led Congress wouldn't do shit about it?


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case.  So who was right?


WTF??

Bush warned Frank? What about the other 534 members of Congress? Didn't he warn them too? And didn't he warn his how party which controlled Congress for most of those years?


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case.  So who was right?
> ...


_"*Thanks to our policies*, home ownership is at an all time high!" ~ George W. Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech_


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Why are you so desperate to accuse me of being a liar, Rshermr?  Oh, that's right...it's because I exposed you as a total bullshit artist who lies through their teeth constantly!  What's pathetic is you don't even have the intelligence to know you've been exposed.

You're a poser, Rshermr.  One of those sad internet people who's lives and accomplishments are so nondescript that you feel like you need to embellish who you are with lies like how you taught college level economics as an undergrad!  People like yourself ALWAYS out themselves because they tell bigger and bigger lies and can't keep track of the ones they've already told!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the BIPARTISAN effort to get more Americans into home ownership!


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie were what Bush was referring to...not the *BIPARTISAN* effort to get more Americans into home ownership!


Whenever the GOP fucks up the works so obviously that they can't deny their involvement, it suddenly becomes "bipartisan."


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

Are you claiming that the Democrats didn't also support that legislation?  Really, Ed?

What's amusing is how you on the left have declared the economic meltdown a Republican problem...like Democrats hadn't ever stepped foot in Washington until 2009!  I'm sorry but Democrats were just as much to blame for what happened as Republicans.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case.  So who was right?
> ...




Frank was no more correct in 2003 than he was in any year following 2003.  You simply can't bring yourself to admit that the guy you on the left love to characterize as the village idiot...George W. Bush was completely correct when he warned about the dangers that the policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to our financial system...and Barney Frank was completely wrong!


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


And the "things that were going on at Fannie and Freddie," along with Fed policies, along with insufficient oversight of "Fannie and Freddie" ... caused the housing markets to collapse. Which in turn, took out the credit markets. Which in turn, cratered the entire economy.

Do you see now why everyone laughs at you for blaming Democrats when you yourself just unwittingly blamed Republicans?


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Because you are a liar. You just tried to insinuate that Republicans weren't in control of the White House, House, and Senate all at the same time during the Bush years.

When you lie like you do, you should actually expect to be called a liar.

And as always, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Are you claiming that the Democrats didn't also support that legislation?  Really, Ed?
> 
> What's amusing is how you on the left have declared the economic meltdown a Republican problem...like Democrats hadn't ever stepped foot in Washington until 2009!  I'm sorry but Democrats were just as much to blame for what happened as Republicans.


They were not _"just as much to blame."_ This would be you lying again. Rshermr has nailed your character. For them to be _"just as much to blame"_ would mean there is nothing gained by winning, and therefore controlling, the House and the Senate. Which of course, is beyond ludicrous.

Republicans controlled the White House. Republicans controlled the Congress.

Morons like you blame Democrats.


----------



## Faun (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again... since you wouldn't answer the first 3 times I've asked ....

*Name the bill the Republican-led Congress passed in response to Bush's warning......*


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


you know, me poor ignorant con tool  You have been to told over and over again.  It was called stimulus.  Same basic plan that your hero, R. Reagan used.
Remember, me boy.  The second major recession, after the first major republican depression of 1929.  When the unemployment rate went from 4% to over 25%, as the Republican president did not spend stimulatively.   Which is, of course, what you always suggest.  Then, Reagan created the Second great republican recession, of 1982, when he cut taxes greatly and provided NO stimulative spending until he and his economic team realized they had the greatest recession since the first republican great depression of 1929.
Then, Reagan:
1. Raised taxes 11 times.
2. Spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
3. Tripled the national debt.
4. Increased the size of the government greatly massively.
5. Made the economy work again, by decreasing unemployment.

So, oldstyle, me poor ignorant con tool, that is what you do when you have a recession, like the THIRD GREAT REPUBLICAN RECESSION of 2008.  Now, you, as a con tool, would suggest cutting taxes as the solution.  And, me boy, republicans did require tax cuts as part or the stimulus that was done under Obama.  And, per the economic experts that scored that stimulus, the tax cuts did very little.  But those same experts tell us that the stimulus itself saved our economy me boy.  As one would expect. 
Now you, as a dishwasher and con tool, do not understand, and prefer to post conservative dogma.  So, you will NEVER understand.  My condolences, me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



And, me boy, you did not take me up on the offer to place a bet on my non-degree.  We can make you all the money you probably make in several years washing dishes.  But you do not take me up on it.  What we all get to see instead is a constant effort to throw out insults, and then you cry like a little girl when you get one back.  
Funny thing is, most people have way too much integrity to understand you.  It has taken me several years.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, me boy, instead of throwing inane insults, why don't you try to answer faun's question.  What would you do, me boy, if you were in charge.


Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I never, ever lie, me boy.  Never.  I accuse you of lies for the same reason everyone accuses you of lies.  Because you obviously lie over and over and over.  And I never, ever compare myself to someone else.  Especially not you, me boy.  You set WAY to low of a bar.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Are you claiming that the Democrats didn't also support that legislation?  Really, Ed?
> 
> What's amusing is how you on the left have declared the economic meltdown a Republican problem...like Democrats hadn't ever stepped foot in Washington until 2009!  I'm sorry but Democrats were just as much to blame for what happened as Republicans.



What is really, really amusing is how con tools like yourself can NEVER,EVER take responsibility.  The great republican recession of 1929 was somebody's fault, but not the republicans, according you you, me boy.  From 4 percent to 25 percent unemployment in 4 years. 
Not did they take credit for reagans recession of 1982.  Second worst recession since the great depression with 10.8 percent unemployment, me boy.  And you blame everyone else, of course, because you completely lack integrity.
Nor, me boy, did you take credit for W'w great recession of 2008.  The THIRD WORST RECESSION AFTER THE PREVIOUS RECESSIONS OF '29 AND '82;  ALL, ME BOY UNDER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.    You blame everyone else, because you have NO INTEGRITY.
Economic meltdowns happen over time.  They can be turned around.  But if all you have in your plans are tax cuts and lowering interest rates, you are, as you always have been, doomed.

By the way, me boy, when are you going to answer Faun's completely reasonable request, and tell us what your plan would be??  Never, me boy?  Is that your answer?????????


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, me boy, you were and are completely wrong.  Washing dishes just does not help you understand, me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And I never claimed anyone could single handedly stop anything...what I pointed out was that it was George W. Bush who warned Frank that the way we were conducting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had the potential to be dangerous for our economy and it was Frank who denied that was the case.  So who was right?
> ...



What is always certain is that:
1. Oldstyle will always immediately blame democrats for what happens under republican leadership.
2.  Oldstyle does not have any idea of what to suggest to correct the great republican recessions that have occured.
3.  Oldstyle will simply revert to personal attacks and lies, because he has no ability to make an economic argument. 
Funny thing is he aims his criticism at democrats, always.  But never at republicans, like, oh, say GREENSPAN.  Or W.  

Sad.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Are you claiming that the Democrats didn't also support that legislation?  Really, Ed?
> 
> What's amusing is how you on the left have declared the economic meltdown a Republican problem...like Democrats hadn't ever stepped foot in Washington until 2009!  I'm sorry but Democrats were just as much to blame for what happened as Republicans.



So, we should blame democrats for what happens during a republican administration.  And we should blame democrats for what happens during a democratic administration.  Sure, me boy.  Do you really expect anyone to buy that argument????  Dipshit.  Are  you here to simply waste everyone's time?
Of course you are.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


 
Well, Faun, I think we can safely say that oldstyle has given up, and by doing so, admitted that republicans really did not care if the middle class was destroyed by the great republican 2008 recession.  As long as they, and their wealthy benefactors, continued to get their pockets lined.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You "never, ever lie"?  You claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergraduate!  That's the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard since George Costanza claimed to be an architect.  You don't know things that entry level Econ students would know but you come on here and claim to have a degree in the subject?  It's laughable!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 30, 2016)

What's with the multiple posts, Rshermr? You back on the Oxy's again?

I don't take you up on your "bet" because I know my chances of seeing money from a loser like yourself is right up there with getting hit by lightning in a snowstorm.

Why is it every time one of you internet posers gets caught lying you ALWAYS respond by offering some huge amount of money to anyone who can "prove" that you're a liar?  You yourself proved that when you didn't have a clue what I meant when I asked you about The Chicago School.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You, me boy, are indeed laughable.  I did not say I taurht economics as an instructor, of course, as you know.  I said I helped an economics professor, followed his class schedule and taught part of the week, part of the class, as a student helper.  As you know.  Now, as you also know, I explained, maybe at this point THREE YEARS AGO. that I was not alone, and that the reason that graduate students were not part of the program was because the school did not have a masters program in economics.  Which, as you should be able to figure out, makes it hard for the professor to use grad students. 
This is why you are so well known as a liar, me boy.  Because you take something and then CHANGE it into something different.  As I said, dipshit, I do not lie, EVER.
And, as I said many times before, when you can not make economic arguments (which you never, ever do)  you revert to personal attacks.  By the way, dipshit, posting con talking points is not an economic argument.  Posting modified history is not an economic argument.
It is amusing, me boy, that you think helping teach a basic economics class to non econ majors seems to be such a big deal to you.  You must have a very unimpressive life.  What I thought funniest, though, was when you asked for the name of the instructor I worked with, the name and location of the college, and said if would provide that, you would let the attacks die.  Funny,, isn't it, that four years later, you are still attacking.  No proof, no real reason, based on your lies as normal.
Then, of course, there was the time that you claimed to have called my college, gotten the registrar on the phone, and was told that I had to be lying.  But you could not provide the name of the registrar, because you called no one.  Really, oldstyle, you are a really low level guy.  Too bad you do not have something you could be proud of.  I mean, if you think that helping teach econ for non majors is a big deal, really pity you.

I am three months from being 70.  People who know me know me to be completely honest.  But if I were to lie, and if I wanted to impress some one, it would NOT be to say either that I had a ba in econ, nor that I helped an econ professor teach a class.  Jesus, you must be unhappy with your little life.


----------



## Rshermr (Apr 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's with the multiple posts, Rshermr? You back on the Oxy's again?
> 
> I don't take you up on your "bet" because I know my chances of seeing money from a loser like yourself is right up there with getting hit by lightning in a snowstorm.
> 
> Why is it every time one of you internet posers gets caught lying you ALWAYS respond by offering some huge amount of money to anyone who can "prove" that you're a liar?  You yourself proved that when you didn't have a clue what I meant when I asked you about The Chicago School.



You caught no one lying, my lying con tool, except yourself.  And you did not pursue the bet because you fully know, beyond doubt, that you will loose the bet.  You said I lied about having an econ degree.  If you think the $10K is too rich for your blood, name the amount.  And please, me boy, the bet goes in escrow, in a way we can agree to.  Held, in other words, by a neutral partner, who pays the winner.  If you thought that I would make a bet with you any other way, you are simply proving your ignorance.
So, what you are saying is, you want to attack my word without proof, and then you do  not have the nerve to take me up on the bet.  You never ever do, of course.  Because, of all the things you have tried say I lied to you about, you NEVER have any conviction.  Just a big mouth and an empty mind.

I, and I suspect others, recognize your type.  You ARE SO UPSET at being shown to be a liar, over and over and over, by me that you want in the worst way to get one on me.  And you fully believe that I lie due to transference.  You think everyone lies like you lie.  Sorry, me boy.  I know you do not understand the value of integrity, and you have none.  It is VERY important to me.  And, I believe, most others.

Here is the thing, me boy.  As big an ass hole I think you are, I would never lie about you.  As big a liar I believe you are, even you can feel safe that I would not not lie about you.  As lacking in class and as lacking in integrity, even you I would never lie about.  Under no circumstances would I make over a hundred unsupported and unsupportable claims about you.  So, there you are.  Most people would feel ashamed, oldstyle, which is why I suspect that you are a sociopath.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yeah, you've got a BA in Economics...taught the subject at the college level...but didn't know what I was referring to when I mentioned The Chicago School?  What's sad, Rshermr...is that I'm a History major who took Macro and Micro Economics at the introductory level and yet I know more about the subject then you do!  Why is that?

The only answer that makes any sense at all is that you're full of shit!

You want to "prove" that you're an Econ major who was so well versed you were chosen to help teach the subject to other undergrads?  Why don't you start by posting something here about economics that someone with knowledge of the subject WOULD post!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's with the multiple posts, Rshermr? You back on the Oxy's again?
> ...



You lie every time you call me a "dishwasher"...you idiot!  You started that nonsense when I pointed out how full of crap you are with your claim of being an Economics major!  Like calling me THAT is going to make me cut you some slack for being the board's George Costanza!  You whine about "personal attacks" while you use personal attacks in the majority of your posts.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

It's ok, oldstyle.  We understand that you are so insecure that you have to find someone to pat you on your back.  Too bad it is always you.  
So again, you post nothing about economics.  Just more personal insults and accusations.  Do you get yet why you are wasting people's time.
Let me give you a clue.  No one cares, except you, about my college education from over 45 years ago.  No one, me boy.  You made accusations, I answered them, offered you a chance to prove your point, you ran away like a little girl.  Now, me boy, all you are doing is trying to kill a thread because you are incapable of making rational points.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



There you are.  Dealing with your personal insecurities again.  Stop wasting peoples time, would you, dipshit.  You are not bothering me.  I learned a long time ago that when people say stupid things about you, you should first consider the source.  I have.  The source is petty, inane, inconsequential, vapid, trivial, insipid, banal and small.  You make arguments that are meaningless, senseless, incoherent, trivial, inane, and hollow.  All of which, me boy,is my considered opinion.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Just between you and me, Georgie?  Your opinion is worth about as much as your pretend degree.

The person that comes across as insecure is you, Rshermr.  I'm not here claiming to be something I'm not.  That's you!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

Even your insults don't make sense...

First you accuse me of being a "dishwasher"...

Then you claim that I'm paid to post here?

So what exactly am I...a dishwasher with great writing skills?  Yeah, that's pretty common!  Duh?


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's with the multiple posts, Rshermr? You back on the Oxy's again?
> 
> I don't take you up on your "bet" because I know my chances of seeing money from a loser like yourself is right up there with getting hit by lightning in a snowstorm.
> 
> Why is it every time one of you internet posers gets caught lying you ALWAYS respond by offering some huge amount of money to anyone who can "prove" that you're a liar?  You yourself proved that when you didn't have a clue what I meant when I asked you about The Chicago School.





Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's with the multiple posts, Rshermr? You back on the Oxy's again?
> ...



Oh, and by the way, you did not ask about the Chicago School.  Here, me boy, is the 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 economic 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?


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I value your opinion.
Still incapable of economic discussion, I see.


----------



## Markle (May 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> In fact, and I say this as a Bill Clinton fan, I now feel certain that, in the coming decades, Obama’s star will rise higher than Clinton’s, and he’ll replace Bill in the public mind as the Greatest Democrat since FDR.


----------



## Markle (May 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Where in the world do you find all that Progressive Kool-Aid?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's with the multiple posts, Rshermr? You back on the Oxy's again?
> ...



The *Chicago school of economics* is a neoclassical school of economic thought associated with the work of the faculty at the University of Chicago, some of whom have constructed and popularized its principles.

Every profession has it's own terminology...it's how you can spot a poser from someone who is authentic.  When REAL economists discuss the Chicago School or the Austrian School or the Neoclassical School or the Stockholm School...other REAL economists know exactly what it is they are referring to!  When I referred to the Chicago School you (because you're a poser!) thought I was referring to the University of Chicago itself and not the school of economic thought that takes it's name from that University!  Funny how I knew that simply from taking two 100 level Econ classes...but you who supposedly have a degree in the subject...didn't have a clue!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

And yes...I exposed you as a poser YEARS ago...did you think that my opinion of you would change since?  You're still here claiming to be something that you quite obviously ARE NOT!


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> George W. Bush was completely correct when he warned about the dangers that the policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to our financial system...


... for the 5th time...

*Name the bill the Republican-led Congress passed in response to Bush's warning......*

A bill number and year will suffice.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And yes...I exposed you as a poser YEARS ago...did you think that my opinion of you would change since?  You're still here claiming to be something that you quite obviously ARE NOT!





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yes, it is, me boy. But the point is, you did not post a reference to the Chicago School of Economics.  At all.  That is a lie, me boy.  It is YOU lying.  Again.  As you have over 100 times on the exact same subject with the exact same lies.  Just as you are doing in this post.  Just as anyone can see.  
.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > George W. Bush was completely correct when he warned about the dangers that the policies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to our financial system...
> ...



Oldstyle can not, obviously.  He is incapable, for several reasons:
1.  There was no bill put forward by republicans.
2.  Therefor, he has been lying.
3.  That is pretty much all that Oldstyle does.  He loves to lie.
4. Oldstyle is incapable of conversation.
5.  If he can bore people to the point that they will vacate a thread and the thread will end.
6.  Oldstyle has nothing to add to any thread, except dogma.  He is out of dogma.  He wants to end the thread.
7.  He has been called on several lies, and those lies have been proven.  
8.  Faun is asking an eminently reasonable question about what republican bill he could point to, which has an easy answer.  Either Bill Number and date, or I Know of NO bill.  Instead, as usual, Oldstyle ignores the question.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And yes...I exposed you as a poser YEARS ago...did you think that my opinion of you would change since?  You're still here claiming to be something that you quite obviously ARE NOT!



I know it is frustrating to you that you can never prove I lied.  But, you see, as I have told you for years, I NEVER LIE.  So you make up the story about the Chicago School of Economics, and I prove that you are lying.  I did not respond to a statement about the Chicago School.  So, your lie is proven.  If it were not a lie, you would have gone back and found the post, and told all when you said it.  You can not because you did not.  What that proves, again, is that you are a liar, again.  And posing?  I do not remember EVER posing. At 69 years of age, I do not even consider the idea except as humor.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And yes...I exposed you as a poser YEARS ago...did you think that my opinion of you would change since?  You're still here claiming to be something that you quite obviously ARE NOT!



Opinion?  Yes, me boy, thanks for admitting that it is your opinion.  Lies and your stated opinion.  Now that shows a total lack of substance.  If all you have to bring forward is opinion, then you have nothing to post about.  My opinion is that you are a dipshit.  That does not make you a liar.  What makes you a liar is that you made up something untrue that was easy to prove was untrue.  You know, me boy, that old Chicago School statement of yours, posted a hundred times by now, is a proven lie on your part.
Again, I do not lie ever.  I know that is frustrating for you.  But making things up shows a total lack of integrity on your part.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And yes...I exposed you as a poser YEARS ago...did you think that my opinion of you would change since?  You're still here claiming to be something that you quite obviously ARE NOT!
> ...



You can SAY that you never lie as many times as you want, Rshermr but it won't change the fact that you've exhibited none of the knowledge about economics that one would expect from an economics major!  Not knowing what The Chicago School was...was your George Costanza moment.  You tried to pretend that you are something you're obviously not...and when someone who had only basic knowledge of the subject asked you a question that ever Econ major on the planet should have been able to answer EASILY...you completely whiffed on it!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 1, 2016)

When did I ever claim that the GOP attempted to pass legislation to address Bush's concerns?  Republicans in Congress did as little as the Democrats did! 

That doesn't change the fact that the fiscal meltdown can be traced to several key pieces of legislation...one of which was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which Jimmy Carter signed into being.  Bill Clinton signed the _Financial Services Modernization Act_ into being which did away with parts of the Glass-Steagall Act.  This push to pressure lenders to give sub prime loans by the Federal Government gave us a situation where people who couldn't afford to rent an apartment were given loans to buy a house.  It wasn't a GOP thing...or a Democrat thing...they were BOTH complicit in changing the way banks do business.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977


Noe that is complete desperation when you have to go back 40 years to avoid blaming Bush for the Bush Housing Crash!!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


But oldstyle, me boy, you must feel just terrible.   Being caught lying, especially about something so simple as telling everyone you said to me something about the Chicago School Of Economics, and then to have it proven to be a lie.  And then to have to go on, saying the same thing, when  anyone who followed the posts, know you are a lier.  
But no, it is just sop for you, oldstyle.  Lie, get caught, lie again, get caught.  Imagine now boring it must be for the rest of the people who post on this board to be honest, and to discus the topics.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
> ...



I am sure that being so honest, oldstyle can see that no administration is really capable of controlling it's own economy.  So, there was Carter 40 years before, who did something with financial services.  Different time, different conditions, but then it had to do with housing and finances, so there was no reason for oldstyle to do anything but blame a democratic president from 40 years before.  Makes perfect sense to a con tool, though not to the rational thinking people.  But then, come to think of it, no one believes oldstyle is a rational thinking person.
Now, since some awfull democrat did something wrong, in the tortured mind of oldstyle, there is no reason at all to expect future presidents (like Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, to have done anything to fix any problems since 1977.  So, it is not BushII's problem, eh.  Right.  There must be some logic there, but only for people who want to blame the opposite party.  Though Clinton did act poorly in cutting into the regulations of the financial institutions.  But, to all of us with rational minds, the problem was that W and his team of economic misfits blew it.


----------



## Faun (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> When did I ever claim that the GOP attempted to pass legislation to address Bush's concerns?  Republicans in Congress did as little as the Democrats did!


My goodness, you're fucking rightarded.

Who ever said you claimed the GOP passed GSE reform??

I was trying to get you to admit they didn't pass GSE reform, despite Bush's warnings.

Seems you finally admitted that. Thanks. Who know why I had to ask 5 time to get you to admit it though.


----------



## Rshermr (May 1, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Uh, I am confused.  ou stated that I did not know what the chicago school was.  Which is, of course, another lie on your part.  What proves it, me boy, is that you have no post you can point to.  None at all.  If you had asked about the Chicago school, you would find it by searching for it.  It is, however, NOT THERE.  There is only one reason for that, as we all o.  It is that you never asked about it, never posted about it at the time you said you did.  Never.  
So, what does that say.  It says you are either brain dead and/or that you are a liar.  
It is really simple.  Show me when you ever asked me about the Chicago School prior to the time you were saying that I did not understand your question.
Oldstyle, you are really nuts.  Apparently you believe that arguing that I did not know what the Chicago School was, which would mean, if it were true, that I do not have an economics degree.  But if I do not, then you should be making the bet.  But you will not, because you know you will get crushed, and have to pay me big time.  
You are such a little, little man. Or is it boy?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
> ...



As with most things in Washington...it's a progression of legislation that creates the biggest problems.  My point was that for you on the left to claim that Bush and the GOP are solely responsible for the economic melt down that occurred ignores things that Democratic Presidents like Carter and Clinton signed into law on THEIR watch!  That isn't "desperation"...that's "reality"!


----------



## Faun (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You would think that blaming Carter and a 40 year old law would be a clue to you of how ridiculous you look. But since all you care about is blaming Democrats, I guess you don't care about looking ridiculous.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Lie, get caught, lie again, get caught...that pretty much sums up you on this board, Rshermr!  We both know you didn't have a clue what The Chicago School was back then and we both know you'd LOVE a do over on that lie.  It's what happens to people like you who embellish their lives...sooner or later you get caught.  With you it didn't take long because you're SO fucking clueless when it comes to economics.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



If I'd only blamed Carter...as you and Rshermr ONLY blame Bush then yes I WOULD look ridiculous!  I didn't do that though...did I?  I showed how a progression of legislation passed by both Democrats and Republicans brought us to the point where a real estate bubble and crash did severe damage to US financial institutions!

What's "ridiculous" is to only blame one President who happened to be in office when the crash took place...a President who DID caution others that there was a problem looming!


----------



## Faun (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


And yet, ridiculous is what you are by blaming Carter since neither  he,  nor the CRA he signed into law, caused the collapse. And I'm not blaming Bush alone. I'm also blaming Republicans since they were in control of the Congress and refused to pass GSE reform.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I know, oldstyle, you are so upset that I do not lie.  You say I did not know what you were talking about when you say you said Chicago Schol, but then I proved that you did not Say Chicago School.  Which would mean, to a rational person, that you wee LYING.  Again. Sorry, you are, me boy, daught lying again.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oh.  Just happened to be.  For eight years.  And did nothing while the economy cratered.  But it was not his fault????  Nice try, me boy, but you are supposed to be a history major.  That does not give you a right to modify history.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bush is the President who gave us TARP which is the one policy that actually DID prevent the economy from "cratering".  You'd grasp that concept if you really DID know anything about economics or what took place during that economic meltdown!  Bush is also the only President who warned that what we were doing with housing, Fannie Mai and Freddie Mac was dangerous for our financial institutions.  You didn't hear that from Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm not upset that you lie...I'm amused by how pathetic you are that you feel the NEED to lie!


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You mean just as you are using a personal attack here?  Just asking.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Rshermr resorts to personal attacks here because invariably he gets caught up in the bullshit stories he tells here...like how he taught college level economics classes as an undergrad...but didn't know what I was referring to when I asked him what economic school he was basing his theory on.  When you catch him in a lie...he doesn't have enough sense to tuck tail...he'll attack you personally by accusing you of being a "dishwasher" or a "paid troll" or both which simply illustrates how clueless he really is.  How many dishwashers do you know that are paid to post on politics?


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't matter if all the Republicans voted against Obama's original stimulus because he had the Democratic votes to push it through regardless...just as he did with ObamaCare!
> ...



To say Republicans COULD have stopped Obamacare is just plain foolish.  

As you well know, Lame Duck President used bribery, payoffs and most likely blackmail along with rules changes to shove Obamacare up our...throats.


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


For the life of me, I'll never understand what the fuck is wrong with you rightards. I never said Republicans could have stopped Obamacare. Where do you come up with this shit? How does your brain translate what I wrote into what you wrote?


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The EXCESSIVE oversight by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd was as you know, responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse.  At the time too, Barney Franks lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae.  He got paid bonuses the more loans Fannie Mae purchased.  It was also, at this time that Barney and Chris INCREASED the percentage of subprime loans they were FORCED TO BUY.


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
> ...



Here are some FACTS for you, much as I know they are offensive to you.

Democrats actions leading to Mortgage Collapse B.B.

From New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


From Bloomberg News
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0


The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs, ie Fannie, Freddie etc.)
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs


Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis; Meltdown


The Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble
Barney's Rubble


Mashup of Maxine Waters & Barney Frank - Then Vs. Now


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available



The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis 
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street


*Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 ALONE, here dating back to 2001!*  Duplicate of Whitehouse.archives  http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-called-for-reform-17-times-in-2008#.UrzlU3l3vIU


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you admit that the GOP couldn't stop ObamaCare...but you claim that they COULD stop the Obama Stimulus?  Come on, Faun...just admit that stimulus was basically written behind closed doors by Harry and Nancy...and that the reason it was such a flop was that it turned into a liberal "pork fest" that rewarded liberal donors, liberal causes and the public sector employees that support Democrats.  If you were an American Private Sector worker either laid off because of the recession or worried that you might be laid off...there was little in the Obama Stimulus that was going to help you.


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Are these not your words?

"It's a flat out lie to state Republicans could not have blocked passage of the ARRA just as it's a lie to pretend they were helpless to stop it just like they couldn't stop ObamaCare, which was passed with a filibuster-proof Senate."


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Me boy, you are too stupid.  You are not making an economic argument, but an argument of history.  A fuller description of the tarp issue would include why it was needed.  By October of 2008 the Great Republican Recession of 2008 was in full swing.  That something needed to be done was obvious, to republicans and democrats in congress.  The vote on TARP in October of 2008 was heavily supported by democrats and oppose by republicans.  Republican congressmen voted against it 108 to 91.  It was then supported heavily enough by democrats to pass.  And the banks were saved. However, where you get the idea that saving the banks helped the economy in any real way is typical of you.  The best part of tarp, from the aspect of slowing the recession, was the impact of the money provided GM and Chrysler.  They would have been gone without those loans, but were saved with well beyond a million jobs, as a result of it.  
You need to understand what a demand based recession is, and what to do about it.  Since you are such a stellar student of economics should make that simple, me boy.  Or you could go back to the history of R. Reagan to find out what worked for him after his spending cuts required by tax reductions cratered the economy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Proving you are a con tool, you make it sound like bush was trying to do something about his economic disaster.  He was doing little.  He saved a number of banks, made most richer than ever, but did little else.  Nearly nothing.  He was not part of the stimulus package, or any other economic effort to stop the disaster that was his.  What saved us from a new Republican Depression was the Stimulus program, primarily  And nothing else.  There were exactly zero bills put forward by the republicans, but multiple efforts at stoping any bills put forward by the president.
There was, me boy, exactly one remaining effort to speed up the effects of the recession.  And republicans voted against that effort every single time and with every single republican congressman voting to stop progress.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Wow.  Only a con tool could make that post.  The stimulus had lots of input by republicans.  Every tax reduction, and there were billions of dollars in tax reductions, came from republicans.  What then happened, of course, was that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN VOTED AGAINST THE STIMULUS. 
Now, we could either listen to your cut  and paste efforts from bat shit crazy conservative web sites and fox, or we could listen to the cbo.  Faun is simply stating what they said, as would I.  The only thing you can do to turn around an aggregate demand based recession (which this recession was) at that point was STIMULUS.  Period.  And the small, and partially mangled by republicans, stimulus was not sufficient to do the job well.  And republicans passed NO bills to help.  None.  Yet the stimulus, according to the cbo, WORKED.  It turned the economy around, brought unemployment to near nothing.  And there you are, out in a small island with your con friends, hollering it did not work.  It is really getting pretty lonesome out there, me boy.
So,  where was that Republican bill to help with the great republican recession of 2008???  Oh yeah, it did not and does not exist.  Which is why, me boy, the congress from 2010 until today has been named THE DO NOTHING CONGRESS.
Oh, and if you were a private sector employee, what the republican congress did held NO interest for you.  And since most of the 14,000  new jobs created under the obama admin were PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS, you are wrong again.  As I am sure you knew.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, no, no, me poor ignorant con.  You are upset because I do not lie.  Like you lie.  Like you have lied over a hundred times when you said you posted Chicago School of Economics and I did not know what you meant.  Because, of course, though you have now said that over 100 times, you did not in fact post anything about the Chicago School of Economics.  Ever.  Except over 100 times when you said I did not know what it was.  That is, me poor ignorant dishonest lying con tool, over 100 separate lies.  
Now, if you are proud of the number of lies you can post, there you go.  Most of us do not lie.  Lying shows NO integrity.  So sorry for you, me boy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 2, 2016)

I can see why. 

My neighbor works 4 part time jobs - trying to make up the income of the full time job lost to Obamacare...

See, 4 jobs on the books instead of 1.

Thanks Obama...


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Another bat shit crazy con web site, Sweetness and Light


Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Ah, a lie.  Like when you have said over 100 times that you posted about the chicago school of economics, and I did not understand.  Which, me boy, is untrue,  B


Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



It would be up to you to prove that I lie.  The fact that you say you have done so is another lie.  You can not, and did not, because I never lie.  Now the fact that you say I whiffed on a statement about the chicago School is a lie.  You did not, as you know, ever post a statement about the chicago school.  Though you have said you did over 100 times.  
So, since you say you did, over and over and over, provide the post number and the date and the thread name you say your post was in.  My bet is you will simply keep making your claim, a complete lie.  Because, me boy, the post you claim you made is not out there.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I can see why.
> 
> My neighbor works 4 part time jobs - trying to make up the income of the full time job lost to Obamacare...
> 
> ...





Uncensored2008 said:


> I can see why.
> 
> My neighbor works 4 part time jobs - trying to make up the income of the full time job lost to Obamacare...
> 
> ...


Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Now, since that recession was handed over to the obama economic team, the rate of unemployment has gone from 10% to 5%, which is a REALLY< REALLY low rate.  If your neighbor is having issues getting a job, it probably makes sense to not blame the person who has been making every effort to make unemployment better.  But, it is a free world.
What is it that Republicans did to help the economy?  They have owned congress for going on 6 years, so they could do something if they cared about people like your neighbor.  The very wealthy, who they do indeed care about, have gotten much richer.


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> When did I ever claim that the GOP attempted to pass legislation to address Bush's concerns?  Republicans in Congress did as little as the Democrats did!
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that the fiscal meltdown can be traced to several key pieces of legislation...one of which was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which Jimmy Carter signed into being.  Bill Clinton signed the _Financial Services Modernization Act_ into being which did away with parts of the Glass-Steagall Act.  This push to pressure lenders to give sub prime loans by the Federal Government gave us a situation where people who couldn't afford to rent an apartment were given loans to buy a house.  It wasn't a GOP thing...or a Democrat thing...they were BOTH complicit in changing the way banks do business.



Uh, 1977?  Jimmy Carter.  Community Reinvestment Act.  I was wondering where you got that gem, and did a little quick research.  And, can you believe it?  All the bat shit crazy con web sites are saying what you have now said.  Must be a coincidence, right.  Or are you doing your normal.  I understand, of course, why you had no link.  For the same reason as always.  Because you do not want anyone to know where you get your info.  But one impartial source did take on the question:
*Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?*
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was passed by Congress to ensure that banks meet the credit needs of their local communities and to encourage investment in the immediate communities served by depository institutions. Banks are rated periodically on their efforts to achieve these goals.

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) provides an interagencyCRA rating database on its website.

In addition, each bank has available for public review a file giving its CRA rating and additional information that it is required to prepare.

T*he Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. *Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.

The Fed, in collaboration with the other financial regulatory agencies, is currently considering what can be done to make CRA a more effective regulatory incentive and how CRA can be revised to address the new community needs that have emerged in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. As part of this regulatory initiative, the agencies held CRA hearings and invited written comments on how to improve CRA in June 2010. In December 2010, the agencies published amendments to the rule to encourage financial institutions to participate in activities aimed at revitalizing areas designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for funds under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. 
As I thought there was no real link at all.  Nice try, me boy.  Normal for you.
FRB: Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?

And by the way, while you are blaming the recession on FANNY and FREDY, they are no more responsible than the private banks and financial institutions that offered bad loans.  That is a typical CON post.  There were plenty of private financial institutions that were as much and often more to blame.


----------



## Synthaholic (May 2, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> *US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low*


I blame Obama!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Bush did do something about the economic meltdown...he incurred the wrath of many conservatives by pushing TARP through.


----------



## Faun (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So you're not gonna even try to answer my question, huh?

Your idiocy aside, Barney Frank could not, and did not, block a single GSE reform bill.

Republican leadership, on the other hand, wouldn't let a single GSE reform bill get past his desk.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When did I ever claim that the GOP attempted to pass legislation to address Bush's concerns?  Republicans in Congress did as little as the Democrats did!
> ...



Unlike you, Rshermr...I actually know what the Community Reinvestment Act consisted of and I'm able to state that off of the top of my head.  You see...I actually went to college,  took classes like macro and micro economics as well as history and political science.  I read several papers on a daily basis so I'm cognizant of what's going on in the world I live in.  There has been an ongoing debate over the years about the dangers of government inserting itself into markets like housing and forcing lenders to make loans that quite frankly wouldn't have even been considered forty years ago.  

As a conservative I don't want to see financial institutions bailed out by the taxpayers...but I also don't want the government forcing lenders to make loans to satisfy political correctness rather than basing whether that loan should be given strictly on proper banking practices.


----------



## Faun (May 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


While I never denied they couldn't block ObamaCare, you're fucking deranged to think Republicans couldn't block the ARRA just as they couldn't block the ACA.


----------



## Markle (May 2, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When did I ever claim that the GOP attempted to pass legislation to address Bush's concerns?  Republicans in Congress did as little as the Democrats did!
> ...



You certainly have more word salad than anyone on this forum.  Amusing!

While the CRA is not directly responsible for the mortgage/housing/financial collapse, they did greatly influence that downfall.  

The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone.  One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations".  That would be the "no-doc" loans.  The intent was to make it easier for people working for tips, or paid cash could qualify by simply stating their income.  The result was that anyone could make a loan application for any house and simply tell the loan officer how much they made.  Presto, loan approved.  Fannie and Freddie were pushing banks to make more subprime loans and they were happy to comply.  We had a Countrywide loan office here in Tallahassee.  I would never use them although I usually worked with sellers.  Well known was the fact that if a customer couldn't get approved anywhere else, Countrywide would get them a loan.

Granted, I was well known to my bank, but I got one myself when I had the opportunity to buy and flip a house.  I went into the bank, talked to the branch manager, told her how much I wanted and SunTrust called me on the way back to my office to tell me the loan was approved.


----------



## Faun (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Yes, they are.

Those would be the words I put together to say Republicans *could not* block ObamaCare because Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate when it passed.

Which is exactly the reason you look like a complete fucking retard by responding with... your words...

_"To say Republicans COULD have stopped Obamacare is just plain foolish."_​
... when I said no such thing. I said Republicans, *"couldn't"* stop it.

But that's ok. I don't actually expect lucid replies from conservatives.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 2, 2016)

Don't you love it when a liberal like Slick Willie doesn't spout the "party line" and tells the truth!


----------



## Rshermr (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do you have an IMPARTIAL source that will give your statement that CRA influenced the mortgage collapse??  I can find none.  Just nut case web sites trying to make that case, nothing else.  What impartial sources I have seen say that CRA was NOT influential.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes he did.  And he did nothing the for mainstreet.  And the american public by being unable to stop the worst recession since the great Republican Depression of 1929.  So, yup, that is it.  He did something AFTER the cow was out of the barn. Nice.  So, are you just trying to say his heart was in the right place??


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Don't you love it when a liberal like Slick Willie doesn't spout the "party line" and tells the truth!




It would have been interesting if you did not pick a clip out of a bunch that were all pro conservative nonsense.  You see, me boy, it is good if you see the full clip, not one ended before you get the full statement.  
See yet why no one believes you.  I provide impartial sources, you provide a source from a group of clips from an obvious anti democrat agenda.  Nice.


----------



## edthecynic (May 3, 2016)

Markle said:


> The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.


Lo and no doc loans didn't become popular until Bush, from 2001 to 2007.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




You tool Chrysler got bought out by fiat and GM was never going anywhere had it gone through bankruptcy like American Airlines, the only thing that was "saved" was Union pensions.


.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Reallh, me boy. Can you provide links to your accusations.  I suspect not.  
May I suggest next time you stick your head up your ass, take a flashlight.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Sorry, me boy. That would be pure bullshit.  You need a link to support you.  Because every impartial source I have seen says you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.
> ...



YUP.  Here is a link:
onprime lenders now boasted they could offer borrowers the convenience of quicker decisions and not having to provide tons of paperwork. In return, they charged a higher interest rate. The idea caught on: from 2000 to 2007,
No doc loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not during the Clinton admin.  Not during the Obama admin.  Right smack in the middle of the W. Bush admin.  WHAT A SURPRISE.


----------



## American_Jihad (May 3, 2016)

Philosophy ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you love it when a liberal like Slick Willie doesn't spout the "party line" and tells the truth!
> ...



So basically your thing is to DEMAND sources and then declare any that are given to be biased?  Gee, think that's why you have a rating of +247 and I have one of +5,310?  Who really believes who here, Georgie?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So first you declare that Bush did nothing to counter the economic downturn.  I point out that Bush pushed TARP through...something that was crucial at stabilizing the economy at it's worst point and something that Obama continued during his Presidency...and you declare that Bush only did something "AFTER the cow was out of the barn"?   TARP ended up having more of an influence on the recovery than the Obama Stimulus (Barry's STILL looking for those "shovel ready" jobs!) and TARP was all W.  Can't give him credit for it though...can you?


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What tool you need links that Chrysler was bought out by fiat , American airlines went through bankruptcy and is fine, GM pensions were in big trouble?


Hey tool pick up a fucking newspaper once and awhile. 



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...




WTF? You do know obama turned around and did the same thing.


http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/team-obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-market-collapse/


Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

Obama set to force affordable housing into affluent communities


The Obama Administration Wants Another Housing Bubble


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




And the shit for brains last link is wiki 


Lmao....


Fool.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study


bear513 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You must have a source, eh???
Of course you do not.  None that you want anyone to see that you use.  Just bat shit crazy con web sites.  So, you say GM was going nowhere.  But the impartial sources said gm was indeed going somewhere, often called OUT OF BUSINESS.  No rational impartial source said they were going to survive.  
Chrysler?  That ANYONE bought them was a win.  Why a win, me boy.  Because there were jobs, me boy.    Here is what is known to all rational people as a link:
*Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study*

Dec 9 The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections, according to a study released on Monday.
Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study

The benefits have not flowed simply to GM and Chrysler. In a speech this June,Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally said the bailouts were the right medicine for his company as well.

"If GM and Chrysler would've gone into free-fall," Mulally said, "they could've taken the entire supply base into free-fall also, and taken the U.S. from a recession into a depression."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?

The government lost money, but far less than initially expected when the program was launched in 2009. What's more, the program prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business — an event most economists and automotive analysts said would have caused the entire industry to collapse and thrown the Midwest into a deep depression.

At the time, some critics argued GM and Chrysler should be allowed to fail and that government should not be interfering with the natural course of the market.

"This program was a crucial part of the Obama administration's effort to stop the financial crisis and protect the economy from slipping into a second Great Depression," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Dec. 19.

The automotive industry recovered faster than most industries after the Great Recession. Sales of new cars and trucks in the U.S. have increased every year for five years and are on track to top 16.5 million this year — the most since 2006.
the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010 if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care.
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B

Now, I know that all the con web sites, over 100 of them, and all the con talking point writers, and Fox, and conservative think tanks, all have the same talking points.  Which you, as a con tool are spouting.  But the impartial sources ALL say something quite different.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I demand nothing from you, me boy.  You have proven that you can lie pretty much full time.  I simply want, like any rational person, a link that I can believe posts TRUTH. 
Yep, that would be your methodology  To find a source that posts only PART of a speech, and pretend it is the entire speech.  You see, me boy, we do not know what Clinton said overall.  It is not good form to cut a clip out of a speech and call it complete.  Is that too much for you to understand.   Doing what you did is simply a form of lying.  And you trying to defend it is pathetic.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ah, but I did give him credit.  It was october of 2008.  He pushed through a bill worked over by congress to try and save the country from a disaster that was already underway.  But, perhaps you can find an IMPARTIAL source that says TARP saved the economy, and that the Stimulus did not.  You will not find it, me boy, because it is untrue.  Only the bat shit crazy con web sites say that.

Here, me boy, is an impartial link (I know, you hate those) that scores the Stimulus:
*Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. *Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words “failed” and “stimulus,” and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.

“The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” wrote Speaker John Boehner. “Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ ”

*The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. *But put simply, *it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010.*

Now I understand, Oldstyle, that this study, and many more, from an impartial source, does not match the conservative talking points and the millions of dollars that have been spent lying about the Stimulus,  But that is the truth.  And don't we all want to find the truth. Oldstyle?
Relative to TARP and W, it is absolutely true that W signed the bill into law.  That was required, me boy, since we only had one President, and it was W.  But the bill was put together by congress.  Representatives and Senators.  Like always.  And the Republicans VOTED AGAINST TARP.  HAD IT BEEN LEFT TO THEM, TARP WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.  TARP was a bill crafted by congress, and signed by W.  We all understand that simple fact, me boy.  But where you get the idea that TARP was a great success and the Stimulus failed is nuts.  Except, of course, that it lines up perfectly with the hundreds of adds and the talking points of over 100 nut case crazy con web sits.  But it does NOT line up with the hundreds of impartial sites that have worked to score the Stimulus.  So, we can believe you, or the CBO (and many others)!  My money is on the CBO.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.



You're caught in the "I'm a hack and bend reality to fit my partisan perspective loop." 

Unemployment peaked in 2011 during the Obama recession, what followed is under-employment. With the Obama administration using a 30 hour week as the floor for "full time" for purposes of Fascistcare, employers across the nation slashed hours to avoid that fiasco.


Obama's trail of victims are all those who were fully employed, but now need multiple jobs to earn the income lost due to the foolish policies of your little tin god.



> Now, since that recession was handed over to the obama economic team, the rate of unemployment has gone from 10% to 5%, which is a REALLY< REALLY low rate.  If your neighbor is having issues getting a job, it probably makes sense to not blame the person who has been making every effort to make unemployment better.  But, it is a free world.
> What is it that Republicans did to help the economy?  They have owned congress for going on 6 years, so they could do something if they cared about people like your neighbor.  The very wealthy, who they do indeed care about, have gotten much richer.



The economy didn't start to recover at all until the Republicans took the house. Looks like they did  a great deal to help the economy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
> ...



Which of the many republican economic bills helped, me boy???
You must have an impartial link that will tell us.
Oh.  No.  Actually there were NONE.  
Really, me boy, it is so simple to post conservative talking points that even you can do it.  Imagine how hard it would be for you if you had to have a brain.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
> ...


Sorry, me boy.  I know you would like the unemployment rate to have peaked in 2011.  But it actually peaked in March - April 2010.  
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948
If you can not even get that correct, I am afraid there is no hope for you, me poor dim witted con tool.  Or a liar????
The truth of the great republican recession is out there, if you want to find it.  But I know you simply prefer to post con talking points.  Because cons NEVER take responsibility for their screw ups.


----------



## pinqy (May 3, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
> ...


Part time for Economic Reasons are those who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but are working <35 hrs/week due to slow business or inability to find full time work.  If you are correct, then the graph below will show an increase in these workers.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



FRED is fun, isn't it?

I too can get it to say anything I want.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Your neighbor is caught in the unemployment problem from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.
> ...


You're fucking insane. 

Unemployment peaked in October, *2009*.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What's amusing is that you STILL buy the line of crap you were fed by the Obama Administration with "jobs created or saved", Rshermr but think anyone who tells you that you were deliberately misled...is a "liar".

And all the CBO reports ever REALLY told us was that unemployment would have been higher if the Federal Government hadn't spent billions of dollars on stimulus!  Does that surprise you for some reason?  What each job created by the stimulus ended up costing the American taxpayer is another matter though...isn't it?  Yet ideologues like yourself use the CBO reports as "proof" that the stimulus was a success!  All I can say is if THAT is success...then you set the bar for that about as low as it can get!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Come on, Faun...your own chart shows that spike just prior to 2011 that brought the number right back to where it was for much of 2009!    It may not have "peaked" at the end of 2010 but it was damn close!


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


A spike in 2010 means that moron is insane when he claimed, _"unemployment peaked in 2011."_ Thanks for confirming.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

And as for what caused those better numbers for unemployment?  Was it anything that the Obama Administration was doing...or was it the oil and natural gas boom taking place due to fracking...which Obama and the Democrats generally opposed?  You can easily make the point that the economy was bouncing back DESPITE Obama and his minions...not because of their policies!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



A spike that very nearly reached the high levels of 2009...so what's your point?


----------



## NoNukes (May 3, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Last time it was this low was 1973
> ...


The economy went to hell because the war ended.it did not matter who was President.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That didn't even happen in 2011. Just how far out on that frail limb are you willing to climb for your fellow yahoo?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The *North Dakota oil boom* refers to the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3] Despite the Great Recession, the oil boom resulted in enough jobs to provide North Dakota with the lowest unemployment rate in the United States.[4][5] The boom has given the state of North Dakota, a state with a 2013 population of about 725,000, a billion-dollar budget surplus. North Dakota, which ranked 38th in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001, rose steadily with the Bakken boom, and now has per capita GDP 29% above the national average.[6]

I'm actually willing to go rather far out on that limb, Faun because it's looking rather sturdy!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL

You've already fallen off. Your post does nothing to prove unemployment peaked in 2011.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That is either because you do not want to understand, or because you are incapable of understanding.  A job saved means one less person is on the unemployment rolls.  A job created means one less person  is on the unemployment rolls.  Assuming, of course, that there are people unemployed, and that we do not have full employment.  Do you yet see why from an unemployment standpoint saving and creating are the same???  Or is that too complicated??
Relative to the costs of the stimulus, you are rather simplistic, me boy.  Costs for the gov are what the gov pays.  Revenues are what the gov gets back for what the gov pays.  Obvious, to most people, thing is that what we are concerned about is the two things together.  Kind of like your work pay and your expenses.  Now, since a person on unemployment does not pay taxes, no revenues accrue.  If a person is employed, revenues from taxes he pays accrue.  The net is quite different from what you are concerned about.  

So again, me boy, I can either believe you or the CBO.  Again, my bet is on the CBO.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Good for you, Oldstyle.  Get out there on that limb.  But do not look at the trend, me boy. Ignore that.  Now, what is your point?????


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That, of course, is because it did not  But oldstyle wants SOOOOO badly for it to have peaked in 2011.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Have you EVER seen anyone try so hard to push con talking points???  Lie, cheat, steal, makes no difference to oldstyle.  Just wants to post those con talking points.  Which is why, of course, cons are incapable of conversation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 3, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Last time it was this low was 1973



here's the problem according to Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Ah, the problem I am having is reconciling the numbers on your graph with what is published by the BLS. I get BLS from Davemanual, and have never found them wrong.  They ranged, in 2010, from 9.95 in March and April down to 9.4% in December.  In 2011, they ranged from 9.1%  in January to 8.5% in December.  So, not sure where the bump in 2011 was.  But I suspect it was an anomaly..  Further, there is absolutely no doubt that the ue rate was NEVER close to as high as the highest rate in 2011 in 2010.  Simple.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did?  Or are you still claiming that didn't happen in 2011?


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


A lot of things happened in 2011. At the moment, we're discussing what didn't happen -- namely, that unemployment peaked that year.

Are you too senile to keep up, gramps?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did?



not to mention that Democrats mostly opposed fracking! So Repubican policies mostly saved Obama fro a complete disaster. Always remember the golden rule from Econ 101: a recession is the time it takes the free market to correct for liberal interference.


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Last time it was this low was 1973
> ...


What's the matter is you ignore everything George Bush Tom delay dennis hastert John boehner Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan did after Clinton left office

And you don't have to admit the GOP sucked. The results in the Republican primaries are obvious I'm right. Just look at how jeb got bounced so long ago. And don't try to put it all on bush. Republican voters said fu to every Republican. In fact the guy in second is an anti GOP type too. Kasich is just embarrassing himself. He's only still in it because he's hoping for a miracle


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did?
> ...


LOLOLOL

Too fucking demented. 

Name the one Republican president who didn't have a recession on their watch.......


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



It did not happen for any time, me boy.  And the baken fields produced only about 25,000 jobs at most as a result of fracking.  But I suppose you will try anything, eh.  Problem is, in base numbers, it is WAY to small when you compare it with several million new jobs.  Especially since much of the baken oil is so poor in quality that in order to get rid of it at refineries, the driller will have to pay the refinery to take it.


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Remember bush had to loan us all money so he wouldn't be in an official recession. In fact his entire 8 years was a recession. The 9-11 recession wasn't nearly as bad as the recessions his policies created after 9-11. It's called disaster capitalism. The rich cause a recession then insist they get to pass their ideas to get us out of the recession they created. What was Bush's first idea to get us out of the 9-11 recession? Tax breaks to the rich. And it didn't work.

So now you owe that stimulus money back with interest. Notice Republicans didn't worry about the debt when they were in charge?


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not want to comment on my point that the fracking oil and natural gas boom taking place up through 2012 probably created more jobs and more economic growth than ANYTHING the Obama Administration's policies did?
> ...


Actually, me poorly informed con tool, the bigest push back to fracking are REPUBLICAN farmers and ranchers who want nothing to do with the possibility of ruining their water sources that fracking can and often does cause.


Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Gallup's 2016 environment survey, conducted March 2 through 6, found Americans have a clearer position on fracking than they did a year ago,. In 2015, 40 percent said they favored fracking and an equal amount said they opposed it. Another 19 percent said they had no opinion or knew little about it. In 2015, support for fracking slipped to 36 percent and opposition climbed to 51 percent.

The poll found the sharpest decline in support comes from Republicans, from 66 percent support in 2015 to 55 percent in 2016.
Poll: Opposition to fracking growing in the United States


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The question wasn't what percentage of Americans favor fracking in a poll, Georgie...it was how much of the economic recovery was driven by fracking!

My point was that fracking had much more influence on jobs and the economy then any Obama Administration policy and if you subtracted either the jobs created or the economic growth created by fracking during those years then Barry's economic numbers would have been even more anemic then they were!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.

For example...if I asked people THIS poll question:  "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Actually, the blurb you posted only said North Dakota, one of the nation's least populated states, benefited with low unemployment (which is typical for the state as people often only move to the state for a job) and a surplus for the state's budget.

That aside, WTF does that have to do with your fellow retarded yahoo falsely claiming that unemployment peaked in 2011?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



How many jobs are created when you drop the price of oil and natural gas that much, Georgie?  How much disposable income do Americans have to spend on other things when they aren't paying $4 a gallon at the pump for gasoline?  This isn't a "small" thing...you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It has to do with claims by people like you and Georgie Costanza...that Obama economic policy created jobs and "saved" the economy.  When you look at all the jobs and the economic growth that both fracking and the resultant low energy costs have produced it's makes your claims that Barry deserves a pat on the back for job creation rather humorous since he's always resisted fracking.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 3, 2016)

I'm in Florida and I've gotten $1.95 a gallon gas instead of the $4.00 plus a gallon I was paying before fracking scared the Saudis into dropping the price of oil.  What happened in North Dakota didn't benefit only that area...it benefited the entire country.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.
> 
> For example...if I asked people THIS poll question:  "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.


North Dakota bottomed out in June, 2009, with 355,858 people working in their state..

In their peak of 2012, they employed 390,035 -- a net gain of *37,733* employed folks.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Exactly what the fuck drugs are you on to think an increase of *37,733* jobs put much of a dent in the U.S. labor force? Hell, there are more than twice that many living in the city where I reside.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You could have just admitted that has nothing to do with the idiotic claim that unemployment peaked in 2011 and it would have been a lot shorter and more honest.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Yes, but that simply proves that you are a really, really stupid con tool.  So there we have it.  I could believe you or the cbo, and others.  My money is on the cbo.  I never put money on bs artists.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm in Florida and I've gotten $1.95 a gallon gas instead of the $4.00 plus a gallon I was paying before fracking scared the Saudis into dropping the price of oil.  What happened in North Dakota didn't benefit only that area...it benefited the entire country.


I paid more than $4.00 when Bush was president. As far as prices coming down, there are multiple factors....

4 Reasons Why the Price of Crude Oil Dropped | Investopedia


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Honest?? Oldstyle could care less about honesty.  
Maybe he thinks he is funny.  Cons are known to be stupid and have no humor.  Though the poor clowns think they do.  And studies say they are stupid:
*Libertarianism Makes You Stupid - The Ethical Spectacle*
www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html

People With Low IQ Tend to be Socially Conservative: New Study
People With Low IQ Tend to be Socially Conservative: New Study


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.
> ...


That would be CORRECT.
I live a couple states away.  Lots of people heard about good paying jobs and headed there.  Most came back, primarily because they found the jobs typically did not last long.  Then, the issue with the cost of obtaining the crude was so high that price decreases in the end product could, and would end those jobs.  The thing few know is that they have been drilling those pools for over 60 years.  The good pools are drained.  What is left is way too expensive to obtain, and much of it of such poor quality that refiners requite the drillers to pay THEM in order to take their crude.  

Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude
Negative Oil Prices Arrive: Koch Brothers' Refinery "Pays" -$0.50 For North Dakota Crude | Zero Hedge


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You can look the number up, me boy.  But I hope you took a flashlight when yu pulled that Billions of dollars number out of your ass.  So, is anyone surprised that you have no link, no proof? Of course not.
Are you forgetting the people and companies that got killed by the low prices.  Notice how many oil rigs are sitting unused? 
You see oil prices dropping as a result of the Baken Formation and Fracking.  That, me boy, is technically called BULLSHIT.  Because, me boy, that crude is way to small in total amound.  Period.
Why has the price of oil been dropping? Why now
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/energy-environment/oil-prices.html?_r=0
Read the articles and you will see the reasons.  Several.  None of them have to do with the Baken crude.
But nice try. I know you WANT people to believe you.  But, me boy, you loose.  Which is what losers do.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As with most polls...how you frame the question is going to influence the answer you get in return.
> 
> For example...if I asked people THIS poll question:  "If fracking has driven the price of oil down from $120 a barrel to $40 a barrel...are you in favor of continuing to use fracking or would you be fine with stopping fracking and having oil prices return to their former levels?"...then I'm guessing I'd get a very different response.


I think they had the background and knowledge to frame the questions, dipshit.  Point is, people are getting more and more concerned about fracking, me boy.  It will be banned in time.


----------



## Rshermr (May 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm in Florida and I've gotten $1.95 a gallon gas instead of the $4.00 plus a gallon I was paying before fracking scared the Saudis into dropping the price of oil.  What happened in North Dakota didn't benefit only that area...it benefited the entire country.


Wow, that was one of the stupidest posts yet.  Congratulations.  You are indeed proving it.  Cons are stupid.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



God, but you are clueless!  Fracking allowed drillers to get oil out of the ground that was previously not cost effective to go after.  So much oil and natural gas was being produced with this new technology that the Saudis were forced to cut the cost of their oil by huge amounts to try and undercut the price of US shale oil.  It's the same thing they did forty years ago when we first started mining for shale oil.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Small?  Do you not know that the Bakken formation is estimated to have six BILLION barrels of oil in it?  That's BILLION you babbling idiot!  Do you purposely try and post stupid things?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You're such a fucking idiot that you don't even read enough of your own cites to realize they don't prove what you claim they do!

"North Dakota Sour is a high-sulfur grade of crude and “is a small portion of the state’s production, with less than 15,000 barrels a day coming out of the ground,” Bloomberg notes, citing John Auers, executive vice president at Turner Mason & Co. in Dallas. “The output has been dwarfed by low-sulfur crude from the Bakken shale formation in the western part of the state, which has grown to 1.1 million barrels a day in the past 10 years.”

North Dakota Sour is what the Koch Brothers Refinery is paying -$0.50 for...not the low sulfer crude coming from the Bakken formation!


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



relatively, yes.  Very very very Small.  Estimating oil volume, particularly AVAILABLE oil volume, is highly dangerous.  But while estimates of available oil in the Baken is up to 7.4 B Barrels, the world volume of available oil is over 1,000 B Barrels, or 1 trillion barrels.  You see, me boy, why you are missing the point? Even in the US, the Baken is small in comparison with total available oil  You actually need to spend a few minutes reading the information out there.
I have be en following this closely for the past 8 years, since a viral email from nut case cons went out saying that there was enough oil in the baken to support the  US oil requirements for the next 35 years.  A new BREATHLESS estimate that was BEFORE Fracking Technology was available.
Guys like you, being a con tool, are always making these wild claims.  Here is a stat for you to take into account.  The US has only 2% of the world oil available volume.  Saying baken is controlling anything in oil production terms is stupid.  Especially today, because, you see, oil produced by Fracking is EXPENSIVE.  Oil produced in the Baken is typically of poor quality, costing too much to be economically viable.  Which is why, me boy, oil drilling companies and people are leaving the Baken Formation in droves.  
So, nice try at trying to excite the world on the Baken potential.  But even the Alaskan reserves can not do what you suggest.  
So, not sure if you are simply ignorant, or if it that you are simply lying.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Damn.  A personal attack.  Based on another untruth posted by Oldstyle.  I did not suggest that all, most, or a majority of oil had negative value.  I know you suggest I did.  That would be, me boy, another lie.
However, depending on the day of the week, oil from the baken is costing more than they get for it.  Partly because the Baken is in the middle of nowhere.  And shipping costs are high.  Then, you will find that the costs of getting the oil from generally deep pools, is high.  And, much of the oil is not of the highest quality and costs more than oil from other areas to refine.  And because fracking is a relatively expensive process.

Now I know you like to make the Baken look like a shining star.  It is not.  Here are a few reasons why:
1. Oil costs, including transportation Tcosts, are very high, often more  the cost to supply the crude being produced in the Baken.
2. There are only 49 drilling rigs now on the Baken, down from 187 at the peak.  That would be  just over 25% of the rigs once producing, since oil drillers are looking for ways to cut costs.
3.  Oil companies are declaring bankruptcy.

So, the Baken today keeps producing, but less than before.  It has under 1% of the worlds volume of available oil.
Next.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Right.  The Saudi's and the oil cartel, who control over 50% of the world crude volume, are really worried about the Baken, with it's under 1%.  The Saudi's simply reacted to a number of factors that caused oil stocks to rise, the baken was an insignificant factor.
If only you would spend a little time looking, you would find that the average cost of producing oil in the US is over $35.  The cost of producing oil in Saudi Arabia is $9.9.  So, they can allow us to pump to our hearts content, and they will make plenty of money. 
In the past, we pumped oil from thousands of shallow pools in the US.  Low cost production.  As the oil got deeper, and the pools smaller, the cost rose.  Fracking did not make oil production less expensive.  It is MORE expensive than pumping the large, shallow pools so prevelent in the past.  Which is why our cost of producing oil in this country is relatively HIGH, me boy. And why oil from fracking operations is particularly high.  So, today, fracking makes it possible to obtain high cost oil, which is not viable when the prices for final product is low.  Really a very simple thing, me boy.  But the main thing is that Baken is controlling nothing in terms of world oil production, except in the little minds of cons.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I know, I know, me boy.  You love being mad.  It is part of your con persona.  And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs.  And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs.  And you keep loosing the argument.  But  you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda.  Sorry, me boy, you loose.  Because you are wrong, by a mile.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



God but you're an idiot!  In case you hadn't noticed...MOST oil reserves are found in the middle of nowhere!  You think it's more expensive to ship crude from North Dakota than it is from any other remote area?

As for the importance of the Bakken oil field?  Some estimates put the oil reserves there at a par with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.  Use your brain for once, Rshermr!  If the Bakken oil field was insignificant then the Saudis wouldn't have slashed their oil prices as they have done!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

And fracking isn't something used to extract oil from "deep pools" you moron...it's a process to harvest oil trapped in rock formations.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic.  They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus.  Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration.  Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!


----------



## Old Yeller (May 4, 2016)

I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Use your brain, me boy, if you can.  Why do you think the Saudi's are concerned about a very, very, very small oil reserve that is under 1% of the size of theirs, and that costs over twice as much to produce the oil, and way more to ship it to refineries.  jesus, you want to believe your own bullshit.  Dipshit.

So, as opposed to the con tools, like oldstyle, ideas, what ACTUALLY has caused declining costs of oil and oil products:
*Four things are now affecting the picture.* 
*Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels.* 
*Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. *
*Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply.* 
*Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.*
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4

So, while baken has been reducing oil production, overall oil production has increased


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And fracking isn't something used to extract oil from "deep pools" you moron...it's a process to harvest oil trapped in rock formations.


I know that, dipshit.  I did not say it was used to extact oil from deep pools.  See how you lie. Extracting oil from pools, shallow and deep, has been going on for well over a CENTURY, dipshit.  And,you moron, fracking does not "harvest" anything.  It breaks substrate, and allows trapped oil to be EXTRACTED,  Extracted, me boy.  You harvest wheat, you extract oil.  Really, imagine how much space you could save if you stopped the bullshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


One last time, I will explain it to you.  Though you do not want to believe it.  Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed.  You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount.  And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not.  It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know.  It is a term used by economists.  It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession.  For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs.  Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers.  If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum.  I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle.  Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand.  Logic.  If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do?  Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.  
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly.  They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs.  Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929.  Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs.  Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle.  No wonder you love con talking points so much.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


There have only been three times in US History when we lost very large numbers of jobs:
1.  The Great Republican Depression of 1929 with a 26% unemployment rate.
2.  The Reagan depression of 1982 with a 10.8% unemployment rate.
3.  The Great Republican Recession of 2008 with a 10% unemployment rate.
No other time did the ue rate get to 10%.  Did you happen to notice that all were under Republican Presidents??


----------



## rdean (May 4, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


If you were posting a recipe for disaster, clearly, you have all the ingredients.


----------



## Dale Smith (May 4, 2016)

rdean said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Really? You like this debt slavery system?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You think the price of gasoline has gone from plus four dollars to sub two dollars because of "low demand"?  God but your posts get stupider with each passing hour!  We had weaker economic activity when the price was close to five dollars!  If you DID get a degree in economics, Georgie...which I HIGHLY doubt...then you are probably the dumbest economics major to graduate from a college or university this century!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> all [periods of high unemployment] were under Republican Presidents??



and all under obvious Democratic policies!! Think before you post. Under Republican capitalism supply equals demand so everyone who wants a jobs has one.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, lets see what you just said, me boy.  You saidI said the price had dropped because of low demand.  Now, me boy, you are either but stupid (possible) or lying.  Because if you could read, I said there were 4 reasons.  You picked one of 4.  So, look again, me lying con.  Second, you said I said that was the reason.  It was 1. Not what I said as the only reason, but one of 4 reasons.  And 2 it was not I that made that determination.  The link took you to the article I quoted.   It was by the Economist.  Now, unless you are a complete fool (possible) you know they are an extremely credible and knowledgeable impartial source.  So, there  you go, me boy.  Making things up again.  I try to educate you, and you come back with unnecessary insults.  Relative to my econ degree, you already stated that I did not have one, but lost that argument when you refused to take a simple bet, and if you were correct, make some money. 
So, you say what I said was wrong.  But by implication you said that the Economist was wrong.  Sorry, me boy, you loose.  If I have to believe someone, either you or the economist, you loose.
You should be embarrased.  But that would require that you had some integrity, which you do not.
But it was a normal post for  you.  You loose your argument, then come back with personal attacks.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs.



of course thats 100% ignorant and illiterate. It was the housing stimulus that caused the recession. A recession is the time it takes the free market to recover from liberal interference. Now do you have it straight?


----------



## Markle (May 4, 2016)

num_nut said:


> I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?



True, the artificial fall prior to that was census workers being hired.


----------



## Markle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



How do you measure jobs saved?


----------



## Markle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> ...



I realize you much prefer posting word salads meaning nothing.

As you know, GM DID, after all, declared bankruptcy.

Had they and Chrysler declared bankruptcy in a manner available to normal companies NOT too big to fail, how many fewer new cars would have been sold in America?

Easy question, a general answer will suffice.  Would fewer new cars have been sold in America had GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy?


----------



## Markle (May 4, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > The reduced loan standards for low-income people had to be made available to everyone. One example would be the creation of one of the dumber "innovations". That would be the "no-doc" loans.
> ...



Really?

As you know, that was only one of the rules and regulations imposed on Fannie and Freddie by the committees of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  I'm sure you know that rule and regulation changes are not laws and do not get voted on by either house or approval by Lame Duck President Obama.

*Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008*
Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)

*The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs*
*For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

# “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

# “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

# “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Needless to say, our ever vigilant Congress, who after all control these such things, ignored these warnings studiously.

So much so that now, like the media, they pretend they never happened.

Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light*


----------



## Markle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're way too easy.  Lots of childish rants and nothing more.  Cute.

I knew you'd be ignorant of the fact that Fannie and Freddie were forced to increase the percentage of sub-prime loans in their portfolios.  I knew too you would challenge me for links and make a fool of your self in the process.  You are so predictable!

"Beginning in 1992 Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase purchases of mortgages going to low to moderate income people. In 1996 HUD gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target: 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with incomes below the median. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. In 1996 HUD required that 12% of all mortgages purchased by Freddie and Fannie had to be “special affordable” loans, meaning loans to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median. The 12% dictum was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005."

How Government Stoked the Mania


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



and lets not forget that when the crash came Fan/Fred owned 75% of the alt A and sub prime mortgages!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Markle, you fucking con tool:
You just used Sweetness and Light as a source.  Which proves you ar an absolute con tool, and are unable to understand the concept of impartial sources.  You are a useless piece of shit, me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


then, to further prove yu are a con troll, you use Russell Roberts, a contributor to CATO and George Mason University.  No  one who actually expects to be believed uses RR, or other similar nut cases.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



liberals love to pretend that despite 132 liberal programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford that when they could indeed not afford them it had nothing to do with the 132 liberal programs. Insane???


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You get a team of economists and task them with determining it.  It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain.  So, yeah, a big challenge for you.


----------



## Markle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Show us all what is NOT true.  I suckered you once, already, ready for another?


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Auto bailout saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs -study
> ...



Wow.  That was a profound post.  The fact that you see no meaning in my posts just proves the obvious.  You are stupid, me boy.  
They did declared bankruptcy????

Probably not.  Did you have a point, me poor ignorant con tool.  The point is, dipshit, if you studied the subject, something like 1.5Million people would have been unemployed, and profits would have gone throughout the world, instead of the US.  And it was long ago proven that Bankruptcy was not a viable option for GM or  Chrysler.  Sorry you missed it.  I suspect, however, you miss a lot with your head up your ass.


----------



## Rshermr (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



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!


----------



## Faun (May 4, 2016)

num_nut said:


> I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?


You think wrong. Census data was collected in 2010, not 2011. There was no spike in unemployment in 2011.


----------



## Faun (May 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > all [periods of high unemployment] were under Republican Presidents??
> ...


LOLOLOL

Thanks for the laugh, Crazy Eddie.

8 years of Republican rule in the 1920's ... 6 years of Republican rule in the 2000's ... and according to the inmates, the booms they created were thanks to Republican policies but the busts those booms turned into were the fault of Republicans behaving like Democrats.


----------



## Faun (May 4, 2016)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


We know that the Democrat-led Congress passed GSE reform in response to Bush's warnings ... *what GSE reform bill(s) did the Republican-led Congress pass in response to Bush's warnings?*


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Faun said:


> num_nut said:
> 
> 
> > I think that 2011 spike in Unemployment was blamed on temporary cencus workers let go?
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Don't have a clue what that formula would be...do you, Georgie?  You know why?  There isn't one!  "Jobs saved" is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by the Obama Administration to hide how few new jobs were created by the Obama Stimulus!


----------



## Chuz Life (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Now, if only you would apply the same level of intellectual honesty and attention to detail for when a child's  life begins and for when their constitutional rights as a human being SHOULD begin. 

I digress.

Its hilarious when leftards accuse others of playing fast and loose with the facts.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wow.  Another profound post from a con tool.  At least he thinks so.  Poor ignorant tool.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The answer is out there, me poor ignorant clown.  In numerous impartial sites.  Very simple thing, actually.  It is a problem for cons because they are stupid, and prefer to be told what to believe.  Cons think they are really smart because they have a few untrue facts fed to them.  Now, oldstyle likes to spend his time telling everyone how smart he is.  Like all con tools do.  But in reality, he can not find the really simple answer to the question  He keeps asking and wants someone to tell him
Here is the thing, me boy.  When your math expertise has reached the level of 1st grade math as yours has, you are not likely to understand any formula provided you.  Instead, you will continue saying what you have been told.  Must be a sad, sad existence. 
But, me boy, as I have promised, 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 I would be happy to provide you the formula.  Though, me boy, you will prove too stupid to understand it.  You should probably continue your plan to get con talking points fed to you.  You can then pretend they are true.  No need to try and understand anything. Con's do not have that capability.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



If it's such a "simple thing", Georgie...then you should be able to tell me the formula.  You can't however so you're doing your usual song and dance whenever you're asked for something that any REAL economics major should be able to do easily!

It's the reason you have the rating you do...you're basically nothing but bullshit, lies and "me boys"!


----------



## Chuz Life (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You obviously felt the burn in my last post. 

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following.  Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created!  It's all about jobs saved!  Why?  Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it.  It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created.  They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

If someone in the Private Sector tried to float a report like the Council of Economic Advisors did with THAT one?  They'd get laughed out of the boardroom...right after they were given pink slips!


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow.  Just more personal attacks.  What a surprise.
I find it funny that you ask me to educate you, I agree if you will follow through with the name of a bill that the republicans put up to help with a really, really big problem they were responsible for.  Unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.  Now, if they were responsible at all, they must have brought forward bills to help the problem they created.
That, as we all know, is what they are elected to do.  Also, oldstyle, you often tell me what an expert on economics you are.  Yet you are completely incapable of doing a simple google search
I can not take you seriously, me poor ignorant con tool.  You are saying that 1.  Though the organizations that are tasked with scoring the Stimulus say jobs were created AND saved, they must be lying because they can not measure saved jobs.  Yet they do.  That is, me boy, an accusation only supported by conservative nut cases.  2.  That every president that used a stimulus, recently like Republican Presidents including George W and R. Reagan, saved NO jobs, because in your great economic mind you do not believe it is possible to save jobs.
You are making nonsensical arguments, me boy.  Only other con tools agree with you.  Economic experts do not.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> If someone in the Private Sector tried to float a report like the Council of Economic Advisors did with THAT one?  They'd get laughed out of the boardroom...right after they were given pink slips!



Not if they were tasked to do so, me boy. The CBO and the Council of Economic Advisers have professional, extremely well educated, smart, and well paid economists.  Now, me boy, you may have noticed that you were not offered one of those jobs.  Because, you are not well educated relative to economics, You are obviously dumb.  You are obviously not a professional economist.  And you are NOT well paid to produce economic information.  You see, me boy, though you have a high opinion of yourself, others see you as a simple con tool who is told what to believe.  You are, me boy, insignificant.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following.  Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created!  It's all about jobs saved!  Why?  Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it.  It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created.  They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf



Well, me boy, there you go again.  Your arm must be getting very, very long, resulting from patting yourself on the back.  But all of what you said in this post is your opinion.  And you know how much I value your opinion.  Again, what is true is that you say that the many smart, well economically educated, well paid economic experts working for the CBO and other prestigious agencies are making statements supporting jobs saved, but apparently must be lying.  Because only you, with no real economic education, being stupid, not considered for such a job and being a lying con tool, should be believed over them.  Pretty stupid, me boy.  But normal for you.


----------



## Markle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Quoting my good friend Rshermr:

'They did declared bankruptcy????

Probably not.  Did you have a point, me poor ignorant con tool.  The point is, dipshit, if you studied the subject, something like 1.5Million people would have been unemployed, and profits would have gone throughout the world, instead of the US.  And it was long ago proven that Bankruptcy was not a viable option for GM or  Chrysler.  Sorry you missed it."

You, no surprise, failed to answer my simple question and resorted to your childish name calling.  You must be so proud.

*GM bankruptcy: End of an era*
*After years of losses, the troubled automaker is forced into bankruptcy. GM is set to close a dozen facilities and cut more than 20,000 jobs.*
SHARE | RSS


By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: June 2, 2009: 4:03 AM ET

General Motors bankruptcy: End of an era - Jun. 1, 2009

*Chrysler Declares Bankruptcy; Agreement Puts Fiat in Control*
Posted: May 01, 2009 10:37 a.m.
Chrysler Declares Bankruptcy; Agreement Puts Fiat in Control | U.S. News Best Cars

You're just too easy.  I thought this was this big hotsy totsy forum with a lot of sharp posters.  Obviously, that is a major exaggeration.

You childish desperation is duly noted.


----------



## pinqy (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following.  Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created!  It's all about jobs saved!  Why?  Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it.  It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created.  They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/Estimate-of-Job-Creation.pdf


Let's be clear...that article is only talking about jobs created attributable to the ARRA.  Jobs created, by itself, is trivial and done every month...it's the number of jobs in time period t minus the number of jobs in time period t-1.

Estimating the impact of specific legislation is a different kind of flying altogether. But that doesn't make it smoke and mirrors or dishonest. Nor does it make it correct.  The accuracy depends on the validity of the assumptions.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



is this an attempt at a comedy routine, dipshit.  I was not questioning whether GM declared bankruptcy, me boy.   I was simply re-posting YOUR sentence suggesting by implication that you could use a remedial english class.  Jesus, you are slow.  You don't even recognize what you posted a short time before.  Does your ignorance hurt?


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following.  Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created!  It's all about jobs saved!  Why?  Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it.  It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created.  They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
> ...



Trying to prove that jobs saved is invalid seems to be oldstyles thing.  Assuming that no jobs are saved by stimulus efforts seems a bit dangerous.  Seems that is always a major wanted result of stimulus.  
The formulas I have seen for jobs saved get into ue rates over time periods along with populations of workers.  Simple enough, really.  But to me, it is more useful to look at a simple metric, that being the ue rate, over time.   And a good dose of economic history.  Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.
What I also am convinced of is that it is really important to look at the multipliers for the different stimulus components.  The multiplier is quite different, for instance, for tax reductions, particularly to the relatively wealthy, than it is for infrastructure spending.
thanks, by the way, for your input.


----------



## pinqy (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Well, from oldstyle's link, what the CBO did was assume a certain amount of increase in employment based on measured increase in GDP, and accounting for the expected lag in employment growth.  It's not horrible, but it's not necessarily a good representation of what really happened. But there is no good representation.

So the estimate is okay, and a rough guide, but shouldn't be taken as gospel.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Mostly whether the ue went up without stimulus, and where it went after stimulus was applied.


 the housing stimulus, for example,  resulted in massive unemployment when the stimulus was withdrawn so at best a libsoviet stimulus creates temporary, make-work, mal investment jobs that misallocate a nation's resources and further reduce recess our economy.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The methodology used by Obama's minions is given in the following.  Note that there ISN'T a formula to determine jobs created!  It's all about jobs saved!  Why?  Because they can set that number at anything they want and there is no way to prove or disprove it.  It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide how few jobs were created.  They know it...I know it...anyone with a basic economics background knows it...but YOU don't have a clue!
> ...



With all due respect, Pinqy...when you can change the outcome to whatever you want simply by changing the baseline numbers...how can you call it anything but smoke and mirrors?  It's made up numbers.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So you've "seen" formulas for "jobs saved", Georgie?  By all means...share one of those formulas with us!

As for the multipliers for the different stimulus components?  Kindly provide the formulas that Obama's economists used to arrive at THOSE numbers!

You still haven't figured it out yet...have you?  All those numbers are based on assumptions...none of it is based on proven statistical analysis.  They made it up.  They started from the results they wanted...and plugged in the numbers to make that happen.  When you give the CBO bullshit numbers then the CBO will crunch those numbers and give you an answer that is also bullshit.  That's not a reflection on the CBO...they work with the numbers they are provided.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



Is the estimate "okay" if it's made in the midst of what was being described as a "jobless recovery", Pinqy?  Or is it assuming the same results from other recession recoveries would apply to this recovery?   GDP was obviously going to increase because of massive spending by Government but did that spending really result in job creation?  The answer to that was no for a variety of reasons.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



who cares about 4 decade low when incomes are down?
Now we are supposed to be happy regardless of how little we make during the slowest recovery since depression?

Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If someone in the Private Sector tried to float a report like the Council of Economic Advisors did with THAT one?  They'd get laughed out of the boardroom...right after they were given pink slips!
> ...



Since I have an undergraduate degree in History, an MBA and years of running nightclubs for experience...it should come as no surprise to anyone that I wasn't offered a position at the Congressional Budget Office or on the Council of Economic Advisers!  I'm NOT a professional economist.  I took Micro and Macro Economics in college.  What's rather pathetic however is that my knowledge of economics is far greater than yours...someone who claims to have a degree in Economics and who was so well versed in the subject that you taught at the college level!

What's wrong with THAT picture, Georgie?  The sound you hear going off is the board's "BULLSHIT ALARM" every time you try and post something intelligent about economics!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals  have created huge inequality!  And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job.  Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand.  Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


There are indeed formulas, or at least one.  But no, I will not show it to you.  I am still waiting for the bills that repubs passed, me boy.  But perhaps you have learned that they did NOTHING, because they could care less about the middle class.  
Relative to the multipliers, those like other numbers that come from economists are based, typically, on the results derived from experience with stimulus.  I know, you believe like R. Reagan used to believe, before he died and before he determined that stimulus was in his best interest.
I have it, oldstyle, you are a true con tool.  You drink the coolaid.  You prefer to believe what you are told.  Because that is what cons do.  They do not believe economists, but they do believe other cons.  The cons have no credentials, but you WANT to believe.  Which is the way cons are.  Which is why it is SOOOO easy to get you to believe, say, and do what they want you to.
You do not believe in global climate change, because you would rather believe the energy industry than scientists.  You believe in money in politics because that is what you have been told is a good thing.  If the middle class is going away, that is fine with you.  You hate unions, because you have been told to.  You, in fact, always line up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con web sites.  Because you want to believe.  You like being angry.  And you like being part of a team that is against everything that is conservative. 
I, me boy, and most people, like truth, and reason, and journalistic work,  So, there you are.  You are living in a false belief system, but it is truth as far as you are concerned. 
The CBO has been trusted by conservatives and liberals for decades.  But not real cons.  Because the CBO does everything it can to provide the truth.  And cons, like you, hate the truth.  If it does not meet with what you are told to believe, you hate it.
You make nonsense claims like Obama, or his people, give the cbo bullshit numbers.  But you have no proof.  And the CBO says that does not ever happen.  But your bat shit nut case web sites give you the information you CHOOSE to believe.  I am not sure how anyone would want to be that small.  But obviously you do.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That would be great, me boy.  Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job.  Nothing, my boy.  And to this day, NOTHING.  Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.  
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%.  Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.  
But Reagan, he had learned.  When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING.  They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.  
So, be proud.  The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.  
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe.  But you are an idiot.  And you could care less about the middle class.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise!  George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What is wrong with that is it is your opinion.  Only.  But it is instructive to see someone who has no clue believe what he wants to believe.  got it, me boy.  You are a true idiot.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."
> 
> Gee, what a surprise!  George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!



Oldstyle, it would be so easy to see the formula that is SOOOOO important to you.  All you need to do is tell everyone what the republicans did to help create jobs during the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Or, simply admit that they did NOTHING.  
Nah.  You are not into truth, me boy.  Not at all
Uh, by the way, your economic knowledge is highly limited.  I have yet to see an economic argument from you.  Simple denials are not economic arguments.  Now history, yep.  If you can make an argument using economic history, that would be an improvement.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. .


actually house was 100% against stimulus and Obamacare and communism. Under communism everyone has a job but few work hard and few get paid well. Sort of like here now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%.  Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
> .



... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1] 
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

*Rexford Guy Tugwell*, Roosevelt Advisor 

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> But Reagan, he had learned.  When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net,.



there was no failure just a recession caused by 20% interest rates needed to combat the Carter era inflation. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
> .



only because they knew that communism does not work!! The way China cured the deadly poverty  communism caused was by switching to capitalism. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> You are a true idiot.



actually it was communism that slowly starved 120 million souls to death , not Republican capitalism.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%.  Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
> ...



Now you've done it, Ed!  You've confronted Rshermr with reality!  HE HATES THAT!  It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you!  Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > You are a true idiot.
> ...



I'm pretty sure, Rshermr will find some way to blame that on George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan...just saying...


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward.  As everyone knows.


Oldstyle said:


> "There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."
> 
> Gee, what a surprise!  George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!



When are you ever going to grow up, me boy.  But, I am not an economist.  Any more than you are a historian.  And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want.  If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.  Still waiting, me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


 
I understand that you and ed would be a pair.  But buddies, no doubt.  Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Actually it was you who said Hoover did nothing and you who won't admit to being a communist!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. .



they were 100% against Obamacare and stimulus!! Now do you understand.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Keystone Pipeline...now what's that formula?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie?  I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks?  So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how?  Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes? 

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks.  That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What you have, me boy, is a long quote from some unknown source.  And you and your friend ed, the troll, have done what you normally do, me boy, and made a number of mixed up claims.  Lets a look at your drivel.  First, you mention the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, and suggest it was a Hoover bill.  It was not.  It was Wilson and his Republican congress' baby.  And Coolidge who inherited the legislation and passed in.  And it had nothing to do with stimulus, or the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  It was a protectionist bill, and fully supported by Republicans.  Republican congressmen of the time were hard protectionists.  Look it up.  You see, any scholar of economics at that time would understand that the controlling Republican Congress were protectionists.  And the tariff bills passed during the years up to the take over of the presidency by FDR were aimed at helping BUSINESS, not the middle class.  Obviously.  That it failed had nothing to do with either what I said, nor the great republican depression.

You may notice that the said Depression happened 7 years later.
Now, me dishonest con tool, what I said was that Hoover did nothing while watching the ue rate go from 4 to 25 percent.  Which was absolutely true, except that it was 3.2% to 25%.  All during his administration, me boy.  Watching that happen , then sending on a stimulus in the final days of his term.   Your interest in Tariff bills had absolutely nothing to do with easing unemployment rates caused by the Great Republican Depression.  Your post was a waste of words.  Had NOTHING to do with what I posted.
Historically, me poor ignorant con tool, it was a time of watching the Republican Congress preparing the economy to fail.  It did that in 1929 under Hoover.  Though there was little he could have done to stop it, having inherited the mess from Coolidge.  You may see a pattern, me boy.  Three republican presidents preparing the economy for, and watching as, the greatest economic disaster of our history occurred.  And then a Democratic President elected and repaired the damage.  

But, thanks for trying, boys.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Sorry.  You failed, miserably.


----------



## Rshermr (May 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



just conjecture.  More likely, you simply have similar IQ's,  Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll.  Stupid as a post.  And you seem to be trying to get there.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't have created jobs?  Funny...construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!

You have to claim that I "failed" of course because we both know you don't HAVE a formula!  Once again...you being full of hot air...getting called on it...and not being able to back up your claims!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff?  Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.  Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look.  I've never seen anything quite like it.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That, me boy, would be your opinion.  And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board  And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING.  Which I had stated in my post.  And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR.  Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929.  And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats.  But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%.  That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue.  It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy.  The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents  (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the  country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact.  Way too late.  Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post.  But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths.  I did not, me boy.  The truth is a well known thing.  Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are.  And you posted them.  No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy.  Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- a*fter Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.*
*The Great Depression*
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47]* In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.**[*47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging.  As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair.  And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oldstyle said:
construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!
The Keystone Pipeline was *not *passed, me boy, in an attempt to decrease unemployment after the great Republican Recession of 2008 had begun.  It was passed to allow construction of a PIPELINE, which is why the word PIPELINE is in the bill, and it was in fact a big wet kiss to energy corporations.  It had NO IMPACT on the great republican Recession of 2008, nor was it meant to be an effort to slow down the recession. A few jobs would have been created.  But just a few, for a short time.  If a republican had started a mom and pop business, you would have said that was a republican effort to improve the job situation.  Because you are a con tool.  
Next??


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So you ask for a bill that the GOP House passed that would have created jobs...I provide one...and then you declare that because it would have only created a "few jobs" and for a "short time" that it doesn't count?  You're pathetic.  The Obama Stimulus only created a few jobs and it "saved" other government jobs for a "short time" yet you count that as being wildly successful!

You CAN'T admit that the Keystone Pipeline bill would have created jobs because if you did...then you'd have to provide the formula to determine jobs saved...and we all know by now that you can't do so!  Just admit it and save yourself further embarrassment.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs?  Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs?  Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...


The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs?  Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...
> ...



The US is crisscrossed with pipelines from one end of the country to the other, Faun...so please don't use that sorry excuse!  It's amazing how giving 42,000 people a great paying job for as long as it takes to complete that pipeline doesn't interest you liberals but for those people who aren't working?  By the way, that estimate of 42,000 and one year comes from the Obama State Department...which obviously is pushing one side of this debate.  The time to complete the job is more accurately put at two years...not one!  I suspect the construction workers would LOVE to be employed for that time!

The truth of the matter is that Keystone became a "symbol" to you on the left!  That's why Obama threatened to veto it.  Because he was pandering to the environmental wing of the Democratic Party.


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Your retardation is noted but I did not complain about it because it's a pipeline.

Try harder next time.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



LOL...when Georgie is threatened with inconvenient facts he resorts to homosexual innuendoes...when you're threatened with inconvenient facts you resort to accusations of retardation?  But your side doesn't use "personal attacks"...nah, never!


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You remain retarded. You did not "threaten" me with "inconvenient facts."

What you did was misread my post and then attack it over something I didn't even say.

But you're a moron and that's what morons do.

Again .... try harder.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



FDR didn't end the Depression either!  UE didn't drop below 14% under FDR until Hitler conquered France in 1940. So technically Hitler ended the FDR Depression


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, massive government spending ended it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



And that only started in 1940?

Fucking retard


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, that started in 1941.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Nice MRI image of your head.

Probably explains why you failed to refute what I said.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The difference is, we are telling the truth.  You have lied about one issue, me boy, over 100 times.  Basic, straight, proven lies.  Yet you just keep on.  
So, that and your many, many other lies make you an obvious target.  
Then, though you have never been able to prove it, you have said I am a liar scores of times.  Always with no proof, just with made up reasoning.  
Again, it makes you an obvious target.
Really, if you did not lie, you would have cut the number of posts you have done by fully 50 percent.  And if you would use actual logic, by another 30 percent.  
Which makes you an obvious target.
Threatened with facts?  Like the batch of drivel that I just disproved about Hoover.  More lack of logic AND lies.  
You are a con tool.  Another Troll in training.  And a true dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Cool.  More lessons for you, Oldstyle.  Oxymoron:  If you use the term Truth of the Matter and the name Oldstyle in a sentence, you have created an OXYMORON.  And it was created by a MORON.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs?  Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...



And your proof is?............  Oh, it is oldstyle, and he is a con tool, who only
posts conservative talking points.  Wow, oldstyle, that was a really profound statement.  Another lesson for you, Oldstyle.  Dipshit:  A Dipshit, me boy, is someone who posts drivel without any proof and WASTES EVERYONE'S TIME.  Dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs?  Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...
> ...



Three dipshits in one post?  Damn, Georgie...you're stressed when you get exposed as a poser...aren't you?

All that venom and bluster with only one goal...trying desperately to obscure the fact that you don't have the faintest idea what the formula was for determining "jobs saved"!

You keep accusing me of being a liar when I point out that it's obvious that you don't know a thing about economics...yet you keep proving my assertion that you don't, with every attempt at posting about economic issues.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

So what's the formula, Georgie?  Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Just one more corner that you've painted yourself into...you never learn...


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That would be true.  First, you never give the name of a depression to the person you task with ending a depression created by the other party.  He only brought ue down from 25.4% to 14.2% before your arbitrary date.  That would be, what, 11.3% from the high of the Great Republican Depression.  And a decrease of MORE than any unemployment percentage EXCEPT the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  I mean, there must have been something like that accomplished by a republican,right??????????????????????????????????????????
"And not down by the time Germany invaded France"???  Maybe we should look at when the Crusades occurred.  Or the Vietnam War occurred.  Most think the depression was heavily influenced by the US entering the war.  But that was December, of 1941,  And by then, the ue was at about 9.65%  Down over 15% from the high of the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
1941  ue rate was 9.66%
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So what's the formula, Georgie?  Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?





Oldstyle said:


> So what's the formula, Georgie?  Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?



You seem to be looking for Georgie, me boy.  He is not here.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Just one more corner that you've painted yourself into...you never learn...


I never lie.  By never lying, I never paint myself into lying.  Now, painting yourself into lying is like when you have said, over 100 times, that I did not understand your post when you said you asked me about the Chicago School of Economics.  Because, me boy, you NEVER posted a question about THAT.  Making your statement a lie.  Over 100 times, since 2012, me boy.  
Now, you will ignore what I just said.  If it were untrue, you would provide the post # and date and thread name.  But since you lied then and the next hundred times since, you are cornered.  So, being a con tool with ho integrity, you will just go on lying.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It's the FDR Depression because he's the joker that made it last his first two whole terms.

What a shame you know so little. 

WWII Started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. The USA stood aside while Poland then the lowlands fell. Once France fell in 1940 (look it up if you don't know), it was obvious we could not sit aside much longer and men started joining the US military and we started moving to wartime footing

I'd bet on the box of rock against you in Rock, Paper and Scissors and give you 2-1 odds as well and still make a fortune


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So what's the formula, Georgie?  Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?



the condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows:  Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.  
*If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. *
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple.  So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax.  Not a bill to fund a pipeline.  A bill meant to decrease unemployment.  Now, that is easy.  I could do it for Democrats in a second.  You must have some bills in mind for Republicans.  If not, you loose.  Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost.  It is way too simple.  Actually, there are a couple.  At least. But I will provide you with one.  
Oh, hell.  Here is one.  I am tired of your endless begging.
A - _B = jobs saved
There.  My job is done.  And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain.  So, me boy, I owed you nothing.  And you got something.  Kind of like getting something for nothing.  Next thing you will be complaining about it._


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That was a really ignorant post.  So you think that the start of the war in Europe should have meant something in terms of the Great Republican Depression????  Me boy, you need to get a grip.  The Great Republican Depression was over twice as big as any recession in our history, and you expect it to go away easily.  And, of course, you would like someone else to take responsibility for the Great Republican Depression.  But, me boy, that will only happen in your conservative little mind.  Or, perhaps, when we find the first successful Libertarian socio-economic country.  Ever, in the existence of EARTH.


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president. Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president.



might as well blame him since liberal interference policies caused  the Great Depression and FDR continued policies of Hoover.


"We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

*Rexford Guy Tugwell*, Roosevelt Advisor


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.



Millions in make work programs and more millions in the military made it seem only to perfect idiots that real unemployment had decreased.

We could always pretend we were at war, draft millions, and liberals fools could proclaim an end to unemployment.


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president.
> ...


Might as well blame Ronald Reagan, using your insanity.


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.
> ...


Military folks are not included in the unemployment rate and related statistics. Don't you know anything Crazy Eddie?


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Ed only posts what he is told to post.  They must have missed the military subject, did not get ed his marching orders on that one.  But yes, ed has no clue.  No brain.  No knowledge.  He just spreads con talking points.


----------



## Rshermr (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So what's the formula, Georgie?  Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?
> ...



A-B=jobs saved?  That's your formula, Georgie?  That's pathetic even for you!

GDP = C + I + G + (X × M)
C = Consumer spending on final goods and services
I = Gross private domestic investment, which includes business investment in capital goods (e.g. plant and equipment) and changes in inventory (inventory investment)
G = Government spending on final goods and services
X = Exports
M = Imports

That's what an economic formula looks like!  Something you SHOULD know if you'd ever taken a class in the subject, which at this point is highly doubtful!  So what does your A stand for?  What does your B stand for?  I'm guessing Asinine Bullshit?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You know it's amazing but in all the history classes I've taken...in all of the history texts that I've read...I've never heard anyone refer to the Great Depression as the Great Republican Depression, Georgie!  It's amazing how you've taken it upon yourself to rewrite American history to match your political beliefs.  You're almost as bad a historian as you are an economist...and that's saying something!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Do you consider Milton Friedman insane, Faun?  He does in fact blame FDR for the longevity of the Great Depression.

The fact is most economists now believe that the Keynesian policies of FDR and the failure of the newly formed FED to respond to the banking crisis led to a worsening of the economic situation.  For some reason that concept hasn't filtered down yet to the general public who know little about economics...you know...like Georgie?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 6, 2016)

You can sit out this part of the discussion if you want, Rshermr...it's all about economics and economic theory...which we've all gathered at this point isn't something you have the faintest idea about!


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Why, Oldstyle, what a nice Formula.  
The Stimulus Act of 2010.  That would be what an actual Bill that could have been that was sponsored by republicans to lower the unemployment rate caused by the great republican recession of 2008,  Thats what an economic bill title looks like! Something even you should know if you'd ever taken a class in the subjet, which at this point is highly doubtful! So wher is the name of your bill?  I'm guessing you just do not have one.  Because you lied.   
Poor boy just does not want to tell the truth, that no such bill ever occurred.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I am just trying my best to give republicans full credit for their work.  But I had no idea that it would cause you a APOPLEXY.  Sorry, me poor ignorant con tool, some times the truth just hurts.
Now rewriting history???  Adding to the name is hardly rewriting anything.  I'l bet in  your next post you will be back to showing what rewriting history looks like!


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



MILTON?  INSANE?  Hardly, me boy.  Milton was a respected economist once.  He went out of favor as other economists determined that he was simply a supply side economist, supporting an economic theory which died out over the years with the help of the great Republican experiment of 1981.  You know, me boy, when supply side economics was proven to be a hoax by Ronald Reagan, when he raised taxes and cut spending, just as Supply Side economics (aka reaganomics) called for, and watched in horror as the ue rate raised to the second highest level un US History..  You remember, before he resorted to Keynesian  principles of increasing spending, which eliminated unemployment. 
People, me boy, believe that EVERY SINGLE THEORY OF ECONOMICS IN THE WORLD is invalid.  Perhaps, me boy, your belief that most economists do not believe in Keynesian policies came from your ass.  Because you forgot to provide a link to proof of your claim.  And, me boy, as a student of history, you are making unsubstantiated claims again.
Now, Milty is about your speed.  He was a Libertarian.  Defined as a person who supports a socio-economic theory that has never worked in the real world.  Nice.  But, as an economist willing to push those concepts he would be well paid by the Koch brothers and their many think tanks.  As any economist with a higher level degree in economics or one of several other degrees has the option of doing, if they are willing to trade on their ethics.
Sorry it has not filtered down to you yet, but milton freedman and his supply side economics have long become about as popular among economists as a fart in church.


----------



## K9Buck (May 7, 2016)

The government is lying.  The unemployment rate is probably 15%.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2016)

K9Buck said:


> The government is lying.  The unemployment rate is probably 15%.


A lot better than Bush's 40% and Reagan's 50%.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > The government is lying.  The unemployment rate is probably 15%.
> ...



The three highest unemployment rates in US History were caused by Republican Regimes:
The Great Republican Depression of 1929
The Great Reagan Recession of 1982
The Great Republican Recession of 2008
Thanks for your post.  Helps to put into context conservative tool posts.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

So Oldstyle, the great economic thinker (in his own mind)  states the following lie, complete with NO link to prove it (for obvious reasons)::
"The fact is most economists now believe that the Keynesian policies of FDR and the failure of the newly formed FED to respond to the banking crisis led to a worsening of the economic situation." 
But, of course, that would be a statement containing lies, and is stupid because Oldstyle is too ignorant of the fact that by the time FDR took office, the Great Republican Depression was well, well underway with ue rates over 25%.  And, given that fact, no monetary policy was capable of doing any real good.  At all.  As anyone with any economic knowledge knows, you can not push on a string.  
*"BREAKING DOWN 'Push On A String'*
If the core demand doesn't exist to induce people to part with their money, it can't be forced through monetary policy. Trying to do so is like trying to "push on a string".
*Such a situation occurred during the Great Depression in the 1930s *and in Japan during the late 1990s when interest rates were about 1%.
Push On A String Definition | Investopedia

You see, the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was a really serious classic *Aggregate Demand *Depression. 
While we wait for the con tool to  provide a link to prove this quote, here is an actual economist' discussion of Oldstyle's favorite economic theory, Supply Side Economics, or Reaganomics:
"The Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business. Republicans understand the needs of business, we are told, and if the country would leave the economy in their hands business would boom. All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators” – more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen. Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.
The *Bush tax cuts* were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party. We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim. The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.
The reality, of course, has been quite different. *There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. *Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. *The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.*
The failure of Republicans to deliver on their promise that tax cuts would be mostly self-financing is a large factor in the deterioration in our long-run fiscal outlook, and it is putting considerable pressure on programs such as Social Security. In fact,* the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.*

To see this, recall that the government began intentionally collecting a surplus from the Social Security program beginning in 1983 in order to prefund the retirement needs of baby boomers. The idea was to run a surplus for several decades while the baby-boomers were still working to get ready for the deficit years the system would experience after they retired.

The revenue from Social Security over and above what was needed to fund payouts reduced the overall government debt and allowed taxes to be lower than they could have been without these surplus funds. For example, the surplus that Bush inherited from the Clinton administration was largely due to the Social Security Trust Fund, and Bush argued it would be better to give this surplus to the private sector through tax cuts than to leave it in the hands of the government.
*But it wasn’t better. The income of the wealthy grew as they pocketed the tax cuts, but workers experienced stagnant wages, a recession that hit working class households particularly hard, and intense pressure to cut important social programs.*

Despite their failed promises, the Republican Party is asking that we extend the tax cuts for the wealthy, and some are even calling for further reductions in tax rates. However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place. The payoffs from tax cuts that were promised during the Bush years have not been realized, and the failed promises about growth and revenue have damaged the health, education, and retirement programs the working class depends upon in our increasingly globalized economy.
A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but it’s rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed.
December 4, 2012    Mark Thoma
Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
Now Oldstyle, my economics lessons are free now.  But I may need to start charging if you keep lying.
And, me boy, another lesson.  I made statements and then supported those statements with links to impartial and expert sources.  See how it is done??  Something that con tools like you almost never do.





[/QUOTE]


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Really?  Then you might want to try explaining that to Ben Bernanke, Rshermr...he holds a different view.

Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression

"Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, _agrees_ with Friedman’s assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.

At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedman’s 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman’s old home base, the University of Chicago. Here’s a bit of what Bernanke, the man who now runs the Fed – and thus, one of the most powerful people in the world – had to say that day:

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. …

Today I’d like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.

… As everyone here knows, in their “Monetary History” Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation’s monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that “the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”

After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Fed’s continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke adds:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous ‘liquidationist’ thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again."


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Anytime you'd like to "support your statement" by providing the formula that Barack Obama's economists used to arrive at their totals for "jobs saved", Georgie...I'd love to see it!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

A - B = Jobs Saved?  That by itself shows what a complete fraud you are!


----------



## chikenwing (May 7, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism.
> ...


What ?? 8 year recession,rewrite history alittle?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




He prolonged it, so yeah he owns it.

The only thing "Great" about it was how deeply the Soviets were able to penetrate the FDR Administration


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

AND NOW, ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT, is the con troll introducing an article from a far right bat shit crazy con web site.  About a far right conservative by the name of Bernanke, well known for nut case views originally appointed by republicans as the head of the Fed.  
Lets see what we have on Kupelian, your "source":
*#221: David Kupelian*
Kupelian is *Managing Editor of WorldNetDaily, *boldly assrting that the WorldNetDaily “serves as your watchdog on government 365 days year. We guaard your priceless freedoms by aggressively exposing corruption and evil everywhere, and by championing good.” *His contributions are sufficiently batshit insane to have made it even to **whale*.to. His book is “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom” – the topic is, predictably, “*how atheism is being sold to the US*”, containing nuggets such as the “sexual revolution” being really a (covert) action to promote pedophilia. Really, the mantra of the book is “ze gays are coming, ze gays are coming!”. In general, Kupelian is simply shocked that people like Hitchens, Harris and Stenger are allowed to publish books in the Christian Nation that is the US.
*A valiant fighter in the war against strawmen, Kupelian was also avidly worried about what would happen to the US if a Democrat was elected president in 2008 (“How Hillary will lead America to Hell”* was his slightly less than reality-based WorldNetDaily screeddiscussing such topics). “The damage that will occur to America if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected president will go far beyond what we can rationally anticipate on the policy level,” says Kupelian. Since, as he says, we can't rationally anticipate the horrible damage Hillary will do to the country, he proceeds to irrationally anticipate those damages (hat-tip to Ed Brayton).
He is also the originator of the following, glorious quote: “Sex is sacred. For millennia, this biblical principle was the bedrock moral value of the Western World.”
*Diagnosis: Reality-challenged (well, batshit insane) wingnut who seems positively shallow even when compared to his boss, the clinically insane Joseph Farah. Kupelian is not without impact, and that fact is pretty darn scary.*
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #221: David Kupelian

Then, published in Worldnet Daily
_*WND*_ (_*WorldNetDaily*_) is a politically conservative web site in the United States.[2] It was founded in May 1997 byJoseph Farah with the stated intent of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power".[3]_WND_ has been *active in promoting a number of conspiracy theories, including Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.*
WorldNetDaily - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, as I have said over and over, you spend your time with bat shit crazy con web sites.  Which, me boy, makes your posts meaningless.  Thanks for so clearly exposing yourself.
I see you learned nothing from me when I taught you about using only impartial sources.  But it is so much easier if you can use bat shit crazy conservative talking points and sources.  Tacky.  You are wasting peoples time with this drivel.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?





Oldstyle said:


> Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?


Milton Fiedman, a discredited Libertarian or Bernanke, widely discredited as Helicopter Ben for his published belief in Helicopter Money.  Nice sources.  And so impartial.
Or a phd from  a different college than you know, called the University of Oregon.  Impartial and well known author.  
Or several hundred economists, me boy.  Take your pick. No one, except con tools take agenda driven sources and pretend that they are useful.  Makes you look, uh, like a con tool.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Anytime you'd like to "support your statement" by providing the formula that Barack Obama's economists used to arrive at their totals for "jobs saved", Georgie...I'd love to see it!


No, oldstyle.  You would not love to see it.  Obviously.  All you have to do is produce the name of a bill offered by republicans for the purpose of decreasing the great republican recession of 2008.  As I have said since the beginning.  Or, alternatively, simply admit that the republicans in congress brought no such bill forward, and therefor had no interest at all in shortening the recession they created.
No one's fault at all that you can not get the formula and it's definition.  Just you, me boy.  Just you.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And thanks so much for your conspiracy theory.  I will be sure to file it with the many, many others, all discredited, by conservatives. Damn commies


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Anytime you'd like to "support your statement" by providing the formula that Barack Obama's economists used to arrive at their totals for "jobs saved", Georgie...I'd love to see it!
> ...



A-B=Jobs Saved?  What is the definition of A, Georgie?  What is the definition of B?  That had to hurt when you pulled that nonsense out of your ass!  What's sad is that you think you can hide your abject ignorance about economics and economic formulas behind your demand to know why the GOP couldn't pass legislation when Harry Reid tabled what they sent over to the Senate and President Obama repeatedly stalled the Keystone Pipeline bill by refusing to sign off on it.

I can't "get" the formula because it doesn't exist!  They made up those numbers.  They set the baseline at what they needed to get a number that sounded good and then trotted that fiction out as fact.  Anyone with a clue understood that right from the start.  Only lemmings like yourself were taken in by their creative accounting.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?
> ...



Mark Thoma is "impartial"?  Really?  And "well known"?  I've never heard of the man yet I'm supposed to take HIS word over the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist?  You're back on your pain killers again...aren't you?


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The economists you are talking about are not are not Obama's , me boy.  Perhaps you think that, dipshit, because you are living in the bat shit crazy con web sites like the one you recently used as a source.  And we made a deal, me boy.  You show me the legislation meant to help the unemployment rate caused by the great republican recession.
Now, I know, being a con, you could care less that millions of people were suffering as hundreds of thousands per month were laid off and were then out of work.  I know, that being a con, you supported the ending of unemployment for those unemployed, and could care less that they suffered.  And I know, that being a con, all that you did was attack the obama administration 24/7/365, and could care less about the legislation they did bring forward to lower the unemployment created by the great republican Recession. 
And I am sure you support the efforts by house and senate leaders to block every single thing Obama did.  Every bill.  Every nomination.  Everything.  Regardless of the condition of the the middle class.  Because, of course, the republicans cared only about their own power, and that of their monied benefactors. 
So, you will do what you think you need and you will say what you think you need to say to get what the conservative bosses want.  Because you are stupid.  And you could care less.
"TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, _The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era_. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”"
The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com
And, if you cared about the millions in the middle class, you would not worry about a formula.  You would, however, worry about what your congressmen are doing to try and help.  What their bill is.  But you do not care.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, you say you went to college.  I will take your word for that.  But how, then, do you end up not knowing the requirement for sources in a debate???  Or about rules of Journalism.  Is it just that you are stupid?  Even most stupid people understand impartiality, and truth.  You seem not to understand.  You can not bring yourself to use an unbiased source.  Jesus, does the degree of your stupid hurt.
That you have not heard of mark thoma is because he does not publish in the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse.  He is not popular with conservative troll bosses.  He is a PhD Economist, and my bet is that you have not YET read his bio.  Your knowledge of economist phd's is pretty much limited to PhD's who are also Libertarians.  Which, again, makes you ignorant.  But you do believe in Libertarian PhD's who you have heard of.  Even if they publish in WorldNetDaily, because you have heard of them.  Does your level of stupid hurt???


----------



## sealybobo (May 7, 2016)

chikenwing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > IsaacNewton said:
> ...


Things were never quite good 2000-2012. You may blame 9-11, dot.com bubble bursting freddy mac the wars, NAFTA, all the illegals, stagnant wages, offshoring outsourcing millions of manufacturing jobs going away increasing gas and insurance costs.

What years between the dot.com bust and Bush's great recession were great? Maybe they were great for oil manufacturers and healthcare giants but not the middle class.


----------



## sealybobo (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?


Who am I going to believe about global warming the scientists employed by corporations that pollute or the other 97% who aren't paid to lie.

If the fed reserve is corrupt I wouldn't believe the guys who run it


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?
> ...


Please, Oldstyle, at least have the lack of ignorance for a moment to understand that Thoma is not at OREGON STATE. 
Yup.  Unless you have to understand, I guess, that Oldstyle is a simple con tool.  They do not think for themselves.  There are people who develop  their talking points, tell them whom to believe, what to believe, who to be angry with, who to attack, etc.  You always know what a con is going to say if you know the subject he is going to rant about.  Simple.  And you are correct.  One of the things cons are not to believe is global climate change.  They believe the energy company scientists and management.  And they attack the scientists who actually study the subject and try to keep us informed. 
Because, of course, that is what cons do.  They do what they are told, and believe what they are told.  And that, of course, is EXACTLY what Oldstyle does, and what he IS.  That is exactly what con tools want.  For thinking people that would be really a bad life style.  For con's it is a great way to live.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Who's a "thinking" person...someone who looks at the Obama Administration's use of a totally arbitrary "jobs saved" number and accepts it as fact...or someone who shakes their head and asks...what formula did you use to arrive at that number?

I don't put stock in statistics who's only purpose is to mislead, Georgie...I was taught in college to question things.  I'm not sure what YOU were taught in college!  A-B=Jobs Saved?  You're an embarrassment to whatever place of higher learning you "claim" to have a degree from!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You're a joke.  You whine about sources?  I quoted a speech given by Ben Bernanke.  It's not an opinion piece in a college professor's blog.  It's Bernanke's actual words.  

Then you turn around and use TIME?  Seriously?  TIME is in the process of going down the tubes because it's no longer viewed as credible.  Why?  Because it's Editor in Chief decided to give it a far left slant...that's why!  They started bleeding readers at such a rate that TIME is now a journalistic afterthought.  Nobody reads TIME now because nobody (except lemmings like yourself) puts much stock in their journalistic integrity anymore!


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I quoted a speech given by Ben Bernanke. *It's not an opinion piece* in a college professor's blog. *It's Bernanke's actual words.*


Stating his OPINION!!!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Who's a "thinking" person...someone who looks at the Obama Administration's use of a totally arbitrary "jobs saved" number and accepts it as fact...or someone who shakes their head and asks...what formula did you use to arrive at that number?
> 
> I don't put stock in statistics who's only purpose is to mislead, Georgie...I was taught in college to question things.  I'm not sure what YOU were taught in college!  A-B=Jobs Saved?  You're an embarrassment to whatever place of higher learning you "claim" to have a degree from!



A thing person is someone who is not you.  The formula is A-B=C, where A = the population of people, B= the population of thinking people, and C is the population that includes Oldstyle.  B includes the people who utilize impartial sources, C includes the people who use sources with an agenda.  
I did not need to be taught to question things, me boy.  I understood that.  And, like all people who actually think, I do not waste my time with sources that have agendas.  Wastes too much time, since you must vet them so carefully.  
Relative to my claim, I give you the option to accept my bet and prove me wrong, or pay me.  Your choice, me poor ignorant con tool.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Who's a "thinking" person...someone who looks at the Obama Administration's use of a totally arbitrary "jobs saved" number and accepts it as fact...or someone who shakes their head and asks...what formula did you use to arrive at that number?
> 
> Well, Oldstyle,  I do see why you would have a hard time with the concept of thinking person.  It is not you, me boy.  You do not need to think.  You simply accept what you are told.  So simple.
> Thinking people are the many who do not listen to those with agendas.  For instance, you.  Or Bernanke, Or  Libertarian Supply Side economists of any name.  But rather listen to those with expertise who do not have giant, obvious agendas.  Like the CBO.  Dipshit.
> The CBO which has been looked at for decades as being unbiased now has had republicans remove the director and insert a partisan conservative as director.  Should make you happy.  And all thinking people quite worried.


----------



## Faun (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Why would anyone care what a conservative economist thinks about FDR's Liberal policies? Anyone can look back at that period and contend anything. It's completely meaningless and unprovable.

What remains, however, is the insanity of calling it FDR's Great Depression given it started years earlier under Republican leadership and years of Republican policies; and grew worse with every passing year under Republicans until Democrats took over. Color me surprised that Conservatives want to rewrite history 80 years later to blame those who cleaned up that massive pile of Republican dung.


----------



## Faun (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Cute how you're trying to change the discussion... which is about it being the "FDR Great Depression." Where did Bernanke say that?


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That would be your opinion.  The opinion of a moron.  it was a speech that was another con giving a big wet kiss to his buddy on his 90th birthday.  So, believe what you want.  You are a con, doing what cons do.  Believing what  you want to believe.  From agenda driven sources.   You will never be anything but a moron, because you are at your base a con tool.  And  you want to believe things that match your agenda. 
 And to con tools, the only sources that are valid are the bat shit crazy con sites and sources you use.  Like worldnetdaily which makes The Enquirer look like a journalistic haven.  I mean, how can you prove you are more of a clown than to quote worldnetdaily, me boy.  I mean, JESUS.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


That great conservative journalistic rag, WorldNetDaily.  Oldstyle found it while perusing bat shit crazy con web sites.  I mean, why use a rational source when you can use a source like wnd.  Then, the boy suggests that by useing Time, it was I that was using agenda driven sources.  Poor stupid moron.


----------



## Rshermr (May 7, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I quoted a speech given by Ben Bernanke. *It's not an opinion piece* in a college professor's blog. *It's Bernanke's actual words.*
> ...


In a bat shit crazy conservative web source, known by everyone as a total agenda piece.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why would anyone care?  Quite simply...it's a reexamination of the limitations of Keynesian Economic Theory after eighty years of practice.  It's a reexamination of what caused the Great Depression to linger as long as it did and a questioning of whether FDR's policies made things better or delayed the recovery.  Milton Friedman isn't just any conservative economist!  He's a Nobel Prize winner who is considered the second most important economist (behind Keynes) of modern times.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Georgie STILL can't come up with the economic formula used to determine "jobs saved"...because he's finally figured out that it's a number that's total bullshit...hence the "A-B=Jobs Saved"...which is him waving a white flag of surrender!


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



And being a con, Oldstyle atackes those things that as a con troll he has to attack, because he has the con talking points.  So he attacks 24/7/365 and expects anyone to take him seriously.  Why, did you know that obama has done nothing good in his 7 years?  Are you surprised that oldstyle makes attacks on any economic theory that is not supply side or Reaganomics.  And he expects to be taken seriously.  Hates labor unions.  Hates minimum wage.  Hates economic stimulus.  Does not believe in global warming warnings of Scientists.  States there are no Socialist Nations that are successful.  Attacks H. Clinton over Benghazi, though the many trials brought on by republican congressmen have found *ZERO *laws broken.  
And you can go on, for stupid issue over stupid issue.  Because that is what Oldstyle has been told.  And here, he says that the FDR recession was slow, and he is just re-examining why it lingered as long as it did:
Lets see.  The fact is, that:  1. For the first 4 years, the ue rate dropped faster than at any time in the history of the US.
2.  That until the end of the Great Republican Recession, the ue rate dropped slower, but overall, from start to end, it dropped FASTER than for any other Recession.
3.  The drop in the ue rate was overall greater than for any downturn in us history, by a mile.
4.  That the ue rate went up in 1937 only after FDR bent to the pressure of conservatives and slowed stimulus efforts for a year in 1936,
So, Oldstyle does not care about economic history.  At all.  Obviously.  He just cares about conservative talking points, and attacking 24/7/365.  

It may seem odd that oldstyle did not want to reexamine why the FDR reduction in the ue rate was so large and so successful. Or why the great republican depression was so massive.  Or what ACTUALLY went wrong.  Instead of attacking FDR and regurgitating talking points. That is because he is unwilling to consider the truth.  No facts for oldstyle.  No discussion of the actual economy.  Just conservative talking points.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Georgie STILL can't come up with the economic formula used to determine "jobs saved"...because he's finally figured out that it's a number that's total bullshit...hence the "A-B=Jobs Saved"...which is him waving a white flag of surrender!



So, oldstyle, you are *LYING AGAIN.*  Like you always do.  With no shame of any kind.  I offered to provide you with the formula on the condition that you provide the proof of a bill that republicans brought forward to lower the misery caused by the great republican recession of 2008. 
Now, had you done so, I would have kept my promise.  That you did not is you, me boy, admitting that you can not show that the republicans ever brought any such bill forward, and that they could care less about the middle class.  And it proves that you lie, over and over, not willing to admit what is out there in my post in black and white, offering your formula on a condition you can not keep.
It must be awful to have no integrity.
Further, me conservative troll, it proves the obvious.  That republican congress representatives and senators did not do what they were elected to do.  They did not do what would have been decent.  That they only cared about their wealthy benefactors, and not at all about the middle class.
JUST LIKE YOU, oldstyle.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The Nobel Prize in economics has been awarded 71 times.  Just wondering why you would pick a discredited economist who is a Libertarian, believing in a system that has never worked to produce a successful socio-economic system in the history of the earth?  Odd, how you choose your economists.  Perfectly in line with the favorites of the bat shit crazy con web sites.  
Three Nobel Prize winners in particular have identified themselves with libertarianism: F.A. Hayek,Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan.

And, coincidentally, oldstyle picks one


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Georgie STILL can't come up with the economic formula used to determine "jobs saved"...because he's finally figured out that it's a number that's total bullshit...hence the "A-B=Jobs Saved"...which is him waving a white flag of surrender!
> ...



You are so full of shit, Georgie!  Why would you even need need "conditions"?  You should be chomping at the bit to show us all the formula used to determine "jobs saved" to prove you're right.  But you're not?  So why is that?  Because you need an excuse for not showing what you said you would?  Who do you think you fool with your bluster?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Friedman is "discredited"?  By who?  You?  Someone who pretends to have an economics degree on the internet?  Milton Friedman was described by Paul Krugman as one of the economic giants of the 20th century...even if Krugman doesn't agree with all of his economic theories and is about a far left as they come...yet YOU have decided that Friedman is discredited because he believed in the ability of free markets to correct themselves.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Have you even read Friedman's book?  I don't know how you could have graduated with a degree in economics when you did and NOT have had that work as part of your curriculum...yet you don't seem to understand anything that Friedman was saying about what took place back in the 1930's.  How can that be?  Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you only PRETEND to have gotten a degree in economics and to have taught the subject at the college level!  There's no reason why you would have read one of the seminal books on the subject...one that was at the very center of economic debate during that time period!


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, me boy.  I want you to answer my question.  I could care less about your stated need to see a formula.  That, of course, is just you being a dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Now, now oldstyle.  I gave you your chance to prove I do not have an econ degree.  But you, being a simple con tool, have no balls.  None.  A person who believed what he said (decidedly NOT YOU) would take the bet.  But, being a simple con coward, you do not.  But, on the other hand, you are funny.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

I already answered your question.  You asked for one bill the GOP House passed that would have created jobs.  I gave you two.  

So when were you going to keep your word and provide the formula for determining "jobs saved"?

We both know that will never happen, Georgie!  Your A-B=Jobs Saved proved just how clueless you are on the subject!  All you're doing now is desperately trying to come up with some way to save face.  Don't you get tired of being embarrassed on this board for being the poser that you are?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

You prove that you never got a degree in economics with every post that you make dealing with that subject, Georgie!  A-B=Jobs Saved?  That's your economic "knowledge" in a nutshell!  NON-EXISTENT!!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No georgie here.  What are you selling, dipshit?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

How about this formula?

Rshermr + Economics = George Costanza "Architect".


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I already answered your question.  You asked for one bill the GOP House passed that would have created jobs.  I gave you two.
> 
> So when were you going to keep your word and provide the formula for determining "jobs saved"?
> 
> We both know that will never happen, Georgie!  Your A-B=Jobs Saved proved just how clueless you are on the subject!  All you're doing now is desperately trying to come up with some way to save face.  Don't you get tired of being embarrassed on this board for being the poser that you are?



Well, as you know, there was a simple, and I mean a really simple, condition.  You can not keep it, because republicans did not try to help get out of the very mess they created, the Great Republican Recession.  So, me boy, because you keep acting like what you are (a little person wanting to be a conservative troll) I see no reason to help  you at all.  I keep educating you, and you keep lying.  Sad.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> How about this formula?
> 
> Rshermr + Economics = George Costanza "Architect".



I have a 14 year old grandson.  Much more mature, and much smarter than  you.  In his words, you are a retard.  Even at his age, he sees making constanza comments as just plain stupid.  
Now, this is also stupid:  Oldstyle X Rational Thought  = 0.  But then, it is true.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> How about this formula?
> 
> Rshermr + Economics = George Costanza "Architect".





Oldstyle said:


> How about this formula?
> 
> Rshermr + Economics = George Costanza "Architect".





Oldstyle said:


> How about this formula?
> 
> Rshermr + Economics = George Costanza "Architect".


So, Oldstyle, apparently you are incapable of anything close to economic argument.  You are posting worthless post after worthless post.  So, it does not bother me in the slightest.  But I rather believe it is annoying to others on this board  And I am sure you could care less.  
You are incapable of conversation, or debate, me boy.  Totally.  And your insults are getting old.  As of now, in deference to others who may want to actually engage in discussion about the subject of this thread, you are now officially on ignore.  Knock yourself out with your drivel, me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > How about this formula?
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Friedman lost nearly all credibility when his theories were tested by Ronald Reagan, and the great tax cut which created the second worst ue rate in history,  Then further by the stimulus of W, which failed to do anything at all.  Not sure where you were, me boy.  All really well known parts of economic history.  
And see yet why you will be the only person I put on ignore?


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

Anyone who believes the Jobless claims fell knowing that millions of unemployed people are no longer counted belongs in a mental institution


----------



## pinqy (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Anyone who believes the Jobless claims fell knowing that millions of unemployed people are no longer counted belongs in a mental institution


Why? I would love to hear your explanation of the relationship.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > How about this formula?
> ...


So basically you've run out of excuses why you can't provide the formula...you're embarrassed to once again be shown to be the poser that you are...so you're going to go to the "official ignore"?  Same old, Georgie!!!


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

pinqy said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who believes the Jobless claims fell knowing that millions of unemployed people are no longer counted belongs in a mental institution
> ...



Mongo

There are still millions of people unemployed who don't file anymore because UC is only 26 weeks.    Did you know that you are you just a fool?


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Ohhh, he's a Nobel prize winner?

So's Obama.

He's still among those Conservatives trying to rewrite history. His claims are nothing but theory and in no way, represent reality. Americans, by and large, agreed with FDR's policies as they re-elected him 3 times until he died.

So yeah... who cares what a conservative economist thinks about Liberal policies. It's often conservative policies which trashes the economy.


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Oh, my. You don't even know the jobless claims figure which fell is based on new claims filed, not those whose benefits expired.

No wonder you look like such an imbecile.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yeah, but Milton Friedman actually did something to earn his Nobel Prize...Barry got his for showing up!

Let's be honest here, Faun...the Obama Nobel Peace Prize is something the Nobel Committee probably wishes they could have a do-over on!


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




Don't take this the wrong way but you are a STUPID MUTHERFUCKER


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




So you think people all over the country are finding jobs in 26 weeks?   You a special kind of stupid


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Yikes! You're even dumber than I thought. 

I never said that.

What I did say was ... the fall in jobless claims was for new claims filed. You're such an idiot, you thought it was for unemployed folks whose benefits ran out.


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The people who UC claims ran out are still not counted so it's FRAUDULENT NUMBERS MUTHERFUCKER


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Yeah, that really hurts coming from the moron who think initial jobless claims fell because others have been collecting for 26 weeks.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Since I didn't post that...I guess the special kind of stupid might be you, Faun...just saying!  LOL


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


How can you correlate figures for unknowns?

Come on..I know you can figure this one out....


Need help?



By using the algebraic completing the cube formula..


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Maybe you can help out Rshermr and provide us with the economic formula that the Obama folks used to come up with their number of "jobs saved"?  Or are you good with his A-B=Jobs Saved?


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh, now this is fun.

The drop in initial  jobless claims has nothing to do with that.

You're so stupid, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Maybe you can help out Rshermr and provide us with the economic formula that the Obama folks used to come up with their number of "jobs saved"?  Or are you good with his A-B=Jobs Saved?


Did you drop out of junior high?


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You're as dumb as fbj to think my reply was meant for you and not for him.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you can help out Rshermr and provide us with the economic formula that the Obama folks used to come up with their number of "jobs saved"?  Or are you good with his A-B=Jobs Saved?
> ...


Nope...got through that...then High School...a degree in History from UMass.  So did you want to help the board's George Costanza out and show us what that formula would be for determining "jobs saved"?


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Oh the initial fell because someone got a low paying job at Trickey D's

BYE


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Don't get your undies in a bunch, Faun...I knew it wasn't for me.  I was giving you a little dig!  My, but you progressives are sensitive today!


----------



## pinqy (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Right, but this thread is about NEW jobless claims. So it doesn't matter how long anyone receives benefits.
During the week ending April 16, there were a seasonally adjusted 248,000 new applications for state unemployment insurance benefits. That is a record low.

For that same week, a total of 2,198,093 collected benefits from federal and state agencies. 

And in the 4 weeks ending then, 7.9 million people unsuccessfully looked for work and a further 5.8 million said they wanted a job but weren't looking for one.

Now, what are you thinking I don't understand, or are you going to just insult me?


----------



## Moonglow (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I learned how to do algebra in jr. high, I thought maybe you did also..


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

pinqy said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




In the words of my grandmom..........."NOTHING BUT LIES"


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Anyone who believes the Jobless claims fell knowing that millions of unemployed people are no longer counted belongs in a mental institution




well it seems that unemployment is down to good levels even if you include many versions of the unemployed statistics. The real problem is that incomes are way down thanks to Obamanomics.


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Another nonsensical claim you can't prove. But then again -- until I educated you on the matter, you actually _thought_ that figure fell because people already collecting unemployment benefits exhausted their 26 weeks.

Even funnier was you saying anyone who believes the drop in jobs claim "belongs in a mental institution," *when you didn't even know that figure is based on initial jobs claims, not exhausted benefits claims*.


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Huh? Given it was you who posted that -- it is entirely plausible you thought I meant it for you.


----------



## Muhammed (May 8, 2016)

Detroit has has one of the most horrible unemployment rates in the country. 

So why do LWNJs want to send thousands of immigrants fro Syria there?


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

pinqy said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


He has no fucking clue what he's yappin' about. At this point, he actually believes if he hurls enough insults, that will somehow make him appear less retarded than he already looks.

He didn't realize that figure was based on initial claims filed. He thinks it's the number of people claiming unemployment benefits.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



In any case Barry's recovery is worst since Great Depression. Here what Bill Clinton said: “The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


If truth, facts, and reality were on your side, Crazy Eddie, you wouldn't have to lie like you do.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




so Bill Clinton is lying to hurt his wives  chances of becoming president??

Here what Bill Clinton said: “The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


You can read charts, can't ya, Crazy Eddie? What does the chart I posted tell you?


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You do make some incredibly amusing posts.   May I quote on that was so good, there was no reason to read further.

"_*There are indeed formulas, or at least one.  But no, I will not show it to you."*_
NO ONE could make these things up!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



are you saying that Bill Clinton was mistaken and so trying to hurt his wife???

“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Bill Clinton can say whatever he likes, just as you or I can. What I'm saying is the actual figures prove your claim to be abject nonsense.

You would know that if you knew how to read a chart. But sadly.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.  Still waiting, me boy.



100% stupid and liberal!!! new inventions create new jobs not new bills !!!! 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Bill Clinton can say whatever he likes..



I didn't ask if he could say what he likes. I asked if he was mistaken and hurting his wife's chances of winning. 


Bill Clinton:
“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



^ a box of rocks can beat him at Rock, paper scissors


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



There was another depression, one in 1921 which was equal to or worse than that of 1929.  The Republican President, Warren G. Harding did nothing.  The Depression ended in 18 months.

Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.

That is not re-writing history, that is FACT.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Franklin Roosevelt, through his Socialist, draconian policies extended the Great Depression by seven years.


why only 7?? Stupid liberal policies cause a world war and that ends a depression? Really, the war created even worse economic times and so the Depression did not end until FDR thankfully died!


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Yep, me poor ignorant con, quite special.  As in lives in the real world.  As opposed to you, who spends his time in the world of bat shit crazy con web sites.  So stupid, me boy, that you did not noticed that you just got  crushed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> So stupid, me boy, that you did not noticed that you just got  crushed.



socialism killed 120 million so how can a socialist crush anyone except in his own mind?


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs?  Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...
> ...



I am well aware that this is going to come as a SHOCK to you and your Cabal.

ALL construction jobs are temporary.  I know? Who'd have thought??  All pipeline workers are fully aware (I know, this is SHOCKING to you too)  that the pipeline they are working on will be...FINISHED.  At that point, they move on to another pipeline.  The same is true about each and every other pipeline and INFRUCTURE JOB...pushed by Lame Duck President Obama.  How is building a road, and completing a road any different than the Keystone Pipeline?

As you know too, transporting the tar sands, from one end of the country to the other, is far less expensive by way of a pipeline than by railroad.  The pipeline is also a much SAFER method of transporting the product than railroad tankers.


----------



## pinqy (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


And what makes you think that? Have you actually studied the matter or is it just a knee-jerk reaction?


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Not true.  As you know but live in constant illusion.


----------



## fbj (May 8, 2016)

pinqy said:


> fbj said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




Anything to make it look like the RETARD named Obama is doing a great job


----------



## rdean (May 8, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


The truth is if anyone were to go after a particular city, it certainly wouldn't be Detroit.  We know why and how Detroit was savaged.


----------



## rdean (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


Clearly the guy is brilliant.  He tore up the GOP at their retreat.  Republicans, the stupidest party on earth can't believe a black guy could be smart.  And yet, they believe in such nonsense as trickle down and a young earth. No wonder they are mocked the world over.  And I have only one word for that odious party             ---------------          Trump.


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



As you too know, FDR EXTENDED the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> As you too know, FDR EXTENDED the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS.



I'd say, till 1945 so thats 12 years, make-work jobs in the military don't really count. Even today we have very good unemployment numbers but real income is down just as it was during WW2. If we agree to 7 years we are agreeing to the whole liberal stimulus prime the pump idiocy!


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



You certainly are boring!


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You stated...and I quote:  "till 1945 so thats 12 years, make-work jobs in the military don't really count. Even today we have very good unemployment numbers but real income is down just as it was during WW2."

What fantasy world do you exist in?


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Well, me boy, hardly fact.  The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing.  Not a aggregate demand based recession.  It was a simple downturn that cured itself pretty much before anyone noticed it.  It was looked at by economists as an adjustment after WWI.
Now here is the thing.  What harding did was, as you say, nothing.  the Fed helped some, but had to do little.
Now the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was something quite different.  It did not come and go in 18 months.  It was indeed a aggregate demand depression.
And, the new president in power, Hoover, Tried the Harding methodology.  You love it, of course.  It is called DO NOTHING.  Problem was, while harding was faced with an end of war adjustment, Hoover had a fully created no shit depression.  And he sat and watched as the ue rate went from around 3.5% to 25%.  LIKE A ROCKET.  He watched as people starved, me boy.  It was desperation time.  Even he, in the end of his term, sent bills to congress to provide stimulus.  You know, what economists who are not brain dead suggest.  And those stimulus requests were the basis of what happened over the next several years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> What fantasy world do you exist in?



where is the error?


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That would be your opinion, me boy, and you know how much I value your opinion.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> , Hoover, Tried the Harding methodology.  You love it, of course.  It is called DO NOTHING.



NOTHING????????????

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1] 
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

*Rexford Guy Tugwell*, Roosevelt Advisor 

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State?  You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one!  Duh?
> ...



You're joking, are you not?  The 97% is BOGUS and any of them are PAID TO LIE.  No Global Warming Scam, NO MONEY FOR BOGUS RESEARCH.


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Progressives are always angry and have no sense of humor whatsoever.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



He did not.  But his policies reduced unemployment by more than any other president in american history.  And, as opposed to republicans, he stopped a great deal of human suffering.  Which, I know, you do not care about.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh, absolutely.  Do not believe scientists.  They try to provide facts.  Believe republican politicians, paid by the energy industry.  Now, why would they want to lie.  Like rugs.  And no, me poor stupid con tool, the 97% is a true number.


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The fact of the matter is if a worker is doing the same job, with the same production and value to an employer 15 years ago, there is no reason for them to have improved their living standards or income one cent beyond what inflation has done.

I don't understand how what former President Bill Clinton would hurt Hillary Clinton.  Lame Duck President Obama is responsible for the wreck of the economy.  Former Secretary of State, along with President Obama together are responsible for the total SNAFU in the world centered on President Obama's massive failure in Iraq and Libya.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually that is just your opinion, not backed by anything at all.  Now, studies suggest something quite different:
*New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist*
New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.  Still waiting, me boy.
> ...



I'm not sure why folks respond to the childish rantings of Rshermr.  Certainly he must know better and is simply playing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I pity the electrons I waste replying to you


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Well, I don't really think he's playing. He's a socialist and makes about as much sense as any socialist. They simple lack the intelligence to understand capitalism so what they say is little more than gibberish but to them it passes for thinking.


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Are you just trying to prove that study I posted. about conservatives being angry??
How about these:
*5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid*
5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid

Or, we could watch a trump rally.  Or, we could just look at the CLOWN CAR that was the republican presidential candidates.  Or, we could just read your posts.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> How about these:
> *5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid*
> 5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid
> 
> Or, we could watch a trump rally.  Or, we could just look at the CLOWN CAR that was the republican presidential candidates.  Or, we could just read your posts.



The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. and M.D. (Oct 30, 2006)
(60 customer reviews)


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > How about these:
> ...





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


And that, me boy, is your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinon, dipshit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened*



How can poor folks get more money when liberals have attacked their families, schools, and religion?? And when they have driven our corporations out with the highest taxes in world?


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > How about these:
> ...


I post studies.  Actual studies, me poor ignorant con tool.  And you post a 10 year old book written by a conservative aurhor.  You loose,  I could give you 100 books about conservative stupidity.  But I believe the authors are all questionable.  But then, being a con, you do not care or understand.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> And that, me boy, is your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinon, dipshit.



but you value socialism after it slowly starved 120 million to death so we know how good your values are.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I could give you 100 books about conservative stupidity.



if our founders were stupid for wanting  freedom from big liberal govt and using that idea to create the greatest country in human history please tell us why. Thanks


----------



## pinqy (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > fbj said:
> ...


So, knee-jerk reaction. It's ok...you can admit it. Nobody thinks you had an actual argument or evidence.


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Wow...here are your words:  "Well, me boy, hardly fact.  The downturn of 1921 was an odd little thing."

So now a DEPRESSION is an odd little thing when handled correctly, BUT the 2008 RECESSION, handled abysmally... is the fault of President Bush, eight years later when we have yet to recover.


----------



## Dale Smith (May 8, 2016)

rdean said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




That is the best that you could come up with? I gave you a gold mine of information and that was the best you had? It proves to me that you don't have a fucking clue as to the gravity of the situation and the level of fraud.....typical for a leftard that is in total denial.


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

From UCLA at Berkley.  EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America
*
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate*

By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[…]

*"We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."*

[…]

"We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

[…]

*"Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."*


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

I have emphasized two particularly interesting sentences in the study which make note of exactly what we should NOT do in the event of another Depression or Recession .  Exactly what DID Lame Duck President Obama and his cabal do?


----------



## edthecynic (May 8, 2016)

fbj said:


> The people who UC claims ran out are still not counted


That's a lie!


----------



## Rshermr (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Not at all.  Depressions are a fairly large deal.  But this was a recession, me boy.  No one, except a few conservative nut cases, cal this anomaly a depression.  And, it does not meet the general requirements.  It was1.  Much too short, lasting under 18 months and 2. Unemployment rates were way short of depression levels.  In addition, the decrease in GNP was relatively small, way short of depression levels.

*The Causes of the Recession of 1920–1921*

O’Brien (1997) and Samuelson (1943: 47–50) present some useful analysis of the causes of the recession of 1920–1921, the US downturn that lasted from January 1920 to July 1921 (or for some 18 months).

First, I summarise the arguments of O’Brien.

According to O’Brien, the* short recession* beginning in August 1918 appears to have been the result of conversion from wartime to peacetime production, and only lasted 7 months (O’Brien 1997: 151).

*The mildness of this recession and the mild deflation appear to have boosted business and consumer confidence *(O’Brien 1997: 152).

The increased confidence, together with the pent up demand for consumption goods and capital goods, led in 1919 to a boom in residential construction, fixed investment and automobiles (O’Brien 1997: 152).

*What set off the recession in 1920 was the following factors1)* early in 1920 there were de*clines in sales, particularly textile products and iron and steel; *

*(2)* *continued cuts to government spending and government purchases in 1919;*

*(3)* exports declined by 20% between the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1920;

*(4)* *the Federal Reserve raised discounts rates to 4.75% in late 1919, and then 6% in early 1920. The New York Federal Reserve even raised its discount rate to 7% on 1 June, 1920. This caused a contraction in business and consumer credit,* and

*(5)* *since many businesses had accumulated raw materials and intermediate goods in the expectation of further inflation, when the recession struck they suffered heavy losses and in order to reduce inventory they cut production sharply *(O’Brien 1997: 152).T*hus a major part of the recession was a contraction in business investment and production to liquidate excess inventory.*

To this extent, 1920–1921 was somewhat like post-1945 “inventory” recessions, in which contractions were partly the result of previous and excessive inventory accumulation and then the subsequent liquidation of this stock (Sorkin 1997: 569).

Next, we turn to Samuelson. According to Samuelson (1943: 47–50), demobilisation was largely finished by the first half of 1919, and one year after the armistice of November 1918 4 million men had been discharged (Samuelson 1943: 47).

As an aside, we can note that unemployment was already rising in 1919, as can be seen in the graph below (from Weir’s [1992] unemployment estimates).





So the rise in unemployment in 1920 and 1921 came on top of the previous unemployment caused by demobilisation.

Samuelson (1943: 48–49) further argues that the boom of 1919 was very much dependent on continued government spending, even if that spending was falling.

Just as O’Brien, Samuelson emphasises the role of business confidence and inventory accumulation in 1919:“Not knowing the troublesome times ahead, the private business community greeted peace with optimism. As the spring of 1919 wore on, sales increased in retail lines such as clothing for returning soldiers, household goods, etc. With the removal of price controls, the wholesale price index began to rise, in the end soaring from the final war level of around 200, on a prewar base, to almost 250. This set off a wave of inventory accumulation, or attempted accumulation, which formed a substantial fraction of total offsets to savings; and the paper increase in inventory values was considerably greater.

From its nature this was an unhealthy base upon which to erect a boom. Price increases led to attempted inventory accumulation, further accentuating the price increases. But it was not enough for prices to stay at these abnormal levels; once they ceased to rise, or leveled off, the whole structure had to collapse.” (Samuelson 1943: 49).So both O’Brien and Samuelson have a broadly similar story on the cause of the recession of 1920–1921.

Further research has explained the nature of the recession itself. It was an anomalous recession. Real output contraction only became severe after July 1920 (Vernon 1991: 573), and Vernon (1991: 575) points out that even the large rise in unemployment in 1920 is to be explained to some extent by the continued effects of the previous demobilisation and increased immigration in 1920 and 1921.

Romer (1988: 97–99) argues that total consumption from 1920 to 1921 actually _increased_, not fell, because, even though consumer expenditures on durable goods contracted, expenditures on nondurables and services increased to make up for the shortfall.

Finally, there is still disagreement about the depth of the recession.

Romer (1989) provided a new estimate for GNP declines from 1920 to 1921, as follows:*Year | GNP* | Growth Rate*
1914 | $414.599
1915 | $443.048 | 6.86%
1916 | $476.498 | 7.54%
1917 | $473.896 | -0.54%
1918 | $498.458 | 5.18%
1919 | $503.873 | 1.08%
1920 | $498.132 | -1.13%
1921 | $486.377 | -2.35%
1922 | $514.949 | 5.87%
1923 | $583.105 | 13.23%
* Billions of 1982 dollars
(Romer 1989: 23).These estimates show a GNP contraction of only 3.47% from 1919 to 1921, a mild to moderate recession.

By contrast, Balke and Gordon (1989: 84–85) estimate a GNP decline of 5.58% from 1920–1921, a moderately bad recession.

*On either of these estimates, however, the downturn of 1920 to 1921 was nothing like the Great Depression, and it still appears to be an anomaly. 
*
I understand why you are making the argument that it was a depression.  It is the fully discredited argument of Libertarians.  But, me boy, you are simply wrong.


----------



## sealybobo (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I would love to have a green yes or no on the ballot. Put this debate to bed once and for all


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



"Depressions are a fairly large deal."

Every time Rshermr tries to post something related to economics...he makes such a total ass of himself with comments like THAT one...that all you can do is laugh at him!  Depressions are a fairly large deal?  REALLY?  It's like having Forrest Gump come in and give a lecture on economics!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 8, 2016)

You would think that an economics major like Rshermr would know that there is no official definition of what constitutes a "Depression" and that there are no prescribed "levels" of duration, unemployment or GNP that mean a depression is taking place.  Of course when you're simply posing as an economics major...as the George Costanza of our board loves to do...then you wouldn't have a clue that was the case!


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Thanks for the fringe rightwing view. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Claiming FDR extended the Great Depression by seven years, which is almost as long as it lasted under FDR, the same as saying he should have been able to end it when he entered office, which with negative 13 percent GDP and 24 percent unemployment, is beyond retarded.

But then you revealed just how retarded you are when you claimed the 1921 depression was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. Here, in reality, the Great Depression was far worse. GDP bottomed out at -13%, compared to -7% in 1921. Unemployment reached about 24%, compared to about 12% in 1921.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again... because you loons are too committed to your rightardedness and all you know are your rightwing talking points... I'm not against the KP because it's a pipeline. I'm against it for the contents it would carry. And again... it's not worth the temporary jobs it would create.


----------



## Rshermr (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Only a very few loons, and economists trying to make names for themselves, buy this argument.  Truth is, of several thousand economists, most have strong views on the Great Republican Depression of 1929.  And the vast majority of those economists see the 1921 recession as just that.  A recession mostly caused by hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning to the US looking for jobs.  And some price pressure on some commodities.  But to say it was worse than the Great Republican Depression of 1929 simply proves that the person making the claim is an idiot.  Or, in a few cases, trying to make a name for themselves.
But where the rubber meets the road is how the downturns were treated.  With the 1921 recession, nothing was needed, and it started getting better in 12 months and was completely over in 18 months.  It was, largely a big business cycle with the complication of the end of a world war.
With the great republican depression, however, the same treatment of NO Government Action of any kind for over 4 years had a different result.  Even congenital idiots could see that.  The unemployment rate went up like a ROCKET.  From 3.5% to 25%.  That would be 21.5%.  A higher increase than ever in US HISTORY.  Twice as bad as ever.  And it was not stopping.  So, even the Republican administration put forward stimulus bills.  And the depression only started turning around after the stimulus was IMPLEMENTED.
So, you can say:
1.  No stimulus would have been better and shortened the Great Republican Depression, but:
     A, For over 4 years, that was tried, with disastrous results, and with great human misery.
     B.  Stimulus led to a faster reduction in unemployment than at any time in economic history in this nation.


----------



## Rshermr (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yup.  The loons support the KP because it is a right wing talking point.  They are told to.  But they really do not know why anyone would oppose it.  Like:
www.tarsandsblockade.org/about-2/why-*oppose*-kxl/
NASA's leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen has called the Keystone XLpipeline “a fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/killing-kxlNatural Resources Defense Council
Aug 12, 2015 - Then TransCanada applied for a permit to build Keystone XL. .... More than 100 scientists wrote to President Obama to oppose KXL.

And on and on and on.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why is it OK to create tens of thousands of "infrastructure" jobs that are temporary but it isn't OK to create 45,000 jobs for an estimated two years and then 500 permanent jobs?  

Because it's oil?  Because you don't care if energy costs more?  You progressives have that mind set...but then you can't understand why the Private Sector isn't rushing to invest more money in building new plants or expanding existing ones in the US!  

Then you whine about how it's the GOP that needs to do more to create jobs?  The GOP has it's hands full stopping you on the far left that don't care how your policies affect the economy from chasing more jobs out of the country!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



You've got to love Rshermr!  Good thing he doesn't post from sites that are biased! 

At this point it's a neck and neck race over whether he's ignorant or simply hypocritical.  Or is it both?


----------



## Rshermr (May 9, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


No, not because it's just oil. I already explained it to you, but you appear to be too slow to understand.

As far as jobs created and saved by ARRA, the purpose was to keep the economy flowing for 2 years with the hope that the private sector would kick in after being decimated by Bush's Great Recession. And it worked as designed.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I hate to break this to you, Faun but in reality...the economy IS the Private Sector!  What the Obama Stimulus did was prop up the Public Sector while for the most part ignoring the Private Sector.  So what happened to all those Public Sector jobs as soon as the Stimulus started to run out?  There wasn't enough revenue being generated by the Private Sector to keep those Public Sector folks employed at the local level so cities, towns and States started laying off their employees in an attempt to balance their budgets.  The Federal Government...which doesn't have to worry about balancing a budget kept right on getting bigger through deficit spending.  In the meantime huge numbers of Private Sector workers had been put out of work and even more Private Sector workers were terrified that they would be let go as well and responded by spending as little money as possible.  You are right that the Obama Stimulus was built on the "hope" that the Private Sector would "kick in"!  Too bad Barry, Harry and Nancy didn't do something to help that cause!  Instead they essentially told the Private Sector...you guys are on your own...oh and by the way?...we're going to pass ObamaCare which is going to hit you with added costs and once we get THAT...we'll be going after Cap & Trade legislation that will add even more costs to your bottom line!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

I have to laugh at Rshermr claiming that the Keystone Pipeline is a "right wing talking point" when it was supported by the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers.  Gee, did they all turn into "right wing" groups and nobody told me?


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Utter nonsense. Typical for you. ARRA was not only funding the creation and saving of jobs, it also provided tax cuts for the private sector. So you're wrong about that. Plus there were additional stimulus' passed to help the private sector, such as _cash for clunkers_. So you're wrong about that too. The economy cratered. Credit markets locked up and money flowing through the economy, like life blood, was tightening up. Obama's stimulus served as a transfusion until the private sector could stand up again.  And it worked as designed. Early in 2010, the private sector began to recover. Had Obama not gotten ARRA passed... had he let the U.S. auto markets dive into total collapse... the economy could have slipped into another Great Depression.

Not that con tools like you would have cared since the worse the economy is while a Democrat, the happier you are.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The ARRA saved the US auto industry?  Really, Faun?  If memory serves me the GM bailout came from TARP money...which was Bush's baby.  Obama simply continued what Bush had started...except he used TARP to reward his pals in the UAW with a much sweeter deal than they ever could have gotten if GM had simply been allowed to file for bankruptcy and restructure.  That GM deal ended up costing US tax payers a ton of money...the way that Bush used TARP we ended up getting back all of our money plus interest.

As for Cash For Clunkers?  Have you already forgotten what a debacle that was?  At a cost to tax payers of 2.8 BILLION dollars, the Obama Administration managed to "save" or create an estimated 2,000 jobs!  That works out to a whopping cost of 1.4 million per job "saved" or created!  As soon as the two month program ended car sales fell off a cliff so all they accomplished was front loading sales that would have taken place over a longer period of time into a shorter period of time.  It didn't do squat for the overall economy!  Then there were the side effects of that liberal cluster fuck.  Car dealers had to destroy any "clunkers" that they took in trade...which depleted the number of used cars and drove up prices on the remaining used cars so that the poorest people in our society had to pay more to purchase a car.  One more example of progressives trying to use government intervention to "fix" something and only managing to screw it up worse than it was before...while incurring huge costs!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus!  It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple!  Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy?  The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


This is why there truly is no reason to discuss politics with you. You don't understand what people say and your entire raison d'être is to either criticize any successful policy by Democrats or to credit Republicans for them; and to blame Democrat for any failed policy by Republicans.

This post of yours is a marvelous example. I didn't say ARRA funds were used to pay for cash for clunkers, I said there were additional stimulus' passed besides ARRA, cash for clunkers being one of them. You're too stupid and too focused to criticize, you didn't even notice that. And despite your ineffective criticism, the program accomplished what it was designed to do -- get money flowing through the economy and provide a temporary boost to the struggling auto industry.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What's amazing to me is that you can sit there now, Faun and claim that Cash For Clunkers accomplished what it was designed to do!  It absolutely DIDN'T!  It was an ill conceived liberal concept that cost tax payers an incredible amount of money, created very few jobs, briefly stimulated the auto industry only to then flat line sales when the program ended and cost the poor more out of pocket money to purchase a cheap used car!

How is my criticism "ineffective"?  What was ineffective...was Cash For Clunkers ITSELF!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

So TARP wasn't part of the ARRA...and Cash For Clunkers wasn't part of the ARRA...yet you cited them as examples of how the Obama Stimulus "worked"?  You're right, Faun...I don't understand what you're saying...do you?


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus!  It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple!  Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy?  The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!


You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Again, being the con tool Rshermr figured out you to be, you don't give credit even when it's due.

In reality, that $400 reached 100 million tax payers. Many of whom, if not most, turned around and put it directly into the economy.

Again, what you can't understand, a huge detriment to the economy in 2008-2009 was the money flow was drying up. Credit markets were either going under or freezing. The crucial element to counter that was to pump money, and lots of it, into a choking economy. That's what Obama accomplished. And get this -- your acceptance isn't even needed; nor would it ever be forthcoming... you are a *con tool*. That is the perfect description of you.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So TARP wasn't part of the ARRA...and Cash For Clunkers wasn't part of the ARRA...yet you cited them as examples of how the Obama Stimulus "worked"?  You're right, Faun...I don't understand what you're saying...do you?


They all contributed to reviving the economy in that they all contributed in pumping money into an economy that was largely drying up. I don't expect a con tool to understand that nor accept it.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It's ineffective because you do nothing to dispel the success of the plan, which was to pump money into the economy.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus!  It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple!  Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy?  The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!
> ...



LOL...and what did those 100 million tax payers DO with their $400?  Most of them were so nervous about losing their jobs at that point they used that money to pay off some bills and saved the rest.  That $400 had almost no affect at all on the economy!  It was window dressing...nothing more.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus!  It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple!  Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy?  The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!
> ...



So let me see if I've got this straight...the pumping of that 2.8 Billion dollars into the economy during Cash For Clunkers resulted in an estimated 2000 jobs saved or created for the two months the program ran...caused a spike in auto sales followed by a huge decline in auto sales which basically cancelled each other out...and took most of the cheap used cars off the market that poor people could have afforded to buy in order to get back and forth to their jobs...but you see this all as a success because it "pumped" money through the economy?  It's programs like Cash For Clunkers, Faun that illustrate how clueless you liberals are when it comes to economics!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And you also seem to have forgotten what we the American people "got" from the Obama tax cuts in his stimulus!  It was $400 for an individual and $800 for a couple!  Just how did you expect THAT to stimulate the economy?  The truth is...that minute amount of a tax refund let Obama claim to have kept his campaign promise to give everyone a tax cut while really giving them next to nothing!
> ...



"Con tool" is the sort of mindless rant that liberal idiots like Rshermr, R-Derp and Sallow use when they have no argument.  It's intellectually lazy!  Or do you think I'm paid to come here and refute what you're putting out?  Are you that delusional, Faun?


----------



## Rshermr (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


This is why I put OS on ignore.  He is indeed a con tool.  He has the amounts wrong, and what was going on wrong, just about everything wrong.  You can not help him understand anything.  What he wants to do is call the obama stimulus a failure, which is what he has been told is the case.  But he has huge problems because unemployment has gone to near zero.  
There were two parts to the stimulus, originally.  One was stimulus spending, the other tax cuts.  Stimulus spending worked well, got people employed.
Tax cuts were required by republicans.  And they did little, as they typically do.  But they made some wealthy folk more wealthy.  
In all, had we not had stimulus, we would have had a good chance of another great depression.  And the efforts of Bush to hold the auto industry together with bridge loans, and of Obama to provide stimulus money to put the auto makers together and provide a path back to health, was in fact what did the job.  Without both of the presidents efforts, there would be no us auto industry, and without obama's efforts, something over 1.5M auto workers would have been without jobs.
Every single republican in congress, tried to stop the auto bailout.  Had they not failed, we would have no auto industry today.  Even ford would have been gone, according to mulaly of Ford.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Moron.... that's *$40,000,000,000.00* dollars. More than a few made it into the economy.

Now you're merely spitting inane con tool denial.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The decline in auto sales was merely returning back to about where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program. Meanwhile, billions more were being injected into the economy.

And remember, because this is the salient part -- you have no fucking clue what you're talking about; so of course you don't understand how injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into a frozen economy helps thaw it out.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You're the one who came up with the figure of 100 million tax payers, Sparky...then you call me a moron for using YOUR number?  You're almost as pathetic as Georgie Costanza!

My point is that the $400 per person pay out had almost no affect on the economy whatsoever because it's such a small amount and people in the Private Sector were rightfully scared to death about losing their jobs.  Once again...that was nothing more than window dressing so that Barack Obama could claim he'd given 95% of Americans a tax cut when he ran for reelection.  That's true but it's such a laughably small amount that it's like saying you helped a drowning man by throwing him a 5lb weight instead of a 50lb weight.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, sales did not return to where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program...they fell off sharply.  Cash for Clunkers didn't inject hundreds of billions into the economy...it wasted 2.8 billion dollars on a badly thought out plan.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 9, 2016)

"A new paper by two economists, one from Berkeley and one from Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, argue that Cash for Clunkers might not have done as much for the economy as was originally thought. Here’s the paper’s summary paragraph:

We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended. The effect of the program on auto purchases was significantly more short-lived than previously suggested. We also find no evidence of an effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure to the program."

Was “Cash For Clunkers” a Clunker? | TIME.com


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That is the perfect description of you. You have absolutely zero interest in actually discussing anything honestly and serve only to find the dark cloud amidst the silver lining. The unemployment rate can drop to 2% and you'll cry about the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate could skyrocket to 80% and you'll cry about discouraged workers. Discouraged workers could be eliminated entirely and you'll cry about part time jobs. Part time jobs could be eliminated and and you'll cry the unemployment rate is too low. Every economic condition could be perfect and you'll credit Reagan or the next closest conservative.

That's what con tools do. You fit the bill to a tee.

And for the record .... and to repeat myself ... no, I don't believe you are paid to be here. I think you're an imbecile that no one would pay a dime for. Not to mention, you do conservatives no service. You do nothing to promote conservatism and your constant whining serves only to embarrass conservatives who do possess the ability to formulate cogent positions.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


More con tool idiocy. 

No, I don't call you a moron for using the number. I call you a moron for abusing the number. you really are too stupid to discern the distinction. And you're beyond retarded to think handing out $40,000,000,000.00 resulted in people metaphorically stuffing most of that under their mattress.

But again, you're a con tool. So you spit whatever nonsense you can muster you think paints Liberals in a poor light. That's who you are. That's what you do.


----------



## Rshermr (May 9, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Great, now the con tool thinks he can just lie and nobody will notice. Wrong again, as usual. Despite your lies, sales skyrocketed during the program and then fell sharply to about where they were prior to the program. Then they began growing again....


----------



## Rshermr (May 9, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The thing is, Faun, there are a few con tools on the board who seem to like to monopolize threads to the point of boring people to tears, causing them to move on.  Then the thread dies.  And I suspect for trolls like OS, that is victory.  Because as with pretty much all cons, he is incapable of conversation.  In fact, cons do not appear to want anything at all to do with conversation.  Nor debate.  By living in the con world of fox and bat shit crazy con web sites and talking points in their email, they have ready made responses to EVERYTHING that they are told to dislike.  And to attack.  
All of which makes them dishonest, and extremely boring.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "A new paper by two economists, one from Berkeley and one from Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, argue that Cash for Clunkers might not have done as much for the economy as was originally thought. Here’s the paper’s summary paragraph:
> 
> We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended. The effect of the program on auto purchases was significantly more short-lived than previously suggested. We also find no evidence of an effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure to the program."
> 
> Was “Cash For Clunkers” a Clunker? | TIME.com


This is a wonderful example demonstrating your the con tool folks here point out you to be.

There is no consensus of the success/failure among economists. Yet you idiotically _think_ if all you do is find who agrees with you, that means you're right. I could just as easily link articles which quote economists who posited it was a success

Meanwhile, you're sooo fucking retarded, you didn't even bother to read your own link, which takes both sides of the debate.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "A new paper by two economists, one from Berkeley and one from Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, argue that Cash for Clunkers might not have done as much for the economy as was originally thought. Here’s the paper’s summary paragraph:
> ...



Of course it takes both sides of the debate...it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!  My point is that even THEY point out that the Cash For Clunkers program was a failure!  If I'd gone to a conservative site (which you and Georgie always whine I'm doing!) then I'm quite sure they wouldn't even try to present the Administration's view of what happened...as TIME did!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points.  You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gee, Georgie...you seem to "move on" when you get caught out trying to pass yourself off as an Economics major!  Why do you even bother trying to pull that off?  You're as bad at it as your namesake from Seinfeld!


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points.  You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!


The only point you proved was that some economists think it failed while others think it succeeded. But regardless of which economists you want to listen to, it still pumped billions of dollars into an economy starving for money.

Mission accomplished.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points.  You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!
> ...



You know, Faun, the typical Con Tool has the famous Conservative talking points.  That is what they rely on.  So, they have a single belief set given to them, and they never question it.  One of the points is that the stimulus failed, and that Cash for Clunkers failed  Period.
Now, for Con Tools, you have to have very simple information.  They do not like to have to deal with complex issues.  And CFC is complex.  There are a couple of issues, not just one.  Anything beyond one issue is always reduced to a single issue to allow Cons to wrap their heads around the subject.
So what are the major issues? The rational world understands that they are:
1.  The cost or gain from the nearly $80 Billion dollar program.  It ended up costing $9.26 Billion.  In round numbers, about $71 Billion was paid back.
2.  The benefits of the program were in the form of the results, which cons want to ignore.  Forget entirely.  Those benefits include:
A. * Millions *of auto industry workers still have their jobs.  These are some of the *JOBS SAVED *numbers that cons all want to say are bogus.  Problem is, those workers and their families are REAL, not BOGUS.
B. Revenue that would have been lost had we followed the con nut cases plan and let the companies fail.  Savings in revenue to all taxpayers over time is estimated at something like *$105 Billion,* in the form of saved tax revenue, services not paid for (unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other social services).
So, to rational people, it is not even close.  The overall effect  a big win  And, we have an auto industry when all is said and done, which we would not have if we followed the empty brained idea of con tools.
"The final tally for the program was included in the Treasury's daily TARP update on Monday.

The cost of a disorderly liquidation to the families and businesses across the country that rely on the auto industry would have been far higher," the Treasury Department said of the expense. "*The government's actions not only saved GM and Chrysler, but they saved many businesses up and down the supply chain*."
Last year, the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research estimated that the U.S. *would have had 2.6 million fewer jobs in 2009 and 1.5 million fewer jobs in 2010* if the two auto companies had disappeared. The study also estimated the government "saved or avoided the loss of" $105 billion in lost taxes and social service expenses, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and medical care."
Final tally: Taxpayers auto bailout loss $9.3B


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!


Nothing is heavily slanted to the Left!!!!
The Right just whines that it is every time the truth contradicts the Right, which is all the time.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points.  You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!
> ...



At an estimated cost to tax payers of about $22,000 per vehicle?  If your "mission" was to waste taxpayer money...then Barry and his band of idiots succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!
> ...



You guys don't want to hear the truth...you want to believe what the Obama Administration TELLS you...and when you've got people like Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney more than willing to lie through their teeth...what they TELL you should be taken with a huge grain of salt!


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, not at an estimated cost of $22,000 per vehicle. This would be yet another example of a con tool lying. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The program gave a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL

As if you spew the truth. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Yesterday, you denied the truth that car sales returned to about the same level they were at before the cash for clunkers program. Today, you're claiming that program cost tax payers $22,000 per vehicle when the program gave out no more than $4,500 per vehicle.

And you remain clueless to the truth that the program, along with other stimulus' passed, were successful with flooding money into a drying economy.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car - Oct. 28, 2009


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Sorry, CNN says I was a bit low on that projection!


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!
> ...


It's quite revealing that a publication like Time, which included both sides of the story, is slanted to the left according to these rightwing nut jobs.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That's if you exclude 4 out of 5 vehicles sold in the program.



And your claim was that the program cost $22,000 "per vehicle." Even using that articles numbers, it comes out to roughly $4,300 per vehicle.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running.  Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case.  They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans.  I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You miss the point of the article...which was that a large amount of the cars sold...would have been sold ANYWAYS and that if you count the additional sales as what CFC actually generated...then the programs cost was $24,000 per additional vehicle sold.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Have you been following the Ben Rhodes story in the New York Times, Faun?  It's illustrative of how this Administration USES gullible members of the Press to lie to the American people because they know that they can do so and not get called on it.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running.  Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case.  They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans.  I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!


Your own article disagrees with you. It says the projection was based on the period during the program and the weeks which followed. Not over the course of the following year. And of course, given the spike, that projection is ludicrous.

At any rate, you still have to fudge the numbers to come up with $24,000/vehicle by excluded most of the cars sold from the equation. The truth is, it cost tax payers about $4,300 per vehicle and injected several billion dollars into the economy. But yhen, you've proven truth matters not to a con tool.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running.  Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case.  They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans.  I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!
> ...



I'm sorry, Faun but I'm a business person who figures out things like profits and losses.  If my goal is to increase business with some type of promotion I judge the success of that promotion on how many additional sales I make over and above what I would normally have sold.  How much did the additional sales generated by CFC cost taxpayers per unit?


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > it's from TIME which is heavily slanted to the left!
> ...



Yeah.  I noticed that too.  Makes you laugh at them.  Which is the only true use of cons I have ever found.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What studies have shown is that Cash For Clunkers simply pulled sales of vehicles "forward" meaning that people who have bought later in the year bought during the two months that CFC was running.  Studies also show that a much higher percentage of people who traded in their "clunkers" for new cars defaulted on their payments than was normally the case.  They couldn't afford a new car or the new car payments even with the subsidy from taxpayers and pressure from the Federal Government on dealers to approve loans.  I'm sure that did "wonders" for their credit ratings!
> ...



And, as always, a con tool would look at the specific cost per car only, add them up, and make a judgement.  It does not consider the overall effect on the industry, and what it accomplished in saving the industry, revenue to the government in a time of massive recession, savings in ongoing social programs, and so forth.  Nor does it consider the costs of businesses going out of business without such a stimulus.  Instead, it takes some specific estimates and looks at only those that agree with conservative talking points.
Coming from a con tool that says that he is a businessman is really funny.  Any real, solid business person looks at the overall picture, not simply what he wants to see.  That is the  purview of the con tool.  Do you know of one of those, Faun??


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



A "real, solid business person" doesn't get sold on a con job, Georgie!  A real business person asks if there is a more efficient way to achieve the same or better results.  Ever watch one of those "Swimming with the Sharks" type reality shows?  When people stand in front of the investors and give their spiel...it's never about an "overall picture"...it's about costs and profit potential.  It's about the bottom line.  So let's look at the bottom line for Cash For Clunkers...

It was originally sold as a program that would cost about a billion dollars...it ended up costing 2.8 billion!  Red flag time!!!  Either someone didn't have a clue as to determining cost or someone was bullshitting you when they gave you that estimate!

It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...leading analysts to posit that CFC "pulled forward" sales that would have happened later anyways.

It was set up so that only certain cars could qualify for the program...because of that a large percentage of cars sold were not produced by American car makers but by Japanese car makers.  Wonderful for the Japanese auto industry...not so great for the American auto industry!

It prompted many Americans who couldn't really afford to pay the payments for a new car to buy one anyways to take advantage of the subsidy.  A large number of those Americans then defaulted on their car payments, lost the vehicle and had their credit rating damaged.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You mean like laughing at someone who claims to have a degree in economics but didn't know what The Chicago School referred to?  Is that the kind of humor we're talking about, Georgie?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again.  Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again?  I didn't think so!  Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II?  Wonder why that is?


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You know, Faun, over my long business career, I have known MANY very very well known and successful business persons.  Certain things were true:
1.  None ever had the time to spend making hundreds of posts per week to a board like this.  They actually were busy people.  They were not like con tools, who spend day and night posting.
2.  None ever bragged about being great businessmen.  They did not have a total lack of back up for their condition.
3.  All looked at all sides of an issue.  They actually did not line up perfectly with a set of talking points, like con tools always do.
4. None spent their time with personal attacks, over and over and over again.  They tend to have a higher degree of class, something that con tools do not possess.  And they have enough self confidence that they do not need to try and belittle others.  Like con tools.
5.  All were able to make actual rational arguments.  Because they did not lie or have only talking points and agenda to guide them.
6.  Cons, on the other hand, always try to make others look like lesser persons, because that is their way of making themselves look better. 

Con tools brag about themselves, which is an easy thing to do when no one can know anything about you, on the internet.  Con tools use personal attacks over and over.  Con tools are liars.  And as such always assume that others are also.
So, over a short period of time, you can easily pick the little man from the rest.  The con tool from the successful person.  The con tool from the people with rational minds.
Oldstyle from others.

I am sure that OS will have another group of personal insults on the way.  More support for his con talking points.  More attempts to belittle thinking people.  Because, of course, he is a simple minded little con tool.  And that is what con tools like him do.


----------



## Markle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I posted a link to a study done by a FAR LEFT PROGRESSIVE university in the heart of Progressivism.

You...nothing.

The 1921 Depression began just as severe, but due to the management of it by the Republican president, it never grew to the size of the Great Depression.

If you'll notice, I emphasized the points made by the researchers which detail exactly what should NOT be done should we face such a sudden economic downfall in the future.  Those itemized points are EXACTLY what the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama has done.  It does seem like he intentionally wants to take America down a peg or two, doesn't it?


----------



## Markle (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I have to laugh at Rshermr claiming that the Keystone Pipeline is a "right wing talking point" when it was supported by the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers.  Gee, did they all turn into "right wing" groups and nobody told me?



I'm new to this forum but it didn't take long for me to learn the worthlessness of Rshermr's verbose posts.


----------



## Markle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So TARP wasn't part of the ARRA...and Cash For Clunkers wasn't part of the ARRA...yet you cited them as examples of how the Obama Stimulus "worked"?  You're right, Faun...I don't understand what you're saying...do you?
> ...



American workers are still waiting for the economy to recover.

First President in HISTORY to not have a single year of GDP ABOVE 3 PERCENT.  First quarter, 2016...0.5%


----------



## Markle (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



100% true.


----------



## Markle (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points.  You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!



The only thing accomplished by Cash for Junkers was to make used cars far more expensive for low and middle-income workers who could not afford new cars.  So the "ingenious" plan by Lame Duck President Obama hurt the very people he had "promised" were his prime objective and greatly helped the most wealthy.

The entire terms of President Obama he has decried the wealth differential in America when he, and his policies, have made it even larger.


----------



## Markle (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again.  Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again?  I didn't think so!  Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II?  Wonder why that is?



I don't know you from Adam but you certainly have a solid grasp on business and economics.  Unlike the Progressive here who throw something up against the wall and hope for the best.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Which university and where, me boy.  I remember that the university your reference came from was UCLA.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I have to laugh at Rshermr claiming that the Keystone Pipeline is a "right wing talking point" when it was supported by the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Laborers International Union and the International Union of Operating Engineers.  Gee, did they all turn into "right wing" groups and nobody told me?
> ...



Did you think that anyone in the universe cares about your opinion??  If you want my opinion, please believe that I do so appreciate your opinion.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing I enjoy more than using articles from sources like TIME or The New York Times to prove my points.  You have to KNOW that if they're giving Cash For Clunkers a bad grade then it had to REALLY stink the joint out!
> ...



Another opinion.  Strangely exactly the same as the opinion that you are supposed to have, as a con tool.  Me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Is that your comedy routine, me boy?  GDP above 3%, you say.  Are you just stupid.  Or are you trying out a new comedy routine.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again.  Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again?  I didn't think so!  Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II?  Wonder why that is?
> ...


Wow, Markle.  You seem to really love oldstyle.  Between the two of you, perhaps you can register up to 100 on an IQ test.  Combined.  Though that is probably a stretch.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2016)

President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world. 

Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US. 

Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Sorry, me boy.  At least 3000 economists think it was not a depression.  Sorry, you are stupid and no one can help you with that.


----------



## sealybobo (May 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Republicans may be right those good paying jobs ain't coming back but don't forget they sent those jobs overseas.

They'll blame unions but that's just code for good paying jobs


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> From UCLA at Berkley.  EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America
> *
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate*
> Uh, I see you seem to be working with things above your pay grade.  Come to think of it, that would be ANYTHING.  Because everything seems above your pay grade.  So, me poor stupid con tool, let me help  you some:
> ...


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Drools a con tool.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...


I note that you lied about this until I corrected you. Previously, you denied sales declined to about where they were before the program began.

You're welcome.


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again.  Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again?  I didn't think so!  Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II?  Wonder why that is?


And here we have a con tool offering up a straw man.

Why is that?

The cash for clunkers program was needed to help the auto industry, which was floundering; and needed to inject billions into a struggling economy.

You haven't seen cash for clunkers II because Bush's Great Recession ended and it wasn't needed.


----------



## Rshermr (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again.  Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again?  I didn't think so!  Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II?  Wonder why that is?
> ...



But, but......OS has told you that any promotion that works is repeated.  So, what can we think?  Maybe that gov is not like private industry in such situations.  But, but....... That is not what his talking points say.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...
> ...



I've been completely consistent in what I've claimed.  I'm simply quoting what studies on Cash For Clunkers found...namely that whatever spike in sales took place during the two months CFC was in place was almost completely nullified by the sales downturn after it was over.  Those who studied the numbers on CFC found that many of the sales that took place during those two months were sales that were "pulled forward" by people who had intended to buy at a later time but bought early to take advantage of the subsidy.

You're welcome as well!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And the truest test of whether a promotion "worked" or didn't work is whether or not you do it again.  Any business people out there remember the last time someone ran a successful promotion and didn't immediately start figuring out how they can run it again?  I didn't think so!  Yet nobody is planning a Cash For Clunkers II?  Wonder why that is?
> ...



If it worked as well as you claim, Faun...then why HASN'T it been repeated?  The American economy has been grinding along for YEARS now!  Are you saying that it couldn't have used a shot in the arm?  So why didn't the Obama Administration repeat Cash For Clunkers?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 10, 2016)

Luddly Neddite said:


> President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.
> 
> Just imagine what he could have done if the damn Repubs had been working FOR the US.
> 
> Enjoy it because if the Rs keep congress and Trumpery is elected, jobs and economic recovery will end overnight.



Dude, the American economy was the strongest in the world before Barry even took a seat behind that desk in the Oval Office!  He's led the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression and it would be FAR worse if the GOP hadn't taken control of Congress in 2010 and stopped him from getting the Cap & Trade legislation he was pushing for!  That's not even talking about how the fracking that he opposed helped stimulate the economy by dropping energy costs dramatically!  The US economy has slowly started to rebound DESPITE Barack Obama...not BECAUSE of him!


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Ohhh, you posted a link? Doesn't matter to you at all that the contents of that link are nonsensical though, does it?

The Great Depression ended somewhere between 1939 and 1941, depending on whom you ask.

The link you gave idiotically claims FDR extended the Great Depression by 7 years. FDR was sworn into office in March, 1933

If you go by the end year of 1939, FDR wasn't even in office for 7 years. So that would be -- *Impossible*.

If you go by the end year of 1940, FDR would have been in office for 7 years by then, but then that's claiming FDR could have ended the Great Depression upon entering office. -- *Ludicrous*

If you go by the end year of 1941, FDR would have been in office for 8 years by then, but then that's claiming FDR could have ended the Great Depression within one year. Given unemployment was around 24%-25% and GDP was around negative 13% -- *Asinine*.

The only other method they could attempt would be to alter the year in which the Great Depression ended. But then that too would be -- *Ridiculous*.

Do you need me to post a link to show how stupid and gullible you are?


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama - longest continuous stretch of job creation in our history. He has made the US economy the strongest in the world.
> ...


You can keep calling it the worst recovery since the Great Depression all you want. All that lying does is further expose you as the con tool you have become known as.

Which line is worse... the green line or the red line?


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, you have not been consistent. When I pointed out earlier what you are saying now ... that being how vehicle sales spiked sharply during the cash for clunkers program; and then dropped sharply back to roughly where they were prior to the program -- *you denied that*, though you finally admit that now...

*Faun: *_The decline in auto sales was merely returning back to about where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program._

*Oldstyle: *_No, sales did not return to where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program...they fell off sharply._​
As everyone here can see for themselves, the only consistency found in you is your consistent lying.

How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposite viewpoints you've presented unless you were lying??



Oldstyle said:


> No, sales did not return to where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program...





Oldstyle said:


> It did create a serious spike in car sales...but that spike was followed by an equally serious nosedive in car sales...



_<smh>_


----------



## Faun (May 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Asked and answered, con tool.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Your chart would be wonderfully illustrative if you were only judging your recoveries by employment levels, Faun!  The main measure of an economic recovery however is economic growth.  Obama's average GDP growth per quarter is 1.78% which is the worst of any President going back to Ike.  When I call the Obama Economy the worst I'm referring to economic growth on his watch.  As bad as his numbers are...keep in mind that it's only the GOP blocking things like Cap & Trade that kept them from getting even worse!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Asked and avoided is more like it!  Your so called answer is that the recession had ended and it wasn't needed?  Really?  So the worst growth of GDP of any President going back to before Ike didn't need any help?  Is that what you're claiming?  That if it HAD needed help...that Barry and his band of idiots would have trotted Cash For Clunkers II out?

That's an amusing concept, little buddy...really...it's the kind of nonsense that I'd expect from Georgie!


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


More lies. Figures.

Average quarterly increase since the recession ended is 2.1%

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

And I take it by your non-answer, the green line is worse.


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Stop lying. I answered your question. You make not like the answer, but answer it I did.

Referring back to the chart I posted earlier, you can see how low car sales were when they passed cash for clunkers and how sales rose steadily since late 2009...






The program wasn't needed again. That's the answer whether you like it or not.


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Besides, it is not an actual issue.  What was an issue was that the American Auto Industry was in big trouble.  It appeared that there was no way for it to make it except for some action by the US Government.  So, we got an initial input of help from W and congress.  Short term loan only.  If it was to be saved, it would have to be by Democrats, and Executive Branch.  The entire Republican congress wanted no bailout.  None at all.  Every expert then said that GM, Chrysler, and probably Ford along with the Supply Chain would fail.  Republicans and con tools all lined up for allowing it to fail.  All, not a few, but all.  
Republican Governors and Congressmen were all against the bailout, as they had foreign auto makers set to come to their states.  So, they saw financial gain and could care less about the good of the country.  

All the cons, congressmen and small potatoes were predicting sure disaster if the Auto Bailout occurred.  Problem is, of course, they were WRONG.  Net is, we ended up with a successful auto industry, millions of jobs created and saved, and profits staying in the US, not going to foreign nations.  And still the dipshits complain.  Because they are con tools.

Here are a couple of Oldstyle posts from earlier, showing how prescient he was, and how he tried to convince others that Bankruptcy was a viable option:
I'm curious, Winger...*would bankruptcy not have allowed corporate restructuring? (Pretty sure that's a yes!) Would it allow for a new labor contract? (Pretty sure it wo*uld have voided the existing labor contract) Would it have allowed them to close dealerships and lines (Pretty sure it would allow that to happen also) Now you're right that it wouldn't have provided an influx of much needed cash but when you examine what GM has done...paying off it's Obama bail out with billions that it got from the TARP bailout...wouldn't it have been easier just to NOT do the Obama bail out and let them keep the TARP money? Oh, but that would have meant that the UAW would have lost their contract completely instead of being able to bargain for only small reductions in their benefits! That's what the Obama bail out of GM and Chrysler was all about. All you have to do is look and it's as plain as the nose on your face. But you don't want to talk about GM paying back what they owe us with money that WE gave them...do you? That kind of blows the whole GM "success" story right out to the water...doesn't it? You don't want to talk about how we now own a whole bunch of stock that needs to almost double in value before we break even...now do you? Gee, Winger...how do you think GM is going to fare THIS year, now that Japan's car industry is recovered from the tidal wave that devastated companies like Toyota? *Care to wager on GM retaining it's #1 spot in sales? I say they drop all the way down to number three by the end of the year. Now what do you think that will do to the price of their stock?"
Post 228, April of 2012, thread GM Profits Highest Yet.*
All cons, like OS have been posting the standard conservative talking points for years.  That bankruptcy would have solved things, though every impartial site says it would have led to disaster.  That GM and Chrysler would fail, though they are HIGHLY successful today.  The auto bailout saved millions of jobs, but the con tools say it did not.  It is them or the experts.  So, the obvious thing is that cons post con talking points and LIE CONTINUOUSLY.


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So a "successful" program that according to you stimulated the auto industry wasn't needed?  How can that be when the economy was growing at a snail's pace?  You've got Barry overseeing the worst recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office...you've got the economy grinding along at under 2% growth...but there was no reason to trot out a redo of Cash For Clunkers?

If THAT is your answer, Faun...then you're starting to embarrass yourself in this string...just saying...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



"After losing the title of “world’s largest automaker” in 2011, Japan’s Toyota Motor (including its Lexus and Scion brands in Canada), took the number one spot for the second year in a row in 2013, with sales of 9.98 million new cars and trucks, a gain of almost 3% over 2012. Although it lost out to the Ford Focus for the title of “world’s best-selling car”, the Toyota Corolla was the Japanese automaker’s best-selling model worldwide last year."

The top 10 largest automakers in the world


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > From UCLA at Berkley.  EVEN the PROGRESSIVES here have to admit that is one of the most Progressive, Liberal schools in America
> ...



No surprise, when faced with FACTS, total SILENCE, SPEECHLESS is my good friend Rshermr.


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Amusing, even when Progressives us FACTS, they ignore them.  I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

Just as OldStyle has said, and as you float down DENIAL River, sales fell instantly, to levels BELOW what they had been prior to the failed Cash for Clunkers program.

You also seem to relish in the FACT that this punished low and middle-income households by driving up the price of used cars and totally wasting millions of cars which could have helped low and middle-income families.

None of this even addresses all the fraud connected with the failed program.

How ANYONE can seriously defend this program which is akin to someone defending the murderous failed gun-running program, is far beyond my comprehension.  That anyone would BOAST about supporting these plans...; you just can't make these things up.


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Still nothing to say, no surprise.


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Markle, your post makes no sense.  Read it again, me boy.  Then let us know;  Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently?????????  You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value.  You are a con tool.  So we understand where you are coming from.  Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you.  You are indeed funny.


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



As my good friend Rshermr said:  "Markle, your post makes no sense.  Read it again, me boy.  Then let us know;  Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently?????????  You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value.  You are a con tool.  So we understand where you are coming from.  Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you.  You are indeed funny."

This, as almost everyone here knows, is all that need be said about his "posts".


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

As my good friend Rshermr said:  "Markle, your post makes no sense.  Read it again, me boy.  Then let us know;  Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently?????????  You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value.  You are a con tool.  So we understand where you are coming from.  Because you are a tool.
But we do enjoy you.  You are indeed funny."

This, as almost everyone here knows, is all that need be said about his "posts".






[/QUOTE]

That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING.  You are really wasting space and people's time. 
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not.  I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy.  The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us.  That is all that really matters.  So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does.  That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue. 
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> As my good friend Rshermr said:  "Markle, your post makes no sense.  Read it again, me boy.  Then let us know;  Have you always been this stupid, or have you been working at it recently?????????  You see, while all the bat shit crazy con web sites hated the program, most rational sources think it had value.  You are a con tool.  So we understand where you are coming from.  Because you are a tool.
> But we do enjoy you.  You are indeed funny."
> 
> This, as almost everyone here knows, is all that need be said about his "posts".



That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING.  You are really wasting space and people's time.
You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not.  I believe it worked, and you don't..
So, do you know what the point is, me boy.  The point is, there is now a very successful auto industry in the us.  That is all that really matters.  So, you do not want to believe that it is important, any rational source does.  That leaves just republicans, con tools, and idiots on your side of the issue.
If you think saving the auto industry was a bad idea, please try to tell us why, me boy.And try to respect the time of others by not posting long, meaningless posts.[/QUOTE]

Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals.  You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it!


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I respect your opinion.
> 
> Do you really think that people want to see all of your posts, which say absolutly NOTHING.  You are really wasting space and people's time.
> You see, me boy, you and I and others can compare expert opinions of whether cash for clunkers was a good idea or not.  I believe it worked, and you don't..
> ...



Thank you son.

How many FEWER NEW CARS, would have been sold in the United States had General Motors and Chrysler declared the same bankruptcy laws available to all companies and individuals.  You know, instead of the form of bankruptcy they were allowed to use.

Go for it son, I know you can do it![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.  
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??


----------



## Oldstyle (May 11, 2016)

Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!  

Ford would have been gone?  Ford didn't take part in the Obama Auto Industry Bailout...so why would they have been "gone"?

I think it's fairly evident that Rshermr is back on his pain killers again...


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That would be your opinion.  And you know how much I respect your opinion.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone. 
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.  

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!
> 
> Ford would have been gone?  Ford didn't take part in the Obama Auto Industry Bailout...so why would they have been "gone"?
> 
> I think it's fairly evident that Rshermr is back on his pain killers again...



So I see, although Rshermr is vividly demonstrating that Progressives fervently wish to deal in a static economy rather than the real world dynamic economy.  They are proven wrong so many times one would think, that after a while, they would catch on....


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you really need me to explain that chart to you??

Are you really too stupid to understand it?


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Great, another one who can't read a chart.

1/2009: 9.4
2/2009: 9.0
3/2009: 9.5
4/2009: 9.1
5/2009: 10.0
6/2009: 10.0
7/2009: 11.4
8/2009: 14.6
9:2009: 9.3

Now which part of that is not reflected by what I said....?

_"The decline in auto sales was merely returning back to about where sales were prior to the cash for clunkers program."_


----------



## Faun (May 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!
> 
> Ford would have been gone?  Ford didn't take part in the Obama Auto Industry Bailout...so why would they have been "gone"?
> 
> I think it's fairly evident that Rshermr is back on his pain killers again...


Yet even more ignorance spewed by the con tool.

Had GMC and Chrysler gone down, Ford would have gone down too.

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? They want GMC and Chrysler, their rivals, to receive the money.

You really do have shit for brains. Can't you con tools do any better than you?


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too. 

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (May 11, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too. 

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]



Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, nice try, me boy. What you apparently do not know, even today, is that to get to the point of auctioning, a purchaser must agree to provide operating capital. At that point., you can try to find a buyer, or, you could choose to auction the assets.
In the case of airlines, the companies were enerally sold AFT


Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]
wow. You ARE ignorant.
No sale could have occurred. No companies could have continued to exist. None of your happy fairy rail would or could have existed.
So, let me explain the basics about bankruptcy, me boy.  The problem is, in a normal private bankruptcy, you have a suitor who takes over a company, provides working capital to keep the company function long enough to sell or liquidate it, and administers the bankruptcy process.  Without a suitor, there is NO WAY TO HAVE A BANKRUPTCY.  And, during the recession, there were no suitors for gm or Chrysler. HENSE, NO BANKRUPTCY. So, in your simplistic little Airline bankruptcy, there were suitors capable of financing the bankruptcy. But not in the auto case.
So, no, me boy. You loose.  There would have been no American auto companies selling any cars, unless ford survived. And they did not expect to.
So, nice try. But simple con talking points just won't  help you here.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Georgie isn't smart enough about economics to understand that a company filing for bankruptcy protection doesn't mean that they are closing their doors and laying off all their workers!
> ...



So let me see how this would work...General Motors and Chrysler "go down"...and that would somehow make their competitor, who one would assume would pick up a whole lot of additional sales, go down as well?  I would love to hear how that works, Faun!  How does losing your competition make you go belly up as well?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

OMG...we've found something that Rshermr knows less about than economics!  That would be bankruptcy!  That might very well be the most ignorant explanation of how bankruptcy works that I have EVER heard!


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Sorry, shitferbrains, you failed to answer the question....

Why do you think Ford's CEO went with the CEO's of GMC and Chrysler to beg Congress for bailout money even though they weren't asking for any money for themselves? Why would they want their competitors to be bailed out?

The answer to that question reveals just how stupid you are.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Faun!!  He is a con tool. Why do you ask?


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The answer to that question exposes his ignorance whether he answers it or not. That's why.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

A highly paid con tool you mean...right, Georgie?  OK...I admit it...the Koch Brothers pay me six figures a year to debate YOU on an obscure internet chat site!  I've been exposed!!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

I'd love to hear how having it's competitors go belly up would cause Ford to go belly up as well.  It's a business concept that I seem to have missed in Grad School!


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ever heard the name Mulally, me boy.  Look up the name with the term auto bailout. You will learn who he is and why ford would have gone down also.  

So, Faun, con tools do not understand supply chains and their ramifications. I am sure the boy will come back saying Mullaly is wrong.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars.  That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars.  How does that work exactly?


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'd love to hear how having it's competitors go belly up would cause Ford to go belly up as well.  It's a business concept that I seem to have missed in Grad School!


There's a lot you missed.

First ... I note you failed for the second time to answer the question.

You don't even have a guess why Ford appeared before Congress to bail out their competitors? You really don't know shit, just as I said.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


All they understand is lying to further their agenda.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

If I'm a widget manufacturer who supplies 3 main clients with 3 different types of widgets and 2 of those customers announce that they are going out of business...guess what I'm going to do?  I'm going to stop building the two types I won't be needing any more and I'm going to build a whole shit load of the ones that the remaining customer is going to need now that they have a virtual monopoly.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

This concept that if one company fails that others won't move into the vacuum created by that failure is a fairy tale put forth by companies that think declaring themselves "too big to fail" will mean that the government will have to bail them out.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




It's old style. Of course he is. Poor idiot can not help it. Just plain bad luck.
He has now reverted into a normal pattern. That being not comprehending th question and asking the same question over and over and over. And over.
What I have learned is that os is a congenital liar. And, as you know, it is impossible for liars to have integrity, or class.  As everyone knows, you can never believe a known liar like os.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Says the George Costanza of the US Message Board?  Dude, you've been exposed as a poser so often at this point that your only defense is to put people on ignore.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars.  That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars.  How does that work exactly?


Testimony of Alan R. Mulally
President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
 House Committee on Financial Services
December 5, 2008

In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford's top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

The impact of a bankruptcy also reaches beyond Ford and the U.S. auto industry. It would cause further stress to our domestic banking industry and private retirement systems. Goldman Sachs estimates the impact at up to $1 trillion.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Tell us all more about how bankruptcy works, Rshermr!  I love it when you pretend to know things that you obviously don't!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard it explained to me that because Ford wouldn't be able to get parts from suppliers...that they wouldn't be able to build their cars.  That's an amazing concept to me that parts suppliers who would supposedly be losing the business of both GM and Chrysler would somehow not start building a whole lot MORE Ford parts to supply the company that was still producing cars.  How does that work exactly?
> ...



So would those Ford dealers who also own GM and Chrysler franchises not make up the loss of GM and Chrysler sales with Ford sales?  Duh?  That's one of the most idiotic explanations I've ever heard!


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> If I'm a widget manufacturer who supplies 3 main clients with 3 different types of widgets and 2 of those customers announce that they are going out of business...guess what I'm going to do?  I'm going to stop building the two types I won't be needing any more and I'm going to build a whole shit load of the ones that the remaining customer is going to need now that they have a virtual monopoly.


Guess what? A CEO of one of America's biggest automobile manufacturers knows more about business in his sleep than you will ever know in your lifetime. That's what.

Despite your con tool idiocy of trying to second guess him; for the sake of his company, he thought it best that his two biggest competitors remain solvent. So much so, that despite not needing a bailout for Ford, he appeared before Congress to help his competitors remain in business.

How many times are you going to prove you have shit for brains?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

This notion that the car buying public would somehow stop buying cars if GM and Chrysler had to reorganize, downsize or even close completely is nonsense.  We don't buy American Motors products anymore.  We don't buy Packards.  We don't buy Oldsmobiles or Pontiacs.  Car companies drop lines or close completely all the time and what happens is their competitors move in and scoop up that business.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

So the "old boys club" of Detroit stuck together in the face of the recession and the CEO of Ford called for bailouts to help out his fellow CEO's in the car business?  Why wouldn't he?  If GM and Chrysler are deemed too big to fail then he'll never have to worry about Ford going out of business!  All they did was make themselves immune to normal business repercussions.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOLOL

A con tool in an Internet forum calling Ford's CEO's explanation, of how his competitors bankruptcies would adversely effect Ford, idiotic.

LOLOLOL

You should explain to Ford why you should be their CEO.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



On the contrary...it's not idiotic from his standpoint at all!  He's simply guaranteed that no matter what...the Federal Government will always be there to bail out Ford.  It's like taking out free "failure insurance"!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOLOL

You're such a con tool, you don't know when to quit. Even as you make a complete fool of yourself.

Using that moronic example, Ford would not have wanted the government to bailout Ford. They would have wanted their competitors to go out of business, according to you, and then there would be even more bailout money for them.

You're not even capable of comprehending the obvious.

That's exactly why I asked you why Ford would appear before Congress for their competitors to receive bailout money to save them from going under.

I knew you wouldn't understand.

I knew you would spit nonsense.

You didn't disappoint.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!


It wasn't just "any company," ya moron ... it was the American automotive industry.

And had the big three gone done, it would have taken a huge portion of the economy with it. Not that you con tools care. Slipping into a depression would have merely been another talking point for you.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

I'm still waiting to hear from you how Ford would have been taken down by a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

It's like saying Pan Am's bankruptcy or Eastern Airlines bankruptcy would have taken United and South West Airlines down as well.  It's not how things work in business.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm still waiting to hear from you how Ford would have been taken down by a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy!


You're only waiting because you're too stupid to know I already posted it.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It's like saying Pan Am's bankruptcy or Eastern Airlines bankruptcy would have taken United and South West Airlines down as well.  It's not how things work in business.


No, it's not the same as that. That wasn't most of the U.S. airlines going bankrupt. 

Again... the part you're incapable of comprehending because you're a con tool pushing an agenda -- Ford asked Congress to bail out GMC and Chrysler and you have no fucking clue why.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy.  Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies.  Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.


----------



## HUGGY (May 12, 2016)

*US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low*

I blame Obama for this national tragedy!


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!


I already did.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy.  Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies.  Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.


That's cute. You actually think the predicament the U.S. auto industry faced in 2008 was "simple." 

That's what I love about con tools. Because you only care about your agenda and not reality, you'll say anything, no matter how stupid, to defend your moronic positions.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy.  Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies.  Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.
> ...



THAT IS ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH OLDSTYLE AND OTHER CON TROLLS.  Take a look at their characteristics:
1.  They make everything as simple as possible so that they can understand it.  
2.  They do not react to anything that takes them away from their simplistic belief.
3.  They are absolutely uninterested and incapable of any changes in their belief.
4.  They simply repeat what they want to believe over and over and over.  They are not interested in truth.
5.  They can and do lie as easily as they can tell the truth, as long as it fits their agenda.
6.  They have absolutely NO integrity, no interest in integrity, or class.
7.  They do as told and stick to the talking points strictly, because they are weak minded and want to be told what to believe.
8.  Their belief system is based on believing what they want to believe, and what their group believe.
9.  They want to be angry, so they are.

Which makes them completely worthless.  Luckily there are not enough of them to win the day.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!
> ...



But that is what Oldstyle wants.  He wants you to have to reply to him over and over and over an over.  Because in his little con mind, that is a win.  He is not like normal, rational people.  He is a con tool, and he is proud of it.  He has, you see, no normal interest in having integrity.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!



Hardly, of course,  Everyone with a rational mind noticed that they DID fail.  All of their management is GONE.  But then, you know that, and you do not care.  
You see, dipshit, GM hollds no one's mortgage.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yet YOU are the guy who comes here and pretends to be something he's not?  Obviously, Georgie...you have issues with your own self worth!  If you didn't you wouldn't be claiming things like teaching college level economics as an undergrad!

You need to accuse others of being liars because you're such a fraud yourself.  It's what your participation in every string eventually evolves into because sooner or later your lies become unsustainable!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!
> ...



I hate to tell you this Sparky but when upper level management leaves one company...they generally end up going to another one.  They aren't "GONE"!

And I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about with GM holding a mortgage!  Do you?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy.  Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies.  Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.
> ...



Where did I ever contend that bankruptcy is "simple"?  There are very smart lawyers and accountants out there who do nothing else but handle complex bankruptcies.  The person here who's dumbed this down in his usual fashion in Rshermr...who doesn't seem to grasp that you can go bankrupt and not close up business forever!


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It's like saying Pan Am's bankruptcy or Eastern Airlines bankruptcy would have taken United and South West Airlines down as well.  It's not how things work in business.


It is indeed the way things work in business.  If possible, there would have been a normal bankruptcy.  But, as even a troll like you probably understands, there was no Trustee that was willing to take on the task.  
Consider:
_"The Economist_, one of the bastions of free-market thinking, came around to that view. Originally, it favored no government intervention. In April 2010, it offered an apology to President Obama.
"Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings," the magazine wrote in an editorial. "It is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended."
Even Sherk at the Heritage Foundation gives Obama credit for forcing the carmakers to go through bankruptcy and the necessary restructuring that followed. _The Economist_ concludes "by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible."
Did President Obama save the auto industry?

And that, me boy, from normally conservative sources.  Even they had to admit there was no other way.  

So, me boy, you are sitting out on a very lonely island on this issue.  And, you are wrong again.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, more personal attacks.  More lies.  I said, me boy, no such thing, as you know.
Now, pay attention, me poor ignorant con tool.  As I said, the problem with the auto makers going through a normal bankruptcy was that there was no trustee to finance it, as there MUST BE TO AVOID A COMPLETE LIQUIDATION.  As has been stated, no financing was available, so no normal bankruptcy was possible.  So in that case, the companies would have been liquidated.  Plain and simple.
Now, me poor ignorant con tool, under NORMAL conditions, a bankruptcy with normal results could have and would have occurred. 
Really, oldstyle, you lie all the time.  And it simply proves again that you have no integrity.

You seem to be taking on the discredited Romney idea.  (problem is, even he has abandoned it):
"Let's say that Governor Romney's plan was adopted in November 2008:
1.  GM would have filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, seeking reorganization.
2.  A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy would have required post-bankruptcy-petition financing by lenders to keep GM going.  As stated above, there was no private post-petition financing (and therefore nothing for the government to guarantee).

3.  In the absence of post-petition financing, GM would have stopped functioning and the company would have been liquidated -- either under a Trustee under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or by its management under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

4.  As a result, GM would have gone out of business, with all of the attendant consequences.

The Obama plan provided government financing, and therefore the automakers were able to successfully reorganize in Chapter 11.
At the debate, Governor Romney said, "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry — of course not. Of course not. …"  Again, to say this is literally "true" is misleading.  As the analysis above shows, taking Romney's advice in the Times Op-ed *would unquestionably have led to liquidation.  Therefore to "suggest" that Romney would liquidate the industry is true."*
A Bankruptcy Lawyer (Me), Corrects Factcheck.Org On the Auto-Bailout (Updated, re Private Funding.)


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Really, me boy.  No idea.  You see,  you lie so often, there is no reason to believe you.
All of the rest of the bailout efforts were for financial companies, who controlled people's lives due to owning their mortgages.  GM just makes cars.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!





Oldstyle said:


> Neither do you, Faun...or you'd explain it to me!



Uh, which of the many, many, many explanations that you have asked for and Faun has provided to you are you talking about now.  You see, there is no way to tell from your post, dipshit.  
Or are you just trying to prove your dishonesty.  Here is a clue, me boy.  You already proved it,over and over and over.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm still waiting to hear from you how Ford would have been taken down by a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy!


You were given the Mulally explanation.  You know, the one you suggested was just Mulally working to get future bankruptcy funds.  When you made yourself look, again, like an ignorant con tool.  
Mulally already explained it to you.  Saying you are still waiting is like saying you missed the bus that ran over you.  You know better, of course.  You are just lying again.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy.  Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies.  Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.



So you pretend that you have not had that explained to you.  Faun explained it, I explained it, and you lie and say no one will help poor little you understand.  Now, a normal thinking person would not  need an explanation from us.  They would simply google it and understand.

So what is it.  There are only two options, me boy.  Are you playing games and lying, or are you simply really, really stupid.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dude...now you're claiming to be a bankruptcy lawyer?  Is this like when George Costanza claimed to be a Marine Biologist as well as an Architect?  

Then you wonder why people bust your chops for lying?


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No one, me boy, ever busts my chops for lying.  You, of course, try,. But just more of your lying, which you know I can prove.
Then, speaking of lies, I have never claimed to be a bankruptcy lawyer. Again, you lie.  As I have said, you lie all the time, and have no concern about doing so. Had I said I was a lawyer of any kind it would be easy for anyone to prove.  But, of course, I did not.
But, it is nice that you see that you are caught again, saying that GM could have taken normal private bankruptcy.  Though I am sure you will lie again, and pretend that you do not understand.


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I never, ever lie.  That is your activity.  Only yours.  I know no one else who lies like you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Those airline bankruptcies simply illustrate what happens when huge businesses go into bankruptcy.  Their viable parts are snatched up by competitors and their market share is absorbed by other companies.  Pan Am going bankrupt didn't kill United.



agreed but why would anyone disagree?? A bankruptcy court is simple there to provide an orderly way to proceed forward when a company can no longer pay its bills.


----------



## Faun (May 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


He didn't claim to be a bankruptcy attorney.

How many times are you going to demonstrate for the forum that you have shit for brains? You don't think the forum already knows this?


----------



## Rshermr (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


HA!  There it is.  PROOF.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Since "normal private bankruptcy" isn't a THING...then no...GM couldn't have taken it!  Please do us all a favor, Rshermr...don't pretend to know about bankruptcy like you pretend to know about economics!  One can only take so much BULLSHIT at any given time!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What he did was use the work of someone else and not put it in quotations so I thought it was Georgie making the statement!  Of course I should have known better because it was actually something that made sense!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2016)

Why don't you go back to pretending to have me on ignore, Rshermr?  Or did you forget that was what you claimed?  Oh, that's right I keep forgetting that you spout so much crap on this site it's hard for you to keep track of the bullshit you said today let alone yesterday.


----------



## Rshermr (May 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Ah, but me poor ignorant con tool, are you suggesting that the auto bailout was based on the use of private trustees to govern the bankruptcy??  Are you suggesting that the federal government acting as trustee was normal??
No, of course not.  You are just trying to find some way to attack.  Normal for you.  And, me boy, bullshit is your gig.  You are suggesting that what I said was not true.  But you loose, again.  Unless you want to try to convince someone that the bankruptcy path taken by the auto industry was normal.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Un, as you can see, the quote was within quotation marks.  For the past several hundred years, me boy, that has meant that the writer is quoting someone.  Always.  Then, the fact that the quote was in red makes it obvious to anyone that the quote was......A QUOTE.  So, odd, I did not see an admission of your mistake.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (May 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Why don't you go back to pretending to have me on ignore, Rshermr?  Or did you forget that was what you claimed?  Oh, that's right I keep forgetting that you spout so much crap on this site it's hard for you to keep track of the bullshit you said today let alone yesterday.



I did not put you on ignore,  I decided instead not to pay any attention to you.  Look it up.  That, me boy, is the definition of ignore.  But you could not stop lying about me, and so I just thought I would correct some of your lies.  Sorry that bothers you so much.  Most people, those with integrity, would stop lying.

So, me boy, did you have anything to say about the subject of this thread, or are you planning on just continuing your personal attacks and lies???


----------



## Markle (May 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]



Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, nice try, me boy. What you apparently do not know, even today, is that to get to the point of auctioning, a purchaser must agree to provide operating capital. At that point., you can try to find a buyer, or, you could choose to auction the assets.
In the case of airlines, the companies were enerally sold AFT


Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]
wow. You ARE ignorant.
No sale could have occurred. No companies could have continued to exist. None of your happy fairy rail would or could have existed.
So, let me explain the basics about bankruptcy, me boy.  The problem is, in a normal private bankruptcy, you have a suitor who takes over a company, provides working capital to keep the company function long enough to sell or liquidate it, and administers the bankruptcy process.  Without a suitor, there is NO WAY TO HAVE A BANKRUPTCY.  And, during the recession, there were no suitors for gm or Chrysler. HENSE, NO BANKRUPTCY. So, in your simplistic little Airline bankruptcy, there were suitors capable of financing the bankruptcy. But not in the auto case.
So, no, me boy. You loose.  There would have been no American auto companies selling any cars, unless ford survived. And they did not expect to.
So, nice try. But simple con talking points just won't  help you here.[/QUOTE]

You really have no clue as to how a bankruptcy works do you?  Which is fine, if you were not spouting off about that which you know nothing.


----------



## Markle (May 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You do pride yourself on knowing nothing about subjects...yet still pretending you do.  What fun!


----------



## Markle (May 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's idiotic is people like you believing that any company is too big to fail!
> ...



You seem proud to display your ignorance as to how a bankruptcy works.  Yet you can't help yourself by making a fool of yourself by constantly showing what you do not know.


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You're the one who's clueless. It would not have just been another, oh well, a company went bankrupt. It would have been an entire industry as all 3 major U.S. automotive companies would have gone down. Even worse, that industry would have gone under while the country was amidst a massive recession and trying to avoid slipping into a recession.


----------



## Rshermr (May 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Now, if you think Faun does not know something, go ahead and tell us what.  You are, me boy, simply lying.  It was clear as glass.  And to everyone with half a brain, bankruptcy was only an option if you wanted mass unemployment (in the millions) and disolution of the american auto industry, to be replaced by foreign auto makers.  Which, of course, you did.  Really, it is plain obvious, calling people ignorant who are simply stating the truth makes you look like what you are:  A CON TOOL.
Pretty obvious, as you well know.  Totally political arguments.  Under no circumstances did it make any sense to see the auto industry go down the tube.  All rational impartial sources agreed that was somewhere between a really good possibility and a probability.  Republican politicians who hated labor unions and loved sending republican governors in southern states which paid the poorest salaries foreign auto manufacturing plants.  And the net, to the conservatives great sorrow, the auto industry is now thriving, and millions of jobs have been saved.
It is un-american to pursue losses to the people of the US for your own political goals.  And conservative talking points and lies will never make it rational.

So again, we can believe a conservative tool, or we can believe the CEO of Ford Motor Company.


----------



## Rshermr (May 16, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...





Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Well, nice try, me boy. What you apparently do not know, even today, is that to get to the point of auctioning, a purchaser must agree to provide operating capital. At that point., you can try to find a buyer, or, you could choose to auction the assets.
In the case of airlines, the companies were enerally sold AFT


Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]
wow. You ARE ignorant.
No sale could have occurred. No companies could have continued to exist. None of your happy fairy rail would or could have existed.
So, let me explain the basics about bankruptcy, me boy.  The problem is, in a normal private bankruptcy, you have a suitor who takes over a company, provides working capital to keep the company function long enough to sell or liquidate it, and administers the bankruptcy process.  Without a suitor, there is NO WAY TO HAVE A BANKRUPTCY.  And, during the recession, there were no suitors for gm or Chrysler. HENSE, NO BANKRUPTCY. So, in your simplistic little Airline bankruptcy, there were suitors capable of financing the bankruptcy. But not in the auto case.
So, no, me boy. You loose.  There would have been no American auto companies selling any cars, unless ford survived. And they did not expect to.
So, nice try. But simple con talking points just won't  help you here.[/QUOTE]

You really have no clue as to how a bankruptcy works do you?  Which is fine, if you were not spouting off about that which you know nothing.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, me poor ignorant con tool, you would like to explain where I was wrong.  But you will not, because you do not know.  You are a congenital idiot.  I know you can not explain where I was wrong, because what I tried to explain to your poor troubled mind is what the people trying to take GM on a "normal" bankruptcy"  found it was not possible.  Which, apparently, is too complex for you to understand.

Sitting back and calling people  ignorant but being unable to explain why is tacky, me boy.  Shows you have neither knowledge nor integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]
Well, nice try, me boy. What you apparently do not know, even today, is that to get to the point of auctioning, a purchaser must agree to provide operating capital. At that point., you can try to find a buyer, or, you could choose to auction the assets.
In the case of airlines, the companies were enerally sold AFT


Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



No one knows, me boy.  But they would not have been cars made by american companies.  They would not be by GM, Ford, or Chrysler.  Yup, even Ford would have been gone.
So, what is your answer, me boy???  Are you just continuing to post talking points??[/QUOTE]



See, that's where you are wrong...again.  I know how many cars would have been bought and anyone knowledgeable knew too.

By now son, you should know that Progressives can't deal in the real world.

Had GM gone into bankruptcy, it would not have disappeared into thin air.  Numerous airlines have gone into bankruptcy.  Is there a shortage of seats, to go anywhere?  No, of course not.

GM would have been auctioned off.  Investors, not the government, would have decided which brands should survive.  Those companies would have been bought, and continued to exist.  The union contracts would have gone by the wayside along with the poor management.  New, better management would have taken over.  Cars would have continued to be produced and the United States would have bought the same number of cars.

Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]
wow. You ARE ignorant.
No sale could have occurred. No companies could have continued to exist. None of your happy fairy rail would or could have existed.
So, let me explain the basics about bankruptcy, me boy.  The problem is, in a normal private bankruptcy, you have a suitor who takes over a company, provides working capital to keep the company function long enough to sell or liquidate it, and administers the bankruptcy process.  Without a suitor, there is NO WAY TO HAVE A BANKRUPTCY.  And, during the recession, there were no suitors for gm or Chrysler. HENSE, NO BANKRUPTCY. So, in your simplistic little Airline bankruptcy, there were suitors capable of financing the bankruptcy. But not in the auto case.
So, no, me boy. You loose.  There would have been no American auto companies selling any cars, unless ford survived. And they did not expect to.
So, nice try. But simple con talking points just won't  help you here.[/QUOTE]

You really have no clue as to how a bankruptcy works do you?  Which is fine, if you were not spouting off about that which you know nothing.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, me poor ignorant con tool, you would like to explain where I was wrong.  But you will not, because you do not know.  You are a congenital idiot.  I know you can not explain where I was wrong, because what I tried to explain to your poor troubled mind is what the people trying to take GM on a "normal" bankruptcy"  found it was not possible.  Which, apparently, is too complex for you to understand.

Sitting back and calling people  ignorant but being unable to explain why is tacky, me boy.  Shows you have neither knowledge nor integrity.[/QUOTE]

You can't seem to make up your mind, Georgie!  Is a GM bankruptcy going mean the company ceases to exist...or is it going to be bought up by investors?  I'm rather amused by your concept that because of a recession that there wouldn't be "suitors" out there with working capital to invest in General Motors...one of the iconic corporations of modern times...one that was back showing a profit rather quickly following the Government bailout...but no investors would be interested?  Here's a novel concept for you, Sparky...during recessions and depressions fortunes are made by people who have capital because they can buy for pennies on the dollar.  Someone would have bought GM because it's a strong brand in the world's most stable economy.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

And I still am waiting to hear the explanation as to why Ford would somehow crash and burn because it lost all of it's domestic competition?  How does elimination your competition make you vulnerable as the only remaining major car brand in the US?  It's a novel concept.  It doesn't make any sense at all...but you and Faun snapped it up, hook, line and sinker!


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And I still am waiting to hear the explanation as to why Ford would somehow crash and burn because it lost all of it's domestic competition?  How does elimination your competition make you vulnerable as the only remaining major car brand in the US?  It's a novel concept.


Sadly, it seems you'll be waiting for the remainder of your life. Not to receive said explanation; that's already been provided to you -- you'll be waiting to understand it.

Oh well, c'est la vie. 



Oldstyle said:


> It doesn't make any sense at all...but you and Faun snapped it up, hook, line and sinker!


Well clearly, it made perfect sense to Ford's CEO since he did appear before Congress to get money to bail out his competitors. And equally as clear -- Ford's CEO was infinitely more economically savvy than you.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?

Now it's also a progressive "fact" that if the US government hadn't bailed out GM that the entire US car industry would have gone belly up...including Ford?  Sorry, Faun but I'm not buying the bullshit...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

What I'll be "waiting" for is an explanation from Georgie Costanza on what the formula was the Obama Administration used to come up with their "jobs saved" figures!  A-B=Jobs Saved?  Gotta love it when idiots try to bullshit their way out of a lie.


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?
> 
> Now it's also a progressive "fact" that if the US government hadn't bailed out GM that the entire US car industry would have gone belly up...including Ford?  Sorry, Faun but I'm not buying the bullshit...


You're funny, gramps. Like what you "buy" matters. 

No rational person is going to accept the idiotic musings if a con tool like you over the actions of the CEO of one of America's auto industry giants.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Throughout history...free markets have self adjusted to cope with recessions...yet when John Maynard Keynes declares that it is government who needs to solve the recession problem...that somehow becomes a carved in stone fact?
> ...



You know what I find rather amusing, Faun?  You folks on the left absolutely RANT about "evil" CEO's of American corporations and their "greed" but because Ford's CEO went along with a Federal bailout of the auto industry...you for some reason see HIM as a good guy?  Yeah, THAT'S rational all right!


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Did I say he was a "good guy?"

No, of course not. This would be yet another example of you lying because facts and truth are once again not on your side.

I do say he's knowledgeable in the automobile industry. More so than  you by an incalculable magnitude.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well?  Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would?  That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it!  You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well?  Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would?  That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it!  You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.


Sadly, the con tool loon continues to lie. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No, con tool loon, that is not all I posted. I also quoted some of his reasons.

See that? I'm not calling you a liar because I can't answer your questions (that too is a lie by you). I call you a liar because you lie. You lied when you falsely inferred I didn't answer even though I actually did answer by quoting Ford's CEO at the time. Now you at least admit I quoted him; but now you lie by falsely claiming I didn't cite his reasons.

As I often say, if the truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 16, 2016)

What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.


Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you can't explain why Ford losing it's main competitor would make it go down the tubes as well?  Your only "explanation" for that is the CEO of Ford SAID it would?  That's pretty weak, Faun...and I think you know it!  You resort to calling me a liar for the same reasons, Rshermr does...because I ask questions that you have no answers for.
> ...



The REASON that people like you and Rshermr have to resort to calling others "liars", Faun is that you struggle so much to explain how your progressive agenda works in the real world!  I ask a very simple question...why Ford would go out of business simply because GM went bankrupt...and you really don't have an answer to that question other than to ask me why the CEO of Ford would push for a bailout!  As if THAT somehow explains something that goes counter to what I've learned running businesses for 40 years!


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> ...


I am struggling with nothing, ya con tool. Sadly for you, you lie because truth and facts are not on your side.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 17, 2016)

Both you and Rshermr are struggling to answer simple questions, Faun...it's why Georgie pretended to put me on ignore and you pepper your posts with "con tools" and accusations of lying!  Rshermr couldn't come up with the economic formula that the Obama Administration used to figure out "jobs saved" so he ran away and hid behind the ignore feature.  You can't explain why losing your competitors would make Ford go out of business so you get abusive.  

Simple questions that you can't deal with.  That says volumes about the truth in your positions.


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's interesting is that Mulally himself has come out and stated that he didn't feel that Ford was in danger of having to file bankruptcy back in 2008 and 2009.
> ...



The thing is, with Oldstyle around, all conversations about economic subjects go out the window.  But we all get a thorough lesson on advanced lying techniques.  While most take the evidence provided to them, and have the integrity to admit their error, Oldstyle NEVER admits anything.  He just ignores the evidence and keeps on lying.  With no problem at all, because if you have no integrity, it makes no difference if you are spreading your agenda by lying or telling the truth.  Just a con tool trait.


----------



## Markle (May 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



With the typically closed mind of a Progressive, you are incapable of grasping the TRUTH AND FACTS.  Perhaps, just perhaps, someone else can explain it in a way understandable to you.  Highly doubtful though since Progressives routinely refuse to read opposing views...unlike Conservatives.

*Bailouts and Bankruptcy*
*By Walter E.Williams*
December 9, 2008  5 Min Read

Let's not allow Congress and members of the bailout parade panic us into allowing them to do things, as was done in the 1930s, that would convert a mild economic downturn into a true calamity. Right now the Big Three auto companies, and their unions, are asking Congress for a $25 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. Let's think about that a bit.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

Two vital marketplace signals are the profits that come with success and the losses that come with failure. When these two signals are not allowed to freely function, markets operate less efficiently. To be successful a business must take in enough revenue not only to cover wages, rents and interest but profits as well. In order to accomplish that feat executives must not only satisfy customers but they must do it in a manner that efficiently utilizes all of their resources. If they fail to cover costs, it means that resources are not being used efficiently and/or consumers don't value the good being produced relative to some other alternative. When a firm routinely fails to turn a profit, there are bankruptcy pressures. The firm's resources, workers, building and capital become available to someone else who might put them to better use. When government steps in with a bailout, it enables executives to continue mismanaging resources.

How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy by Walter E.Williams


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Wow.  Were you so stupid as not to know that George Mason University is a joke among the open minded?  And Williams is the tip of the joke, an admitted Libertarian.  
*"Walter E. Williams* (b. 1936) is John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University *and libertarian media pundit."*
Walter E. Williams - SourceWatch

I should go get some information from the Democratic Underground.  Ah, no, I prefer to have integrity.  dipshit.

Or I could list a left wing funded and managed University like George Mason University.  Except there are none.  Only cons like Koch pay universities to teach what he wants them to as a condition for his contributions.
*"George Mason University* is a Virginia-based public university near Washington, D.C. A "magnet for right-wing money" [1] and heavily Koch-funded[1], it is notable for hosting over 40 libertarian research centers and affiliates including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center."
George Mason University - SourceWatch

Now, me boy, do you have an impartial site???


----------



## Oldstyle (May 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Integrity?  From you, Georgie?  You ran and hid from my request that you provide the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" after embarrassing yourself with A-B=Jobs Saved!  You were shown to be so clueless you pretended that you had me on ignore in a rather pathetic attempt to save face.  Then you come here and pontificate about "lying techniques"?  That's a hoot!


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No georgie here, me boy.  And no argument regarding economics from you, as usual.  And really, me boy, you of all people should never bring up the term integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



George Mason University is a joke among the open minded?  Did you really just claim that?  The economics faculty at GM has two Nobel Prize winners on it.  It is not a right wing school or even a libertarian school but that's about all you've got when you can't counter someone's point of view!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You want to discuss economics?  Fine, tell us what the formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  Or are you sticking with A-B=Jobs Saved?

You can't discuss economics, Georgie...you've proven that over and over again.  All you do is embarrass yourself.


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2016)

Wow.  Were you so stupid as not to know that George Mason University is a joke among the open minded?  And Williams is the tip of the joke, an admitted Libertarian.
*"Walter E. Williams* (b. 1936) is John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University *and libertarian media pundit."*
Walter E. Williams - SourceWatch

I should go get some information from the Democratic Underground.  Ah, no, I prefer to have integrity.  dipshit.

Or I could list a left wing funded and managed University like George Mason University.  Except there are none.  Only cons like Koch pay universities to teach what he wants them to as a condition for his contributions.
*"George Mason University* is a Virginia-based public university near Washington, D.C. A "magnet for right-wing money" [1] and heavily Koch-funded[1], it is notable for hosting over 40 libertarian research centers and affiliates including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center."
George Mason University - SourceWatch

Now, me boy, do you have an impartial site???[/QUOTE]

George Mason University is a joke among the open minded?  Did you really just claim that?  The economics faculty at GM has two Nobel Prize winners on it.  It is not a right wing school or even a libertarian school but that's about all you've got when you can't counter someone's point of view![/QUOTE]

Well, lets check and see if you are lying again:
*"George Mason University* is a Virginia-based public university near Washington, D.C.* A "magnet for right-wing money" [1] and heavily Koch-funded[1], it is notable for hosting over 40 libertarian research centers and affiliates including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center.*
George Mason University - SourceWatch

Now, one of Oldstyles favorite sites, a nut case crazy conservative web site called The Blaze, said the following:
*"3. George Mason University:* *George Mason University has served as a libertarian enclave with close ties to K Street lobbyists since the 1980s, when Charles Koch began donating heavily to the school.* Koch Industries’ executive vice president for public policy, Rich Fink, heads two Koch programs at the school. Matt Kibbe and other leading libertarian activists are alumni of George Mason’s free market economics department."
Progressives identify America’s ‘Top 5 Most Conservative Colleges’"

So, no me boy.  You are indeed lying again.  Everyone knows what George Mason is all about.  It is paid to teach what the Koch brothers want taught.  And the areas of interest for the Koch brothers are economics (they are, of course, Libertarians) and politics.  The Nobel Prize winner is in Bioscience.  Can't find another, though he/she may well be there.


----------



## Faun (May 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Both you and Rshermr are struggling to answer simple questions, Faun...it's why Georgie pretended to put me on ignore and you pepper your posts with "con tools" and accusations of lying!  Rshermr couldn't come up with the economic formula that the Obama Administration used to figure out "jobs saved" so he ran away and hid behind the ignore feature.  You can't explain why losing your competitors would make Ford go out of business so you get abusive.
> 
> Simple questions that you can't deal with.  That says volumes about the truth in your positions.


What a shame you can't stop lying. As I've already said, and I'll say it again, I've already answered your question. The very one you claim I'm struggling to answer.


----------



## Rshermr (May 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Both you and Rshermr are struggling to answer simple questions, Faun...it's why Georgie pretended to put me on ignore and you pepper your posts with "con tools" and accusations of lying!  Rshermr couldn't come up with the economic formula that the Obama Administration used to figure out "jobs saved" so he ran away and hid behind the ignore feature.  You can't explain why losing your competitors would make Ford go out of business so you get abusive.
> ...



He's a poor stupid bastard.  If he wasn't so obnoxious, I would feel sorry for him.


----------



## Faun (May 17, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Oh, look... you found a conservative economist who agrees with you.

Good for you.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Wow.  Were you so stupid as not to know that George Mason University is a joke among the open minded?  And Williams is the tip of the joke, an admitted Libertarian.
> *"Walter E. Williams* (b. 1936) is John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University *and libertarian media pundit."*
> Walter E. Williams - SourceWatch
> 
> ...



George Mason University is a joke among the open minded?  Did you really just claim that?  The economics faculty at GM has two Nobel Prize winners on it.  It is not a right wing school or even a libertarian school but that's about all you've got when you can't counter someone's point of view![/QUOTE]

Well, lets check and see if you are lying again:
*"George Mason University* is a Virginia-based public university near Washington, D.C.* A "magnet for right-wing money" [1] and heavily Koch-funded[1], it is notable for hosting over 40 libertarian research centers and affiliates including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Mercatus Center.*
George Mason University - SourceWatch

Now, one of Oldstyles favorite sites, a nut case crazy conservative web site called The Blaze, said the following:
*"3. George Mason University:* *George Mason University has served as a libertarian enclave with close ties to K Street lobbyists since the 1980s, when Charles Koch began donating heavily to the school.* Koch Industries’ executive vice president for public policy, Rich Fink, heads two Koch programs at the school. Matt Kibbe and other leading libertarian activists are alumni of George Mason’s free market economics department."
Progressives identify America’s ‘Top 5 Most Conservative Colleges’"

So, no me boy.  You are indeed lying again.  Everyone knows what George Mason is all about.  It is paid to teach what the Koch brothers want taught.  And the areas of interest for the Koch brothers are economics (they are, of course, Libertarians) and politics.  The Nobel Prize winner is in Bioscience.  Can't find another, though he/she may well be there.[/QUOTE]

LOL...you can find all that bullshit...but you can't find the two Nobel Prize winners for Economics for George Mason University?  That would be James Buchanan in 1986 and Vernon Smith in 2002.  It took me all of twenty seconds to "find" them...but you couldn't?  That just proves what a political hack you really are, Georgie!

As for The Blaze being one of my favorite sites?  I had to Google it because I didn't have a clue what it was!  Not only is it not a favorite site of mine but I can state quite confidently that it is a site that I've never been to.

So now that you're done telling lies about George Mason University and myself...did you want to provide the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved"?  Or are you going to continue to duck that one?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 17, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Both you and Rshermr are struggling to answer simple questions, Faun...it's why Georgie pretended to put me on ignore and you pepper your posts with "con tools" and accusations of lying!  Rshermr couldn't come up with the economic formula that the Obama Administration used to figure out "jobs saved" so he ran away and hid behind the ignore feature.  You can't explain why losing your competitors would make Ford go out of business so you get abusive.
> ...



You gave me an answer to why GM's going bankrupt would cause Ford to go bankrupt as well?  When?


----------



## Faun (May 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


In the post where I quoted Mulally.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

What, where he said it was "the right thing to do"?  Why, Faun?  Why was it the right thing to do for Ford?  Why would GM's bankruptcy have caused a bankruptcy by Ford?  Why is it the GM's bankruptcy didn't cause Ford problems?  Why did Mulally also state that GM's going into bankruptcy was great for Ford's sales?


----------



## Faun (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What, where he said it was "the right thing to do"?  Why, Faun?  Why was it the right thing to do for Ford?  Why would GM's bankruptcy have caused a bankruptcy by Ford?  Why is it the GM's bankruptcy didn't cause Ford problems?  Why did Mulally also state that GM's going into bankruptcy was great for Ford's sales?


Nope, wrong quote. Now try looking at the Mulally quote I posted where he cited some reasons a GM & Chrysler collapse would have threatened Ford.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

That's my entire point, Faun...

How does the collapse of Ford's main competitor in a market create a "threat" to Ford?  It makes zero sense yet you and Georgie have accepted that as "gospel"!


----------



## Rshermr (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That's my entire point, Faun...
> 
> How does the collapse of Ford's main competitor in a market create a "threat" to Ford?  It makes zero sense yet you and Georgie have accepted that as "gospel"!



Let me explain, me boy.
1.  You are a proven liar.  Liars typically do not stop lying.  And that is what we have been telling you over and over.
2.  You are either butt stupid or dishonest.  Reading an article by the CEO of Ford that even people not familiar with the situation understand easily, and have no problem at all understanding, and you not getting it, is more than suspicious.  
3.  You have a long, well documented history of taking a lie and using it. in some cases over a hundred times, to push your agenda.  Nothing new.
4.  Trying to say that Mulalli was wrong just does not pass the giggle test.  It is a little hard to listen to a agenda driven con tool trying to make a point that makes absolutely no rational sense.  You have not 2% of the credibility of Mulalli, yet push on even suggesting that he had ulterior motives, all be it motives that are only believable to those that have an agenda.  
5.  You are completely incapable of finding an other expert sources that agree with your ignorant point of view.  Even one.  Because there are none, but there are plenty of others who agree with him.  

Net net, there is no way anyone is going to change the agenda driven opinion of a dishonest and apparently completely ignorant conservative tool like yourself.  You love wasting people's time.


----------



## Rshermr (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That's my entire point, Faun...
> 
> How does the collapse of Ford's main competitor in a market create a "threat" to Ford?  It makes zero sense yet you and Georgie have accepted that as "gospel"!


You have no point.  None at all.  You have taken the quote, and suggested you do not understand it.  I have explained it more than once  Faun has explained it multiple times.  The problem me boy, is you.  Obviously.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That's my entire point, Faun...
> ...



You can't explain what the formula was for determining "jobs saved"...Faun can't explain why losing one's major competitor would be bad for any business...but I'm the one with the problem?

You both have a problem because neither of you can rationalize the bullshit you're putting out on this board!

You can't find that formula you promised to deliver (how pathetic is A-B=Jobs Saved!) and you couldn't find the two Nobel Peace Prize winners from George Mason University?  You're not that bright...are you, Georgie?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

You spout off about what a "liar" I am (without being specific about what "lie" I've supposedly told!) as if you repeat that enough it will somehow become fact.  In the meantime you announce that you're going to put me on ignore...pretend to have done so for weeks in an attempt to avoid coming up with the economic formula you promised you had...and then call me a "liar" because I call you on it?  And WHY am I a liar?  Because I actually believed you when you told me you were putting me on ignore and then pretended to have done so?  Day in and day out...you are the biggest bullshit artist on this board, Rshermr!  From your claim to have taught economics at the college level but not knowing what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics you were basing your claims on...to your ridiculous claim that you couldn't find the two Nobel Prize winners in economics from George Mason U...you're a never ending flow of grade A bullshit.


----------



## Faun (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That's my entire point, Faun...
> 
> How does the collapse of Ford's main competitor in a market create a "threat" to Ford?  It makes zero sense yet you and Georgie have accepted that as "gospel"!


Holyfuckingshit! 

Once again, you prove Rshermr was spot on, spotting you as a con tool.

Here you are admitting you have no fucking clue what reasons Mulally gave for why a collapse of his two main competitors would have threatened Ford, yet that doesn't even slow you down from claiming it doesn't make sense.



Just goes to prove you argue from a political position and not an informed position. *That's why you're a con tool. *


----------



## Rshermr (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I did not look for them, me boy.  Because there was no reason to. You simply mentioned there were two, and I did not dispute that.   I found one by chance.  The other economics Laureate is dead. Maybe you were referring to this guy:
*Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics*
JunkScience has done it again.
I was alerted this morning that *Jagadish Shukla*, the professor and climate profiteer leading the charge to have skeptics investigated under RICO, had* falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner on George Mason University’s web site.* 
Fake Nobel prize taken away from George Mason prof who asked for RICO investigation of climate skeptics
He is not actually dead like the other Laureate, just his reputation is.


----------



## Rshermr (May 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That's my entire point, Faun...
> ...



The boy never argues from an informed position.  He is totally agenda driven.  Nice thing is, if you know the subject, you know what oldstyle will have to say.  Often from this site:
"Be armed with Conservative Talking Points (CTP) as your powerful arsenal if you are forced into a debate"
Conservative Talking Points - A Conservative's Debating Tool and Reference Database of Political Knowledge

Poor stupid bastard.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You didn't look for them?  Then why did you claim that you did?

"So, no me boy. You are indeed lying again. Everyone knows what George Mason is all about. It is paid to teach what the Koch brothers want taught. And the areas of interest for the Koch brothers are economics (they are, of course, Libertarians) and politics. The Nobel Prize winner is in Bioscience. Can't find another, though he/she may well be there.

You obviously DID look for them and you obviously were too stupid to find them!  Every time you post here you get caught in yet another lie, Georgie...and yet you steadfastly declare "I never lie".  You obviously went back again and found them (I don't know how you could have missed them the first time...they're right there!) because you suddenly now know that one of them has passed away!  Your not finding them the first time comes down to one of two things...either you're incredibly bad at research with awful basic reading skills...or you deliberately pretended that you couldn't find the two Nobel Prize winners in economics from George Mason!  So which is it, Georgie?  Are you an idiot or are you a liar?

Oh and by the way?  There is no such thing as Nobel Prize for Bioscience...nor has anyone from George Mason ever won a Nobel Prize in ANYTHING but Economics!  Just one more thing you're either ignorant about or that you're lying about!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That's my entire point, Faun...
> ...



I read everything that Mulally said when he testified, Faun and nothing he said would lead me to believe that a GM bankruptcy would have "threatened" Ford!  Quite the contrary actually...because he recounts at one point how just the threat of a GM bankruptcy did wonders for car sales at Ford!


----------



## Faun (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh, look -- the lying con tool lies again.

Didn't see that coming. 

I quoted Mulally offering Congress his reasons for why he felt a collapse of his competitors threatened his own company, which is why he asked Congress to bail out his competitors even though he didn't need a bailout.

You repeatedly claimed I did not provide that even though I repeatedly reminded you I did. Now you claim you knew all along what he said; although if that were true, you wouldn't have kept asking me to explain what he said. Had you read what he said, as you falsely claimed, you would have known what he said.

Even worse, you claim you know what he said yet you labeled it "idiotic." Again, repeating myself -- no sane person is going to take the word of a con tool fool like you over the CEO of Ford.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

And yet you STILL can't explain why GM's going bankrupt would have been bad for Ford...or why Mulally admitted that the looming GM bankruptcy was great for Ford sales?  Why do you even bother, Faun?  Your contributions to this string are as pathetic as your buddy, Georgie!


----------



## Faun (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And yet you STILL can't explain why GM's going bankrupt would have been bad for Ford...or why Mulally admitted that the looming GM bankruptcy was great for Ford sales?  Why do you even bother, Faun?  Your contributions to this string are as pathetic as your buddy, Georgie!


Already explained it.

You claimed you read it (Mulally's explanation) -- you obviously lied since you still don't know what that explanation is.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And yet you STILL can't explain why GM's going bankrupt would have been bad for Ford...or why Mulally admitted that the looming GM bankruptcy was great for Ford sales?  Why do you even bother, Faun?  Your contributions to this string are as pathetic as your buddy, Georgie!
> ...



I've heard his "explanation", Faun...unlike you and Georgie however...I don't think it made any sense at all!  GM going bankrupt would have been the best thing to happen to Ford since Henry came up with the assembly line!


----------



## Faun (May 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Again, if you heard his explanation then you would have known I already answered your question since I quoted his explanation. You clearly didn't or you wouldn't keep asking.

And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford.  You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge.

In every conversation about Ford between you  and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



His first hand knowledge of his industry?  Mulally didn't even come into the car industry until 2006!  Before that he was in the aircraft business...running Boeing!  That hardly matters however because basic business fundamentals run true in ALL industries!  One of those basic business fundamentals...something that is just plain common sense...is that the elimination of your biggest competitor (for whatever reason) is going to help your business...not hurt it!

At no time have I ever claimed to be more economically "savvy" than Mulally!  What I do claim however is that despite what Mulally claimed in front of Congress a bankruptcy by GM could only benefit Ford...something that Mulally actually admits later on when he relates how GM's bankruptcy problems helped Ford's auto sales substantially.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Uh, really.  You are trying too hard!   Your claim is simply too easy to disprove:
January 10, 2011
R*enowned pioneer in biochemistry Ferid Murad will establish a lab, teach and mentor students.*
*A Nobel Prize winner will soon be teaching and conducting research at the George Washington University.*
*Ferid Murad, recipient of the Nobel Prize in medicine and world-renowned pioneer in biochemistry,* will join GW’s faculty in April.
Uh, what department of economics is biochemistry? 

Then, GM claimed this one, which proved to be a FRAUD:
I was alerted this morning that Jagadish Shukla, the professor and climate profiteer leading the charge to have skeptics investigated under RICO, had falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner on George Mason University’s web site. See image below.






So, that is one thing George Mason has a right to be proud of.*  It is one of only three universities in the world to have announced a Nobel prize winner that was, in actuality, a lie.*  As in Fraud.  Now, that should be something you are quite proud of, OS.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The disconnect is easy to explain.  You are a con tool, Mulally was CEO of a Fortune 100 corporation.  See the difference?  He was explaining facts, you are simply saying he is not and posting the same lies over and over and over.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What, where he said it was "the right thing to do"?  Why, Faun?  Why was it the right thing to do for Ford?  Why would GM's bankruptcy have caused a bankruptcy by Ford?  Why is it the GM's bankruptcy didn't cause Ford problems?  Why did Mulally also state that GM's going into bankruptcy was great for Ford's sales?
> ...



Typical oldstyle.  He is simply turning himself inside out to post drivel that he states prove that Ford had no problems.  He does not want to post the Mulalli quotes because they prove your post to be honest.  And OS could care less about honesty.  Typical of him.
What OS does is post lies and personal attacks.  Nothing else.  Because, of course, he is a con tool with no integrity.


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


And yet he still knew the collapse of his competition, amid a massive recession which he believed could have led to a depression had they not been bailed out, would have also threatened Ford.

And again... any discussion about Ford between you and the CEO of Ford -- you lose.


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I think the funniest part is him claiming to know what was better for Ford than the CEO credited with saving the company.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Right.  We know Mulally is one of 27 total ceo's who run or has run the 27 largest corporations in the US.  He ran Boeing, number 27, for years, and then ran Ford number 9,  for a number of years.
Now, Oldstyle, on the other hand, is like me in one respect.  He, like I, have never run even a fortune 1000 company.  The difference is, Oldstyle thinks he knows more than a person who has spend years running one of the largest companies in the US, in terms of Gross Revenue.  I know that I do not know nearly as much about his companies as Mulally does.  Poor old Oldstyle seems to not have a clue.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And for about the twentieth time...HOW DOES GM GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY "THREATEN" FORD!!!   You still haven't addressed Mulally's remarks that GM's looming bankruptcy HELPED Ford's sales!  How can it do that...yet still "threaten" Ford?

Didn't know Mulally didn't have much experience in the auto industry...did ya', Faun!  Oh, you think I don't notice how you ignore whole parts of my posts when they show you up?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Business fundamentals are in many ways universal and don't change because of the size of a business.  Your biggest competition going out of business is great news for a Mom & Pop grocery store just as it is for a Fortune 500 company and it's RIDICULOUS to claim that happening would be a threat!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Do you even know who Shukla is or what he stands for?  He's the climate fear peddler who wanted scientists who didn't agree with him on climate change to be investigated under the RICO Act!  The fact that he's a professor at George Mason would appear to directly contradict your claims that GMU is a right wing university!  If that really WERE the case then why would they have someone like Shukla teaching there?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

And don't think I haven't noticed how much you want to talk about Mulally instead of why you can't come up with the economic formula for determining "jobs saved", Georgie!  Still running scared from that one...aren't you!


----------



## Markle (May 19, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Now, me boy, do you have an impartial site???



Your desperation is duly noted.


----------



## Markle (May 19, 2016)

I have to admit, I do find the Progressive posters here most amusing.  They make claims, then when asked how they came about those figures, the Progressives look like a deer caught in headlights.

I post an article by Dr. Walter Williams concerning bankruptcy.  None of the Progressives can legitimately dispute the information, they are afraid to attack the author as he is BLACK so they attack the school.  As if the school wrote the article.

For the convenience of all here is an abbreviated version of the essay along with the source and link.

*Bailouts and Bankruptcy*
*By Walter E.Williams*
December 9, 2008 5 Min Read

[...]

*What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.*

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

*A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.*

[...]

*How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.*

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Bailouts and Bankruptcy by Walter E.Williams


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Jesus, you are really getting excited.  And, me boy, trying to make light of a ceo who has guided Boeing, then Ford, is a hoot.  You are a clown.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Right.  You would know.  All of your fortune 50 experience, running those huge companies.  Oh, yeah, you did nothing of the sort.  Not even a fortune 1000 company, me boy.  Nothing.  Really, you get funnier and funnier.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And don't think I haven't noticed how much you want to talk about Mulally instead of why you can't come up with the economic formula for determining "jobs saved", Georgie!  Still running scared from that one...aren't you!


Not at all, me poor ignorant con tool.  Just waiting for you to honor your part of the bargain.  You have to name the bill republicans brought forward to address the unemployment problem that resulted from the great republican recession of 2008.  Really, you are such a tool.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Now, me boy, do you have an impartial site???
> ...



Please, me poor ignorant con tool, tell me why you think I am desperate.  I need a laugh.  And you are, me boy, laughable.


----------



## Rshermr (May 19, 2016)

Markle said:


> I have to admit, I do find the Progressive posters here most amusing.  They make claims, then when asked how they came about those figures, the Progressives look like a deer caught in headlights.
> 
> I post an article by Dr. Walter Williams concerning bankruptcy.  None of the Progressives can legitimately dispute the information, they are afraid to attack the author as he is BLACK so they attack the school.  As if the school wrote the article.
> 
> ...



That is because you are a con tool.  so you do not care for, or pay attention to, the idea of impartial sources.  Or journalism.  Or that sort of thing.  Dipshit.


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Really? You've asked 20 times??

Then for the 20th time -- go read my post where I quoted Mulally's reasons.

As far as Mulally's experience in the auto industry, what I said was, "stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers," which as the CEO of one of the U.S.'s leading auto manufacturers -- is true. First hand knowledge means he worked in that industry.

You don't even understand English yet you think you know more about Ford than their former CEO.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



He wasn't a car guy, Faun...he was an airplane guy!  Something you'd know if you really knew anything about the man!  He only came over to Ford in 2006...shortly before the economic crisis in 2008.  For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true.  Doesn't make him a bad CEO.  Neither does it explain why losing your main competitor in a market is a bad thing for ANY company...Boeing or Ford!

And you STILL haven't explained Mulally's comment that GM's bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And don't think I haven't noticed how much you want to talk about Mulally instead of why you can't come up with the economic formula for determining "jobs saved", Georgie!  Still running scared from that one...aren't you!
> ...



Admit it, Georgie...you'll NEVER provide that formula because you know it doesn't exist!  That's why you gave me that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved and then pretended to put me on ignore.  You do what you always do when you paint yourself into a corner posing as an economist...you run away.


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Moron... he worked for Ford. That alone gave him "first hand knowledge."



Oldstyle said:


> For you to claim that he has years of experience with the automobile industry is not true.



You're lying again con tool, I never said he had years of experience with the automobile industry (though he did).

You can't post without lying can you, ya con tool?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"And again, no one gives a flying fuck if you think you're more economically savvy than the CEO of Ford.  You don't have to like the answer he gave but no one owes you anything beyond his explanation; which of course, stems from first hand knowledge of his industry, first hand knowledge of company, first hand knowledge of his suppliers; whereas you don't know any of that in any level of depth compared to his knowledge."

Nah, you just spouted off about all of Mulally's "first hand knowledge"...when he'd only been with Ford for a very short time...something that I had to point out to you!  So what do you do?  You accuse someone who's embarrassed you over a lack of knowledge of being a "liar"!  The truth is...you can't rationalize Mulally's statement so you come back with that lame "no one owes you anything beyond his explanation" excuse!

So were you EVER going to explain how GM going bankrupt was going to "THREATEN" Ford...when Mulally actually came out and said that the looming GM bankruptcy did wonders for Ford's sales?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 19, 2016)

You two come with the "liar" bullshit and the "con tool" bullshit...every time you can't argue your points.  Grow up already.


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Poor, con tool. "first hand knowledge" references hands on experience, not length of service.

_It is also a knowledge that is gained through firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief based on what someone else has said.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/firsthand-knowledge/_​
As far as the rest of your idiocy -- again ... asked and answered. See the Mulally quote I posted where he explained why his competitors collapse threatened Ford.


----------



## Faun (May 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You two come with the "liar" bullshit and the "con tool" bullshit...every time you can't argue your points.  Grow up already.


Fuck you, ya con tool. My points were made. It's not actually incumbent upon me for you to understand. Nor am I under any obligations to play along with your con tool games.


----------



## Chuz Life (May 20, 2016)

And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns. 

If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.


----------



## Faun (May 20, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> 
> If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.


LOL

The person who sought for GM and Chrysler to be bailed out and said Ford would be threatened if his competitors folded was .... *the CEO of Ford*.

Your credentials are?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> ...



Yet you can't explain WHY Ford would be threatened other than Ford's CEO said it would be a bad thing for the country?  One doesn't need "credentials" to see that you're full of it, Faun!

Love how you're trying to spin your fail on Mulally's car industry expertise!  Just can't admit you got exposed yet again...can you?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> 
> If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.



You're asking Faun to use common sense, Chuz...and both he and Georgie are incapable of that.  Anyone with even an iota of common sense knows that losing your biggest competitors in any market is not a bad thing for a business.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> 
> If the failure or failure of one company was an inherent economic risk to all of that company's competitors. . . We would have no basis for or any need for laws against monopolies. Would we.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> ...




Congratulations.  I am assuming, of course, that you are in the competition for the stupidest post this year contest.   Made up only of conservative tools.  Best of luck.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You two come with the "liar" bullshit and the "con tool" bullshit...every time you can't argue your points.  Grow up already.


So why, me boy, are you saying you are not a con tool?


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> ...



You should join the competition, Oldstyle.  You are really close to the bottom of bottom feeders.  And you love playing games.  And you are a dipshit.  
Work it out.  I suspect the two of you have a combined IQ of under 90.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Since you posted that to yourself, Georgie...I can only assume that you are finally conceding that you ARE the stupidest poster on this board?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Like I said before...when Faun and Georgie can't answer questions about their contentions...like why a GM bankruptcy would be bad for Ford...or what was the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved"...their fall back strategy is accusing whoever asked those questions of being a liar of a con tool.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Let's see.  How would we prove that you are a lying asshole.  How about that you make the same claim over and over.  But continue to suggest that you have not been provided with the answer multiple times.  Which, me boy, proves:
1.  You are a con tool.
2.  You love playing games.
3.  You are incapable of discussion.
5.  You are butt stupid.
6.  You are, as proved many times over, a LIAR.
7.  You have NO INTEGRITY.

Other than those issues, you have no problems.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



REALLY don't want to talk about economic formulas...do you, Georgie!  

All that bluster about con tools, lying and integrity?  All it is...is you ducking a question you can't answer.  A question you would be able to answer if you weren't the board's biggest poser!


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Since you posted that to yourself, Georgie...I can only assume that you are finally conceding that you ARE the stupidest poster on this board?



Oldstyle, let me educate you (though I know that is unlikely).  In the english language, if you start the sentence with a persons name, that means to all with a brain that you are talking to that person.  Hope that helps.  Further, since you keep calling me georgie, you are obviously incapable of knowing who you are posting to.  Georgie does not exist here.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Don't want to provide your response to what economic bill was proposed to help lower unemployment during the Great Republican Recession, do you, me boy.  Really, you can stop lying any time.  I am waiting and really anxious to give you the formula that you want so badly.  You really do want that formula, eh, Oldstyle.  You are not just playing games.
Oh.  It's you.  Of course you are just playing games.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



You replied to yourself, Georgie.  Duh?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



LOL...yeah, we can all tell that you're "anxious" to give me the formula, Georgie!  You've been ducking doing that for weeks now!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

A-B=Jobs Saved is the best you've come up with so far and even YOU can grasp how pathetic that is!


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Like I said before...when Faun and Georgie can't answer questions about their contentions...like why a GM bankruptcy would be bad for Ford...or what was the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved"...their fall back strategy is accusing whoever asked those questions of being a liar of a con tool.



And, you lie again.  If your fingers are typing,  you are lying, eh, oldstyle.
No one called you a liar for asking a question.  Ever.  However, forgetting your requirement to provide an answer which was the condition for getting your answer, is lying.  And saying you did not get an answer over and over when you provably did, is LYING.  And playing your little games, is dishonest.  All of this proves you have no integrity.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So waiting for you to provide the answer to the required subject is ducking????  Hardly.  Provide the answer, me boy.  And stop playing games.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before...when Faun and Georgie can't answer questions about their contentions...like why a GM bankruptcy would be bad for Ford...or what was the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved"...their fall back strategy is accusing whoever asked those questions of being a liar of a con tool.
> ...



You ALWAYS accuse anyone who asks you a question you have no answer to of being a liar or a con tool.  It's what you do!  It's who you ARE, Georgie!  It's the classic response of a pathological liar.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

When you're asked a question that you obviously don't have an answer to...and you respond by demanding that the other person answer a question of yours BEFORE you'll deign to answer their question...then YES you are ducking the question!  You don't HAVE the economic formula that the Obama Administration used to determine jobs saved because you know it's a bullshit number!


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually, you should post all those responses where I have said you are a liar, because you asked a question.  ONCE.. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED.  Dipshit.
What bothers you to no end is that you can not prove that I have EVER lied, because I NEVER LIE.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

*Covering Up*
Though compulsive liars often take extreme care to keep others under the spell of their deception, once in awhile the web of lies unravels and the liar is seen as is without any of his dishonest walls. When this occurs, the liar works quickly and frantically to rebuild those walls, constructing more lies in order to rebuild himself into what he was previously seen as. This often involves elaborate stories of being falsely accused, constructing lie after lie with the intention of defending his or her supposed innocence. If this method, as well as any other attempt at lying, fails and the compulsive liar is forced to tell the truth, he or she will often become incredibly nervous and display a great deal of uncomfortable behavior.

Compulsive Lying Disorder: Description, Symptoms, and Treatment Options


----------



## Faun (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


No, I didn't offer up any Mulally explanation for why his predicament would be bad for the "country" and that's not what you asked for. You asked for why it would be bad for "Ford." For that, I gave you his explanation.

Do you ever stop lying? Or are con tools not capable of honesty?

And I've neither failed on pointing out Mulally's "first hand knowledge" nor spun it. The problem lies with your reading comprehension struggles as you _think_ having "first hand knowledge" means being involved for "years"; when in reality, it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means having hands on experience.

Again.... being the ignorant con tool you are, you blame me for your G-d given limitations.


----------



## Faun (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > And the win goes to oldstyle. Point set and match. Kudos to oldstyle for sticking to his guns.
> ...


Again, it's your word against the CEO of Ford over what was best for Ford.

You lose that debate every single time.


----------



## Faun (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Like I said before...when Faun and Georgie can't answer questions about their contentions...like why a GM bankruptcy would be bad for Ford...or what was the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved"...their fall back strategy is accusing whoever asked those questions of being a liar of a con tool.


Asked and answered. It's not my problem you choose to either ignore the explanation or not understand it.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Why?  Mulally himself has said that the impending bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler did wonders for Ford sales.  Your CEO is having a debate with himself!  You can't claim that a GM bankruptcy would be bad for Ford because the Ford CEO says so...when the Ford CEO's own words contradict himself!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Asked and answered?  More like asked and avoided at all costs!


----------



## Faun (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Quote Mulally saying that...


----------



## Faun (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Asked and answered?  More like asked and avoided at all costs!


Nope. You merely lying again. That's all you do. You fit the description you gave for a compulsive liar to a tee.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Really, we all feel sympathy for you.  Having to work so hard.  Actually trying to make the ceo of Ford, a man much, much, much, much more experienced and smarter than you, look like he is contradicting himself.  Which all rational folk understand is just you playing your little con tool games. 
So, no, no one feels sorry for you, me boy.
Here is a clue, me boy.  Now, we know you do not want to consider this, being a con tool as you are.  But, there is a HUGE (from your favorite republican presidential candidate) difference.  Now, to help you, assuming you can read, look up impending.  Then look up actual.  See if you can tell the difference.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Asked and answered?  More like asked and avoided at all costs!
> ...





Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Asked and answered?  More like asked and avoided at all costs!
> ...



You know, Faun, I am not sure.  Is it Compulsive or Congenital.  If it is compulsive, it is his problem.  If it is congenital, he was born that way.  And it is just plain bad luck.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> *Covering Up*
> Though compulsive liars often take extreme care to keep others under the spell of their deception, once in awhile the web of lies unravels and the liar is seen as is without any of his dishonest walls. When this occurs, the liar works quickly and frantically to rebuild those walls, constructing more lies in order to rebuild himself into what he was previously seen as. This often involves elaborate stories of being falsely accused, constructing lie after lie with the intention of defending his or her supposed innocence. If this method, as well as any other attempt at lying, fails and the compulsive liar is forced to tell the truth, he or she will often become incredibly nervous and display a great deal of uncomfortable behavior.
> 
> Compulsive Lying Disorder: Description, Symptoms, and Treatment Options



Got it.  So you are a compulsive liar, not a congenital liar, as I thought.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





"Within a couple of weeks of the Big Three's request for help, Mulally said, "98% of the people in America ... knew GM and Chrysler were bankrupt" and that Ford wasn't. He added that more than half of U.S. consumers surveyed said that they were considering Ford for their next car purchase.

The episode resonates among car buyers to this day. Said Mulally, "The customers love that Ford didn't take taxpayer money."


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > *Covering Up*
> ...



You're the one with the George Costanza nickname, Sparky...well deserved by the way!


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


So, Faun, we have established that he is a con tool.  I knew that because he has been posting attacks at me since 2012.  So, here is another thing that I learned about the boy.
Oldstyle is a very small person.  He feels embarrassed that he has accomplished so little in his life.  So, he has to lie a great deal.  Just part of him.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Interesting quote from the outgoing GM CEO when the Federal Government asked for his resignation.

"I don't know whether Rick had any inkling of why I had wanted to see him alone. His face was impassive as I said, "In our last meeting, you very graciously offered to step aside if it would be helpful, and unfortunately, our conclusion is that it would be best if you did that."

I told him of our intention to make Fritz acting CEO and he supported that idea, cautioning me against bringing in an outsider to run the company. "Alan Mulally called me with questions every day for two weeks after he got to Ford," he said."

So much for your claim that Mulally had extensive knowledge about the car industry, Faun!  He was calling his competitor asking for advice on a daily basis when he first took the Ford job.

Auto bailout: Steven Rattner on how the Obama team did it - Oct. 21, 2009


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



LOL...I'm not the person who pretends to be things I'm not, Georgie...that would be you.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I never lie.  I never pretend.  But you do, me boy.......Lie more than anyone I nave ever knew.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


To prove how dishonest you are, I found the article you got your quotes from.  Because I was suspicious of your take on an article that you did not reference.  So, lets take a look:Your quote above is accurate.  What is not is the main part, that being the crux of the article, and what you did not include. Because, the following quote is the crux of what Mulally was saying, and it is the exact statement of fact that you have been given by Faun, and tried to say you did not get.  See if you can read it this time.  We are all waiting for your next set of lies:
"crucial fact: Companies that are broke require money to keep operating, even while under the protection of a Bankruptcy Court. And as Ford's chief executive, Alan Mulally, pointed out during a visit with The Times' editorial board Tuesday, "*There was nobody that was going to give them money for [debtor-in-possession] financing."*

Mulally's comments weren't offered as a criticism of Romney. Rather, he was defending Ford's decision to go to Congress with GM and Chrysler in 2008 to call for a federal rescue. *Ford didn't need the money itself -- it had previously arranged a multibillion-dollar line of private credit. But Mulally said he believed then, just as he believes now, that GM and Chrysler threatened to drag the entire country into a depression.*
*
"This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today."
Ford's CEO has no regrets about call for bailout*
Notice the link to the article.  So we can see where it came from, and check it out ourselves.  That thing you do not use.  Because honest people include links.  Dishonest people do not.

Now, I know this is difficult for you to understand.  Because it is not what you want to believe.  But the rational world understands it and believes Mulally.  Sorry no one is quoting you.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


And, by the way, there is no georgie here.  He said you were a lyng ass hole and left.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


No Georgie here.  He said you were a lying dipshit, and left.


----------



## Rshermr (May 20, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Interesting quote from the outgoing GM CEO when the Federal Government asked for his resignation.
> 
> "I don't know whether Rick had any inkling of why I had wanted to see him alone. His face was impassive as I said, "In our last meeting, you very graciously offered to step aside if it would be helpful, and unfortunately, our conclusion is that it would be best if you did that."
> 
> ...



So, OS proving he has no clue of how large companies are run.  The fact that new CEO's to an industry would talk to others seems foreign to OS.  I mean, OS knows that dishwashers do not talk to other dishwashers.  But he seems unhappy that no one called him to provide G2.  
Do you suppose that people know that no ceo would call a dipshit?  
The dipshit is, however, impressed with the statement by the failed and discredited ceo of GM, who is widely understood to have taken GM down the tubes.  
Sometimes having OS posts keeps you laughing.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where in any of THAT...is the part where GM's bankruptcy hurts Ford?

And I'm curious...do you think doing your posts in RED somehow makes them more intelligent than doing them in black?  Got news for you, Georgie...you can paint a turd red but it's still a turd.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



LOL...you keep saying that...yet you keep responding to your nickname...GEORGIE!


----------



## Markle (May 20, 2016)

[QUOTE="Rshermr, post: 14300149, member: 37424

Please, me poor ignorant con tool, tell me why you think I am desperate.  I need a laugh.  And you are, me boy, laughable.[/QUOTE]

Simple:


----------



## Rshermr (May 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No on, me boy, needs any color to be more intelligent than you.  They look at your posts, and realize that.


----------



## Rshermr (May 21, 2016)

Markle said:


> [QUOTE="Rshermr, post: 14300149, member: 37424
> 
> Please, me poor ignorant con tool, tell me why you think I am desperate.  I need a laugh.  And you are, me boy, laughable.



Simple:






[/QUOTE]

Thanks.  You trying to do Shakespeare was indeed, good for a laugh.  My poor ignorant dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)




----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

Architect...and Economist!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

I am Rshermr...*LORD OF THE IDIOTS!!!!!*

*(and it's in red...so it must be true!) *


----------



## Rshermr (May 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I am Rshermr...*LORD OF THE IDIOTS!!!!!*
> 
> *(and it's in red...so it must be true!) *



And Oldstyle, the con tool clown, posts four seperate posts, complete with graphics, taking up almost a full page, with nothing  except personal attacks.  Apparently OS is: 
1. Incapable of rational conversation.
2.  Unconcerned with wasting the time of others wanting a conversation.
3. Unaware that the thread has a subject.
4.  Not able to find anything to post that has to do with any subject.
5.  Totally, and completely, selfish.
6.  Boring.
7.  Too ignorant to know that he is seen as a dipshit for completely rational reasons.
8. Has no idea what an economic argument is, even though he wants all to believe that he is an expert.
9. Most obviously, a joke.

Nice job of wasting everyone's time, me boy.  If you think you are bothering me with your childish graphics, you are wrong.  If you want to paint yourself as a complete idiot, you have found the way to do so.  Keep at it, me boy.  We all have memories.
You are, by the way, so predictable, I know what you will post next.


----------



## Rshermr (May 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I am Rshermr...*LORD OF THE IDIOTS!!!!!*
> 
> *(and it's in red...so it must be true!) *



Waste of space, me boy.  Waste of time.  Waste of a good thread subject.  Nice job of proving that you are incapable of conversation, or understanding the thread subject, or of economic argument.  
So, no, you are not me.  But you are correct when you say you are lord of the idiots!!!!

*So, me boy, you are really happy with the fact that Jobless claims have fallen to a 4 decade low?*
Quick, OS, get to the Conservative Talking Points and come back with the post you are supposed to make, showing you to be a con tool.

And, me boy, sorry you are too ignorant to see what everyone else can see, which is the reason for the red.  Dipshit.  And, I actually like red.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I am Rshermr...*LORD OF THE IDIOTS!!!!!*
> ...



Well...we COULD talk about the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved", Georgie...but you've been ducking that one for weeks now!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

So instead...I guess we'll do Georgie pictures!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)




----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

And my favorite...the one that sums you up so well...


----------



## Rshermr (May 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And my favorite...the one that sums you up so well...



And oldstyle, as he is want to do, has killed this thread.  No one wants to touch his drivel.  But as a con tool, that is as close to a win as he ever gets.  Closing down a thread that he has shown total inability to discuss rationally.  Cause it had long since occurred that OS had absolutely nothing.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

You can start it up again, Georgie!  All you gotta do is provide the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved".

Or you can stick with your "me boys", "dip shits" and "con tools" contribution to the thread and get treated in kind.  That's the way LIFE works.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 21, 2016)

And it's wont to do...not "want to do"!  Didn't they teach English at your college?

Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you just PRETEND to do things like get an education!


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You can start it up again, Georgie!  All you gotta do is provide the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved".
> 
> Or you can stick with your "me boys", "dip shits" and "con tools" contribution to the thread and get treated in kind.  That's the way LIFE works.



Well, oldstyle, what does that make.  About 10 straight posts without a single bit of rational argument.  Nothing.  You completely ignore the topic of the thread.  No economic argument of any kind.  And can not believe that anyone would say you are a dip shit?


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And it's wont to do...not "want to do"!  Didn't they teach English at your college?
> 
> Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you just PRETEND to do things like get an education!





Oldstyle said:


> And it's wont to do...not "want to do"!  Didn't they teach English at your college?
> 
> Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that you just PRETEND to do things like get an education!


*Eleven straight.*  Sorry, you are, however, proving that you are incapable and immaterial.  Impertinent.  Insignificant.  Meaningless.  And Trivial.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)

How many straight posts have you avoided telling us all what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  Since you don't have the integrity to back up your claims...you get "Georgied"! 




So stop your whining about how unfairly you're being treated and provide what you SHOULD have provided weeks ago...OR ADMIT THAT YOU NEVER COULD!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)




----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)




----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> How many straight posts have you avoided telling us all what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  Since you don't have the integrity to back up your claims...you get "Georgied"!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Twelve Straight times*.


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


>



*THIRTEEN TIMES!*


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


>



FOURTEEN TIMES!!


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> How many straight posts have you avoided telling us all what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  Since you don't have the integrity to back up your claims...you get "Georgied"!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, Oldstyle.  You have said at least 50 times that I refused to provide you a formula I have promised.  I say you are lying.  I say that I gave you a condition, really simple, to get  your formula (which you really could care less about).  So, either I am lying, and I NEVER lie.  Or you are lying.  And the only way to tell is to go way back, to my original post, to prove I provided you a condition.
So, as they say in poker, read em and weep:

*Post number 700, in this thread, May 5 of this year.*
"I know, I know, me boy. You love being mad. It is part of your con persona. And all of the impartial experts, including the CBO, keep proving that the Obama Stimulus created and saved millions of jobs. And you want SO BADLY to believe they saved zero jobs. And you keep loosing the argument. But you keep trying, keep lying, because you are determined that people believe the con agenda. Sorry, me boy, you loose. Because you are wrong, by a mile.
There is absolutely no way in the world to accurately estimate how many jobs the Obama Stimulus "saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used "jobs created or saved" as their go to statistic. That is not true. The fact is, neither you or I have the resources to do so. And I know, oldstyle, that the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse say no one can do so. But, you see, that is what they are in business to do. They have TEAMS of economists, and can indeed estimate jobs saved or created. And they do.
They didn't want to use a verifiable statistic like jobs created because quite frankly...they created very few jobs despite spending billions of dollars on stimulus. Anyone with half a brain knows that...what's amusing is watching people like you who STILL buy the line of bullshit that they were fed by this administration. Barry and his people think you're an idiot, Rshermr...and you prove them right every day that you post on this board!One last time, I will explain it to you. Though you do not want to believe it. Jobs created or saved are exactly the same thing when it comes to the number of people unemployed. You see, me boy, both reduce unemployment by the same amount. And, me lying con tool, you know that.
As for jobs saved being a new thing, it is not. It is not a term created by Obama, as you well know. It is a term used by economists. It is used only when jobs are being lost during a recession. For instance, in January of 2008, we lost over 500,000 jobs. Each of those jobs, all half a million of them, added the digit 1 to the unemployment numbers. If you know very, very basic math, you would understand if you add numbers, you get a higher sum. I hope this is not too difficult for you, Oldstyle. Now, lets move to something beyond your ability to understand. Logic. If losing a job increases unemployment (by 1) what would stopping the loss of a job do? Let's see, Oldstyle, if you are capable of working that out.
So, dipshit, explain why a saved job does not decrease unemployment.
Economists mostly estimated that the recession would increase unemployment greatly. They estimated that without stimulus, the recession would likely turn into a depression, loosing millions of jobs. Just exactly like in the great Republican Depression of 1929. Now, this is beyond you interest in understanding, and probably beyond your ability to understand, but if you stop a depression, you are indeed saving jobs. Because, me boy, you do not loose those jobs, as you would have if you did nothing
Jesus, I feel like I am talking to a first grader, oldstyle. No wonder you love con talking points so much.How do you measure jobs saved?You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you. 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! 
*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."
Bold added by me.  Post number 700, in this thread,  May 5 of this year.   Your post in blue, my response in black.*

Now, a person with class, a person with integrity, would apologize for the twenty odd posts saying I refused to answer your question.  Because, as the above proves I refused nothing.  I simply set a simple condition, one which you had earlier said you could answer, and you failed.  Because there were no republican bills ever to support recovery.  Because they did not want to.   Just more games, me boy.  And another case of being caught lying.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)

"How do you measure jobs saved?You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you."

When you insult someone by calling them too stupid to figure out how to measure jobs saved...don't you think you should know how to measure it yourself?  Duh?  You made that post to me and then when I called you on it...asking what formula the Obama "team of economists" used...you didn't know what to do...did you?


So what you did, Georgie...was to set a "'condition" that you knew in advance you would never admit was met!  Why would anyone do that?  The answer quite obviously is that it got you out of having to provide the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved"!  Why would anyone have to meet a "condition" to get a straight answer from you?  I asked you to show us how "Jobs Saved" was figured and you suddenly realized that you couldn't because there was no such formula...because they basically invented the numbers that they thought sounded good...and after embarrassing yourself with that oh so pathetic, A-B=Jobs Saved attempt at saving face (did you really think anyone was going to let THAT slide?) you were so painted into a corner that you took the incredibly pathetic step of pretending to put me on ignore!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)

So go peddle that nonsense about "integrity" somewhere else because you look idiotic trying to sell it here.


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "How do you measure jobs saved?You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you."
> So, what, me boy.  Are you trying to say you do not typically use personal attacks???  And only poor little you get attacked, by the mean rational minded person?
> So, I wondered what you would come up with to try to dismiss your lies.  You know, the lies you have been caught in AGAIN.
> When you insult someone by calling them too stupid to figure out how to measure jobs saved...don't you think you should know how to measure it yourself?  Duh?  You made that post to me and then when I called you on it...asking what formula the Obama "team of economists" used...you didn't know what to do...did you?
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (May 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So go peddle that nonsense about "integrity" somewhere else because you look idiotic trying to sell it here.



Peddling??? Is that what you think, OS.  Obviously, and not surprisingly, you do not know what integrity is.  Because no one can sell integrity.  It is FREE, to those caring to have it.  That you do not is both unsurprising and sad.  But, if you could sell integrity, one would sell it to someone who knows what it is.  Which is NOT YOU.

But what is really sad, me boy, is you, caught lying again as you are, trying to suggest not "peddling" integrity.  You see, if you are a liar, you can not have integrity.  At any price.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "How do you measure jobs saved?You get a team of economists and task them with determining it. It is not really that difficult, if you have a brain. So, yeah, a big challenge for you."
> ...



You are SO full of it!  Seriously...we both know that you will NEVER come up with the formula for determining "Jobs Saved" because it was always a bullshit statistic and a workable formula doesn't exist.  It's why you tried that ridiculous "A-B=Jobs Saved" thing!  Then you demanded a "condition" that you know will never be met so you have an excuse not to provide what you seemed to think was so elementary.

What's really illustrative of your lack of integrity is your little sham of pretending to put me on ignore...those little games are why you've earned your nickname George Costanza Lord of the Idiots!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)

Nobody can FORCE anyone to back up their contentions...it's something that's usually done willingly by anyone who wants to be taken seriously here!

"And here I thought that you were a capitalist. You were bombarding me with the same question over and over and over and over. And you wanted a formula. So, in capitalist parlance, you were a willing buyer. And in capitalist parlance, I was a willing seller. And I set the price. Which (now pay attention) just as with all buyers in a capitalist market, gave you the option to buy or to refuse. You had a perfect option to opt out. As all buyers do. 
Instead, you decided that I was obliged to give you what you want. Not a capitalistic option, my boy. I have no obligation toward you or anyone, except to set a price. Which I did. And the demand for my product is low, and very elastic."

Read that, Rshermr.  Read it a couple times!  It's total gibberish.  Willing buyer?  Willing Seller?  What the fuck are you babbling about?  You declared "Jobs Saved" to be a viable statistic.  I simply asked what economic formula would one use to arrive at a "Jobs Saved" number and you suddenly realized that YOU HAD NO CLUE HOW THAT WOULD BE DONE!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 22, 2016)

Then you whine about me "killing" this string?  You killed it with your mind numbing "me boy" and "con tool" rants when you were asked one simple question!


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Fifteen Posts with nothing to say.  Just attacking.
So, this is Oldstyle.  Typical.  Caught lying red handed.  No question about it.  Has said over and over and over that I simply would not give him the formula he wanted, and that I had promised him without condition.  So, when I bring back my post, and show it to him in full, and it plainly states that he would get the formula ONLY when he provides the information on the bill that republicans sent forward to combat unemployment, he changes the subject and continues to attack.  You FAILED to provide the bill.  Failed, oldstyle, as you knew you would.  You then simply went on the attack trying to ignore being caught lying AGAIN.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Nobody can FORCE anyone to back up their contentions...it's something that's usually done willingly by anyone who wants to be taken seriously here!
> 
> "And here I thought that you were a capitalist. You were bombarding me with the same question over and over and over and over. And you wanted a formula. So, in capitalist parlance, you were a willing buyer. And in capitalist parlance, I was a willing seller. And I set the price. Which (now pay attention) just as with all buyers in a capitalist market, gave you the option to buy or to refuse. You had a perfect option to opt out. As all buyers do.
> Instead, you decided that I was obliged to give you what you want. Not a capitalistic option, my boy. I have no obligation toward you or anyone, except to set a price. Which I did. And the demand for my product is low, and very elastic."
> ...


Yes you did, me boy.  And I simply answered that I would provide the formula if you would provide the bill republicans brought forward to combat unemployment.  Which you agreed to.  Then failed to do. 
So, what do we know:  1. That you lied at least a dozen times when you said that I promised to supply a formula to you with no conditions. 2. That the condition that you provide the republican bill was part of the deal.  3.  That though we had lost jobs at a rate of over 500,000 PER MONTH and that the government numbers showed that the losses stopped, and that the number of jobs saved were reported, you chose not to believe them.  4. You are not an economist or expert, but simply a conservative, you suggest we should believe you.  5.  That you say that democrats did not save jobs. 6.  That republicans did absolutely nothing to reduce the unemployment rate.  6.  That millions of middle class americans suffered being unable to provide for their families due to lack of work. 7. that republican congressmen blocked every single attempt to stimulate the economy but doing NOTHING to DECREASE UNEMPLOYMENT. 8. *THAT OLDSTYLE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN PROVING THAT NO JOBS WERE SAVED, WHEN ALL THE EXPERTS SAY HE IS WRONG, AND ALL LOGIC SAY HE IS WRONG, BECAUSE HE IS A CONSERVATIVE TOOL.*


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Then you whine about me "killing" this string?  You killed it with your mind numbing "me boy" and "con tool" rants when you were asked one simple question!


I ONLY  responded to your endless mindless meaningless posts and personal attacks.  And yes, as a con tool, you always try to kill threads that show you to be incapable and wrong.  Always.  By posting post after post after post all with no economic argument of any kind.  As you are doing today.  Trying to cover your ass.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 23, 2016)

You made the point that "Jobs Saved" was a viable statistic...all I did was ask you to provide the formula that the Obama Administration's economists used to obtain that statistic...something that one would ASSUME you would gladly provide to prove your point.  You didn't do that though...did you?  You gave me "conditions" (Who demands conditions be met before they will provide proof of what THEY claimed?) then you gave me a laughably pathetic made up formula (A-B=Jobs Saved?) and then you pretended to put me on ignore for weeks.  Why do all that?  Because once again, Georgie...you painted yourself into a corner pretending to know something about economics when in fact you probably know less about the subject than practically anyone who posts on this board!

So keep on whining about "personal attacks", Rshermr...which is rather ironic since that's pretty much all you do!


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You made the point that "Jobs Saved" was a viable statistic...all I did was ask you to provide the formula that the Obama Administration's economists used to obtain that statistic...something that one would ASSUME you would gladly provide to prove your point.
> Yes you did, me boy. And I simply answered that I would provide the formula if you would provide the bill republicans brought forward to combat unemployment. Which you agreed to. Then failed to do.
> 
> Why do all that?  Because once again, Georgie...you painted yourself into a corner pretending to know something about economics when in fact you probably know less about the subject than practically anyone who posts on this board!
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You made the point that "Jobs Saved" was a viable statistic...all I did was ask you to provide the formula that the Obama Administration's economists used to obtain that statistic...something that one would ASSUME you would gladly provide to prove your point.
> ...



So your "answer" to a question was to ask another question?  How did that work for you in school, Georgie?  What's 2+2?  Before I answer that question...you'll have to tell me what my favorite color is?  I'm sure your teachers didn't have a problem with that...

Your response to a simple question shows who and what you are in a nutshell, Rshermr!  Instead of simply admitting that you CAN'T provide the formula that the Obama economic team used to determine "Jobs Saved" because it doesn't really exist...you had to go through all THIS bullshit!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 23, 2016)

Here's some advice for you.  If you follow it you might actually have a rating here that isn't microscopic!  First of all...don't pretend to be something you're obviously NOT.  Secondly...if you don't know the answer to something...admit it and move on!  Finally...stop whining about "personal attacks" unless you're ready to stop your own!


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



It was simple, me boy.  Willing seller, unwilling buyer.  You got what you paid for.  And here I thought you were a capitalist.


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Here's some advice for you.  If you follow it you might actually have a rating here that isn't microscopic!  First of all...don't pretend to be something you're obviously NOT.  Secondly...if you don't know the answer to something...admit it and move on!  Finally...stop whining about "personal attacks" unless you're ready to stop your own!


I will keep your opinions where I generally do.  But please, understand, I did not ask for your opinion.  At all. So, in this case, you were the willing seller.  And I, the buyer, have zero interest.

So, you were caught lying.  Again.  And I know that makes you nuts.  But I can not help you.  Best of luck.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It was a simple question...what was the formula that the Obama economic team used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  If you can't supply it...admit that you can't and move on!  "Willing seller, unwilling buyer"?  "Capitalist"?  What does any of THAT have to do with the question that you were asked?  Like anyone with half a brain can't see that you don't have any formula to give!


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, Oldstyle, that is SEVENTEEN.  Seventeen straight posts where you have posted nothing relative to economics, and nothing specifically relative to the subject of this thread.
What anyone can see is that you are a lying con tool.  You were given the option to provide what I asked of you so that I would give you your formula.  You did not, do as I asked, but want your answer.  That was not the deal.  So, when are you going to tell me when the republicans had any bill that was meant to help the unemployment situation.  Or are you simply admitting that they did not care?  You said that conservatives provided help to the unemployed.  But obviously you were lying again.  
You know, there was an option for you.  You choose not to take it.  So, I am used to dealing with people that have class.  Makes dealing with you impossible.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 23, 2016)

Deal?  Why do you need a "deal" to provide the formula for Jobs Saved?  You maintained that statistic is real and that there was a formula for coming up with it...yet when I asked you to provide that formula...you balked.  Why is that, Georgie?  Is it because you know there is no formula for establishing Jobs Saved?  That's why you tried to pass that A-B=Jobs Saved farce off...isn't it?  You did that because you couldn't come up with a formula.  Then you pretended to put me on ignore because you didn't know what else to do.

Admit it...you don't really WANT a discussion about economics because you don't know anything about the subject.  It's why you've played this silly game of yours...demanding a "deal" you know you'll never honor before you'll answer a simple question!


----------



## Rshermr (May 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Deal?  Why do you need a "deal" to provide the formula for Jobs Saved?  You maintained that statistic is real and that there was a formula for coming up with it...yet when I asked you to provide that formula...you balked.  Why is that, Georgie?  Is it because you know there is no formula for establishing Jobs Saved?  That's why you tried to pass that A-B=Jobs Saved farce off...isn't it?  You did that because you couldn't come up with a formula.  Then you pretended to put me on ignore because you didn't know what else to do.
> 
> Admit it...you don't really WANT a discussion about economics because you don't know anything about the subject.  It's why you've played this silly game of yours...demanding a "deal" you know you'll never honor before you'll answer a simple question!



It would be so easy for anyone but you to answer the question of where the republican bill to help decrease unemployment was.  But you simply could not.  Said you could, even tried a pipeline bill.  Really. oldstyle, you were caught lying.  And you are turning yourself inside out to make it look like it was ok.  Lying, me boy, is not ok.  And you lied time, after time, after time, after time.
What makes you look really stupid is when you suggest I twisted your arm to get you to agree to show me a bill, as a condition for your formula.  No one could twist anyone's arm, me boy.  It was simply that you had no intent of honoring the deal.  None at all.  Those with honor would admit there was no bill, and have it over.  You just go on and on and on and on, wasting everyone's time.  You have killed this thread.  I see no reason to respond to you again, dipshit.  Because you are, without doubt, the lowest human I have yet run into on this board.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Deal?  Why do you need a "deal" to provide the formula for Jobs Saved?  You maintained that statistic is real and that there was a formula for coming up with it...yet when I asked you to provide that formula...you balked.  Why is that, Georgie?  Is it because you know there is no formula for establishing Jobs Saved?  That's why you tried to pass that A-B=Jobs Saved farce off...isn't it?  You did that because you couldn't come up with a formula.  Then you pretended to put me on ignore because you didn't know what else to do.
> ...



Why don't you admit there is no real formula for "Jobs Saved", Georgie?  Be honest for once.  You made the claim.  You couldn't back it up.  All the rest of this nonsense is just noise.  It's why you have the rating that you do.  You get caught pretending to know something about economics and then when someone asks you an even remotely involved question about economics...you're screwed!  You can't give them an intelligent answer because you don't know anything about the subject...so what do you do?  You start with your usual "me boy", "dipshit", "liar" "con tool" baloney...like THAT is going to win you the argument instead of an informed answer.  If you really DID want to "respond" to me like a grownup you would have done so weeks ago when I asked you this simple question...

What is the formula the Obama Administration economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

By the way, despite what you seem to think that question isn't a personal attack...if you think it is...you've got some serious problems.

The mocking of you for once again pretending to be something you're not isn't a personal attack either...it's the natural result of doing what you're do here!  You've EARNED your Georgie designation!  God, have you earned it!  What's sad is you don't seem to ever learn from the times you've painted yourself into a corner in the past.

Most intelligent people would realize that they embarrass themselves when they pretend to be what they're not and get caught doing so.  Not you!  It's why I refer to you as George Costanza.  You truly are the "Lord of the Idiots".


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

What's sad is that if you spent half the time studying economics as you do posting your "me boy" histrionics...you'd probably be able to pass yourself off as someone who graduated with a degree in the subject and taught it at the college level.  But you're too lazy and too stupid to do that...aren't you?


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> By the way, despite what you seem to think that question isn't a personal attack...if you think it is...you've got some serious problems.
> 
> The mocking of you for once again pretending to be something you're not isn't a personal attack either...it's the natural result of doing what you're do here!  You've EARNED your Georgie designation!  God, have you earned it!  What's sad is you don't seem to ever learn from the times you've painted yourself into a corner in the past.
> 
> Most intelligent people would realize that they embarrass themselves when they pretend to be what they're not and get caught doing so.  Not you!  It's why I refer to you as George Costanza.  You truly are the "Lord of the Idiots".



*NINETEEN.  DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK?  EVER?  DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH?  DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME.  
*
I never, ever lie.  I never, ever pretend that I am something I am not.  That is you projecting.  Look it up.  PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO INTEGRITY LIE.  I HAVE INTEGRITY.  YOU SIMPLY HAVE NONE.  AND YOU KNOW IT.  MAKES FOR A MISERABLE LIFE, DOESN'T IT, OLDSTYLE?

YOU ARE UNHAPPY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT LYING TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME.  AND YOU WANT IN THE WORST WAY TO CATCH ME TELLING A LIE.  BUT YOU WILL NOT, ME BOY.  BECAUSE I NEVER, EVER LIE.  NEVER.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*TWENTY.  DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME. *


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's sad is that if you spent half the time studying economics as you do posting your "me boy" histrionics...you'd probably be able to pass yourself off as someone who graduated with a degree in the subject and taught it at the college level.  But you're too lazy and too stupid to do that...aren't you?



*TWENTY ONE.  DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME. *


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

Ever notice how the board's biggest bullshit artists always post in *CAPITAL LETTERS*?  They must think that caps or a red font makes them more "forceful"!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

I AM NOT A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's what Georgie considers proof.  He'd be a lot more convincing about the whole "integrity" thing if he provided the formula for determining "Jobs Saved"...but at this point it's rather obvious that won't be happening!


----------



## pinqy (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I AM NOT A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That's what Georgie considers proof.  He'd be a lot more convincing about the whole "integrity" thing if he provided the formula for determining "Jobs Saved"...but at this point it's rather obvious that won't be happening!


Do you actually think there is a simple single formula, or do you realize it's a lot more complicated than that? Or do you think there was no methodology and the numbers were just pulled out of somebody's ass?


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Ever notice how the board's biggest bullshit artists always post in *CAPITAL LETTERS*?  They must think that caps or a red font makes them more "forceful"!


*TWENTY TWO. DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME.*


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I AM NOT A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That's what Georgie considers proof.  He'd be a lot more convincing about the whole "integrity" thing if he provided the formula for determining "Jobs Saved"...but at this point it's rather obvious that won't be happening!



*TWENTY THREE. DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME.*


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I AM NOT A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


I see it as just a game.  He lies a lot, gets caught a lot, and hates it.  I am now his target, and he is trying to "prove" that i lie.  Which is hard, since I do not.
I suppose I need to take some responsibility for his rants.  I should probably simply ignore him, since he is uninterested in actually addressing the subject of the thread.  If you could make the call, what would you suggest??


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well, in Oldstyles defense, he is only off by two years or so.  But, on your side, you are correct. And he is WRONG.  2011?  How the hell do you miss the high point of unemployment by two years.  By that time, republicans had voted against every bill brought forward by dems to lower the ue rate.  Several by then.  And Republicans, by that time, had brought forward a round number of bills to lower the rate.  That being *0*.
Oh, of course, he was trying to say that it was obamas fault that the ue rate had not started down for 2 years or so. One of those famous conservative talking points.  That are wrong.  But which cons believe, because they believe what they are told, and what they want to believe.


----------



## Rshermr (May 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Ever notice how the board's biggest bullshit artists always post in *CAPITAL LETTERS*?  They must think that caps or a red font makes them more "forceful"!


So, apparently oldstyle has been using capital letters.  And thinks the purpose is to make himself look forceful.  Comical.


----------



## Manonthestreet (May 24, 2016)




----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I AM NOT A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Of course the numbers were just pulled out of somebody's ass, Pinqy!  That was the whole purpose of "Jobs Saved"!  It let the Obama Administration avoid having to tell the American public how few jobs they created with the stimulus by substituting a statistic that couldn't be verified!  You can TELL they're pulling their numbers out of their asses by the wide range of estimates.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I AM NOT A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



It's amusing to watch Rshermr declare that my question has nothing to do with this string!  It's a string about jobs.  My question was about how the Obama group came up with their numbers for their "Jobs Saved" statistic.  How can THAT have nothing to do with this string?

This board's answer to George Costanza has once again painted himself into a corner claiming expertise in something to do with economics (because he taught the subject at the college level you know!).  It's what he always does.  Then he whines for weeks about personal attacks when it's pointed out that he's clueless about economics.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Ever notice how the board's biggest bullshit artists always post in *CAPITAL LETTERS*?  They must think that caps or a red font makes them more "forceful"!
> ...



That was sarcasm, Georgie...
I know it's hard for someone with your limited intelligence to pick up on these things.  Would you like me to post some sort of "alert" to let you know?


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, the con tool says what con tools always say.  The number they do not like was just pulled out of someone's ass.  But they do not admit that their statements are just cut and paste from con talking points.  So, what dipshit is saying is that gov economists are all just tools of the president.  Like he is a con tool.  Of course, the past republican president is apparently a tool also, because he saw jobs being lost in bushels.  And passed a quick bill to help stop the losses so the next president could address it before the economy fell into a depression.  And the government numbers of jobs being lost, for months at over 500,000 per month must all be from tools of the president to be, named Obama.  And the ue rate must be from tools, at least until the new democratic president came to office, then they became unemployed by the new presidents policies (though there were none until approved by congress).  Nice try at an economic argument.  But it was no economic argument.  It was, very obviously, just the normal bullshit coming from a conservative tool.  And at that, one who could care less about the truth.
Because, you see, economists are mostly not tools.  They are mostly honest.  Which is a difficult concept for some con tools, eh me boy.  Because, if you loose over half a million jobs per month, and the ue rate is going up like a rocket, and then it slows and stops, and starts going the other way, any rational person knows something that is seemingly beyond you.  Jobs are being saved, regardless of how badly you want to say they are not.  Only you, a mere employee in the food service industry, with no tag attached to your name saying you are an economist, with no team of economists working for you studying unemployment, have no idea of what you are talking about.  No impartial source for your statements at all.  And you are not trying to understand anything.  As usual, you are simply posting con talking points, with no backing of ANY kind.  Which makes *you, and what you say*, *COMPLETELY IRRELIVENT.  *


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*TWENTY FOUR.  DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME.  OF COURSE NOT!*
*DO YOU EVER POST ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS, OR DO YOU SIMPLY ADMIT YOU ARE INCAPABLE?*


----------



## Oldstyle (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



All that *'CAPS LOCKED AND HIGHLIGHTED'* bluster, Georgie...but you STILL can't come up with the formula that those "honest" Obama economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  Why do you even bother coming here?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 25, 2016)

I'm amused by your belief that the President's economic advisors...his economic team...is impartial.  Next you'll be telling me that his Press Secretary's job isn't to spin things in a favorable light for the President!  Are you back on your pain killers again?  Is that why you're posting the nonsense that you are?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm amused by your belief that the President's economic advisors...his economic team...is impartial.  Next you'll be telling me that his Press Secretary's job isn't to spin things in a favorable light for the President!  Are you back on your pain killers again?  Is that why you're posting the nonsense that you are?



yes job claims are low which is good but still it is worst recovery since Great Depression sine while people have jobs they are low paying jobs. Here's how Bill Clinton described it: 

“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## Rshermr (May 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*TWENTY FIVE. DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME. OF COURSE NOT!*
*DO YOU EVER POST ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS, OR DO YOU SIMPLY ADMIT YOU ARE INCAPABLE?*


----------



## Oldstyle (May 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Still posting in Caps and STILL not coming up with the formula that Obama's "honest" economists used to determine "Jobs Saved"?  Same old, Rshermr...can't support your assertions so you turn the string into this...


----------



## Oldstyle (May 25, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm amused by your belief that the President's economic advisors...his economic team...is impartial.  Next you'll be telling me that his Press Secretary's job isn't to spin things in a favorable light for the President!  Are you back on your pain killers again?  Is that why you're posting the nonsense that you are?
> ...



Bill Clinton's memory might be just a little "off", Ed...if you'll recall the economy was already headed for a recession as Slick Willie was leaving office.  The Dot Com Boom was over.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*TWENTY SIX. DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME. OF COURSE NOT!*
*DO YOU EVER POST ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS, OR DO YOU SIMPLY ADMIT YOU ARE INCAPABLE?*


----------



## Oldstyle (May 26, 2016)

I'm curious, Georgie...do you think all this counting and *CAPS *in any way changes the fact that you can't come up with the formula that Obama Administration economists used to arrive at their estimation of "Jobs Saved"?  You can count to a hundred and I'll still be asking why you can't provide what you said you could!

So do the board a favor and either admit that there really isn't a formula for "Jobs Saved" because it's basically a "made up" number...or if it's your contention the number is verifiable...show us all the formula used to arrive at that number.  It's really that simple at this point.


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm curious, Georgie...do you think all this counting and *CAPS *in any way changes the fact that you can't come up with the formula that Obama Administration economists used to arrive at their estimation of "Jobs Saved"?  You can count to a hundred and I'll still be asking why you can't provide what you said you could!
> 
> So do the board a favor and either admit that there really isn't a formula for "Jobs Saved" because it's basically a "made up" number...or if it's your contention the number is verifiable...show us all the formula used to arrive at that number.  It's really that simple at this point.


*TWENTY SEVEN.  DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT INSULT AND ATTACK? EVER? DO YOU EVER TELL THE TRUTH? DO YOU EVER FEEL GUILT FOR WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME. OF COURSE NOT!
DO YOU EVER POST ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS, OR DO YOU SIMPLY ADMIT YOU ARE INCAPABLE?*


----------



## Oldstyle (May 26, 2016)

That's all you've got...isn't it?  Small wonder you've got the rating you do!


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That's all you've got...isn't it?  Small wonder you've got the rating you do!


Poor ignorant con tool  All you do is attack, and lie.  Over and over and over.  But have you noticed, me poor ignorant con tool.  No one is paying attention any more.  Congratulations.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *DO YOU EVER POST ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS?*



why not cut the BS and make your argument for communism?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That's all you've got...isn't it?  Small wonder you've got the rating you do!
> ...



Why should anyone "pay attention" to you refusing to answer a question?  You're spamming the same response...over and over again...a non answer!  Congrats, Georgie...you've managed to bore everyone on the board including me!


----------



## Rshermr (May 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That's all you've got...isn't it?  Small wonder you've got the rating you do!





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So let me provide you with one more piece of education, me con tool.  When no one comments on the link, it is a sure indication that they are not paying attention to anything you post.  Because, by now, everyone knows you are a stupid fuck.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That's all you've got...isn't it?  Small wonder you've got the rating you do!
> ...



vile typical liberal still cant say why he's a communist but has tons to say about everything else. Ever see a conservative run when asked to say why he's a conservative? What does that teach you?


----------



## Likkmee (May 26, 2016)

UM. Thank you Jimmy Carter !


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2016)

Likkmee said:


> UM. Thank you Jimmy Carter !


????????????


----------



## Rozman (Jun 3, 2016)

Really bad job numbers for May 2016......

Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Rozman said:


> Really bad job numbers for May 2016......
> 
> Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
> No interest rate hike anytime soon....
> Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.


After *years* of job growth, you yahoos finally get a month to cheer about.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Rozman said:


> Really bad job numbers for May 2016......


Watch the Libs here brag about the great Obama economy.....
No interest rate hike anytime soon....
Really shitty job numbers report are the main reason for that.

Let me help you, Roz.  As a con tool, any job numbers you see are shitty when the president is democratic.  But the ue rate dropped to 4.7%, which is really good.  Now, what is really shitty.  That should be easy for anyone to comment on.  Really shitty was the 10% ue rate under Bush, while we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  See what I am saying.  That is shitty, todays numbers are good.  Your analysis, however, is also shitty.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Really bad job numbers for May 2016......
> ...


After *years* of job growth, you yahoos finally get a month to cheer about.

What is, in fact, funny is that if you get a marginally good rate change and something that these tools can say were bad numbers, it makes the con excited, hopeful, and happy.  Because they could care less about workers.

While we added fewer jobs, the analysis is that we did add jobs, but only 38,000 jobs and the ue rate fell to 4.7%.  Not great.  But nothing at all as bad as republican rates and their Great Republican Recession of 2008.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

It's amusing to watch you Obama apologists claim an improved unemployment rate as one of Barry's "successes" but when it's pointed out to you that he led the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history and you're asked what Obama economic strategy led to job creation...all you hear in here is crickets!

We've currently kept interest rates at the Fed at nearly 0% for the longest period of time in American history...and the reason for that is the economy is a house of cards...kept afloat by a stock market bubble created by cheap money from the Fed.  Every time the Fed Chief even HINTS at a raise the stock market goes into a nose dive and they have to hurriedly announce that they're going to hold off on rate increases until later.

The Recession of 2008 has been over for years now...what we're suffering through now is Barack Obama's "Recovery".


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It's amusing to watch you Obama apologists claim an improved unemployment rate as one of Barry's "successes" but when it's pointed out to you that he led the worst recovery from a recession in modern economic history and you're asked what Obama economic strategy led to job creation...all you hear in here is crickets!
> 
> We've currently kept interest rates at the Fed at nearly 0% for the longest period of time in American history...and the reason for that is the economy is a house of cards...kept afloat by a stock market bubble created by cheap money from the Fed.  Every time the Fed Chief even HINTS at a raise the stock market goes into a nose dive and they have to hurriedly announce that they're going to hold off on rate increases until later.
> 
> The Recession of 2008 has been over for years now...what we're suffering through now is Barack Obama's "Recovery".


Yeah, the 14.2 million jobs added during the recovery are just a figment of your con tool imagination.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Really bad job numbers for May 2016......
> ...



Your analysis (as usual) is long on partisan bullshit and short on facts!  The highest unemployment rate under George W. Bush was 7.8 as he was leaving office.  His average for two terms was slightly above 5.  Obama's average is at 7.5...the second worst of any President since Ike.

Bush had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 with all of the damage that did to our economy.  Barry hasn't had anything even close to that crisis and yet his lack of a coherent economic plan to stimulate the economy has led to the glacially slow recovery we've been slogging through for the past seven and a half years now!  Doubt what I'm saying?  Tell me who Obama's Chief Economic Advisor is and what their plan is to grow the economy!  And as you're forced to go Google that...ask yourself why it is that you don't have a clue who's in charge of that or what the current plan is!


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...


Claiming Obama hasn't had to deal with anything close to the crisis of 9.11 reveals again what a con tool you are.

In terms of financial impact to our nation, Bush's Great Recession caused far more damage to us than 9.11. Several times over in fact.

You really do nothing but spout rightarded idiocies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2016)

When you left BLS fuck with the numbers they can do wonders!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Before Bush took office the economy was already slowing rapidly because of the ending of the Dot Com Boom.  Couple that with 9/11 and it was a one - two punch to the American economy that Bush had to deal with throughout the early part of his Presidency.  The recession that you on the left blame on Bush was precipitated in large part by a housing bubble caused by governmental policies that George W. Bush was one of the few in Washington that was arguing were dangerous and needed to be addressed BEFORE a crash occurred.  Funny how one of the few people who saw trouble coming is the person that you've decided is solely to blame!


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


More con tool nonsense.

Meanwhile, Bush took credit for the housing boom until it went bust.

_"*Thanks to our policies*, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech_​
The Great Bush Recession is on him (and Republicans).

And it cost is more than 9.11 by multitudes. Yet you idiotically claimed Obama didn't have to deal with anything near like what Bush did. _<smh>_


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

We have the economy we have now...not because of successful Obama policy, Faun...what few successes we have are due to an artificially pumped up stock market that has made the rich far richer and skipped over everyone else...and cheap energy prices that were brought on by fracking technology creating so much cheap gas and oil here in the US that it forced the OPEC nations to slash their prices!  Since Barack Obama has been anti-fracking and anti-Big Oil and Gas it's laughable to watch his supporters claim cheap energy as one of his "successes".


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!


As I've already pointed out a) there's no point because anything mentioned results on you trying to summarily dismiss it (which I've done and you did); b) for better or worse, the presidents policies get credit or blame for the economy.

Con tools like you seek only to blame Democrats for the bad and find ways to not credit them for the good. That's your entire game plan summed up nice and succinctly in one sentence. That's what makes you a con tool.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > My challenge to any of you Obama shills remains the same as it's been for years now...show me his policies that created jobs and grew the economy!
> ...



So in other words...you're not even going to try to show Obama policies that created jobs and grew the economy?  Noted, Faun...

That's what makes YOU the partisan shill that you are!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow.  You showed him, in plain words.  And he pretends he did not understand.  Poor stupid liar.  And he will say the same thing, over and over and over and over.  Because that is what he does.  Poor clown.
Here come his personal attacks.  Because he can not deal with economic conversation.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You might take the study done by the head of the SF Fed, which concluded:
*Study: *”Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

*Who did it: *Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

*What it says: *The stimulus *created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011. *The *jobs multiplier varies widely* based on whether one studies stimulus spending that has been announced to go to certain recipients, is obligated to those recipients, or has actually been paid out to those recipients. *Estimates vary from 4.8, for one measure based on announced spending, to 25.2, for another measure based on actual payments. *Private sector, state and local government and construction sectors all showed consistently significant positive effects, whereas whether the effect on manufacturing, education and health was positive depends on whether one looks at announcements, obligations or payments.

Or:
*Study:* ”Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

*Who did it:* James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth College.*What it says: *The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts.

*What it says: *The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts.

There are many more.  Including the cbo itself, but there is not much use in shoeing this to oldstyle.  He will just pretend he never saw it.  Because he is a lying con tool.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You must have attention deficit disorder. As I just pointed out to you -- I've offered policies in the past. You ignored them. Why would I expect a different result trying that again?

You ignore inconvenient facts.

That's what you do.

You're a con tool.

That's what you are.


----------



## Markle (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> More con tool nonsense.
> 
> Meanwhile, Bush took credit for the housing boom until it went bust.
> 
> ...



*Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform *
_The _Washington Times _Fails To Research The Administration's Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac_



White House News 




Setting the Record Straight 



In Focus: Economy 

*Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late.*  "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade."  (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," _The Washington Times_, 10/9/08)

*Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.*  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

Read more:  Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > More con tool nonsense.
> ...


You have no idea how retarded you are to post that.

6 years Bush asked for GSE reform. Let's review, shall we?

*2003*
Republican-led House -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2004*
Republican-led House -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2005*
Republican-led House -- 1 bill passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2006*
Republican-led House -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2007*
Democrat-led House -- 2 bills passed
Democrat-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Democrat-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2008*
Democrat-led House -- 0 bills passed
Democrat-led Senate -- 1 bill passed
Democrat-led Congress -- *1 bill to the president*

*Do you see that?*

6 years Bush said he waited for a GSE reform bill to land on his desk.

*4* of those years, when the housing bubble was bursting, when the GOP ran the Congress, they got zero bills to him.

In *1½* years, the Democrat Congress got him a bill. By then, it was too late.

Friggin' rightards blame Democrats. Do ya see why folks think you idiots are insane?


----------



## Markle (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Read more:  Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform


You have no idea how retarded you are to post that.

6 years Bush asked for GSE reform. Let's review, shall we?

*2003*
Republican-led House -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2004*
Republican-led House -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2005*
Republican-led House -- 1 bill passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2006*
Republican-led House -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Republican-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2007*
Democrat-led House -- 2 bills passed
Democrat-led Senate -- 0 bills passed
Democrat-led Congress -- 0 bills to the president

*2008*
Democrat-led House -- 0 bills passed
Democrat-led Senate -- 1 bill passed
Democrat-led Congress -- *1 bill to the president*

*Do you see that?*

6 years Bush said he waited for a GSE reform bill to land on his desk.

*4* of those years, when the housing bubble was bursting, when the GOP ran the Congress, they got zero bills to him.

In *1½* years, the Democrat Congress got him a bill. By then, it was too late.

Friggin' rightards blame Democrats. Do ya see why folks think you idiots are insane?

[/QUOTE]

Just to remind all our FRIENDS from the far left, the responsibility for this mess lies with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  AND WITH REPUBLICANS for backing off every time Barney Frank and his cronies played…THE RACE CARD!  The housing bubble is what led to the downfall and that was driven by Democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter and hugely expanded by Bill Clinton. Here are the facts, once again, for you to ignore….

*HUD TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION, BOOST MINORITY HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WORK WITH URBAN LEAGUE TO FURTHER GOALS*
August 5, 1997
HUD to Fight Discrimination, Boost Minority Homeownership and Work With Urban League to Further Goals - Free Online Library


New York Times -  1999
*Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending* - 
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOL

Look at how fast this Markle idiot flees from his previous post to change the topic from Bush asking Congress for GSE reform for 6 years to it being Jimmy Carter's fault from 30 years earlier.

LOLOLOLOLOL

What better demonstration is there that you felt bitchslapped by the reality that the Republican-led Congress failed to respond to Bush's warning during all those years they were in control; that you felt compelled to abandon your own position.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Read more:  Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
> ...



Just to remind all our FRIENDS from the far left, the responsibility for this mess lies with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  AND WITH REPUBLICANS for backing off every time Barney Frank and his cronies played…THE RACE CARD!  The housing bubble is what led to the downfall and that was driven by Democrats, starting with Jimmy Carter and hugely expanded by Bill Clinton. Here are the facts, once again, for you to ignore….

*HUD TO FIGHT DISCRIMINATION, BOOST MINORITY HOMEOWNERSHIP AND WORK WITH URBAN LEAGUE TO FURTHER GOALS*
August 5, 1997
HUD to Fight Discrimination, Boost Minority Homeownership and Work With Urban League to Further Goals - Free Online Library


New York Times -  1999
*Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending* -
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending[/QUOTE]

Who is "our"?  What makes you think you have friends?  The rest of your drivel is just that, all mindless drivel.

Wow.  You are indeed an idiot.

Republican president, republican congress, and you want to blame dems.  That is just too stupid.  Apparently you think we elect presidents and congress to sit with their thumbs up their ass.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



FAUN SAID:
LOLOLOLOLOL

Look at how fast this Markle idiot flees from his previous post to change the topic from Bush asking Congress for GSE reform for 6 years to it being Jimmy Carter's fault from 30 years earlier.

LOLOLOLOLOL

What better demonstration is there that you felt bitchslapped by the reality that the Republican-led Congress failed to respond to Bush's warning during all those years they were in control; that you felt compelled to abandon your own position.






But Markle is a proven factor.  Actually, proven to be a congenital idiot.  Keeps shooting himself in the foot, but is so stupid he does not notice until too late.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yup.  Bitchslapped is a good term for what we, and particularly you, did to the con tools.  They have their tails between their legs cause they got caught lying and see no way out.  Funny.


----------



## Vigilante (Jun 3, 2016)

Associated Press ^ | Jun 3, 2016 5:37 PM EDT | Christopher S. Rugaber and Josh Boak
U.S. hiring slowed to a near-standstill in May, sowing doubts about the economy’s health and complicating the Federal Reserve’s efforts to raise interest rates. While unemployment slid from 5 percent to 4.7 percent, the lowest since November 2007, the rate fell for a troubling reason: Nearly a half-million jobless Americans stopped looking for work and so were no longer counted as unemployed. Employers added just 38,000 jobs in May, the fewest in over five years. Less-educated workers bore the brunt of the hiring slump, with a quarter-million high school dropouts losing their jobs in May. That has perpetuated a long-term...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sure you did, Faun...

Well, actually you didn't...you just SAID you did!  When I pressed you on what those policies WERE your reply was that you'd already stated them and couldn't be bothered to do so again.  

You're as bad as Georgie Costanza and his missing formula for determining "Jobs Saved"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Poor little Georgie Costanza!  Have you come back to provide the economic formula you said you had...or are you still coming up with pathetic excuses why you can't do that?

Tail between legs?  You're the one who ran away from this string pretending to have people on ignore!  Lying is what you do...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I never, ever lie, me poor con tool.  As you know, to your never ending frustration, me con tool.  You can never show that I lied, because I never do.  That is the purview of you, the lying con tool that you are.
As you well know, and as I proved a week or two ago, you agreed to provide information on a bill sent up to help quell the great republican recession of 2008, by Republicans.  You did not, so you get no equation.  Too bad for you, me con tool.  But you keep coming back and saying I said I would provide an equation without conditions.  Now, if I had done that, it would be a simple thing for you to show the post where I did so.  The reason you do not is that you can not.  Because I made no such unconditional post.  And because you know I can prove you to be a liar again.  So, unless you have a post showing what you say I promised, which you do not, then fuck off, me little minded con tool.
What was it, a month or less ago that you said I did not know what the Chicago School of Economics was when you asked about it.  And, after you made the accusation time after time after time, I brought forward what you asked about.  And, you had never mentioned the Chicago School.  Ever.  Up to the time you started saying that you had done so.  Proving again that you lied multiple times.
Most people feel guilty about lying.  Most people will apologize if they were caught lying, as you have multiple times.  Most people have class.  Most people have integrity.  You have proven to have none of either.  You have proven yourself to be a small minded insignificant con tool. with no ability to make economic arguments.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Thats all you have, me boy.  Personal insults and lies.  Faun showed you obama policies that created jobs, as did I.  But you always go on like it never happened.  It must be a crappy life to know that you lie over and over and over.  And deny over and over and over.  Tacky, tacky, tacky little man.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Lets see who is lying, faun or you, oldstyle.  You say faun never showed obama policies that created jobs. 

 Post 936 on May 9, 2016  THIS THREAD  Fauns response to you is as followsL
Utter nonsense. Typical for you. *ARRA was not only funding the creation and saving of jobs, it also provided tax cuts for the private sector. So you're wrong about that. Plus there were additional stimulus' passed to help the private sector, such as cash for clunkers. So you're wrong about that too. *The economy cratered. Credit markets locked up and money flowing through the economy, like life blood, was tightening up. Obama's stimulus served as a transfusion until the private sector could stand up again. And it worked as designed. Early in 2010, the private sector began to recover. Had Obama not gotten ARRA passed... had he let the U.S. auto markets dive into total collapse... the economy could have slipped into another Great Depression.

Not that con tools like you would have cared since the worse the economy is while a Democrat, the happier you are.
So, faun did not lie.  He told the truth.  But you, Oldstyle, lied.  As the post PROVES.



Lets see who is lying, me (rshermr) or you, oldstyle.  You say I, rshermr,  never showed obama policies that created jobs. 
post 614, May 3 2016, THIS THREAD, rshermn responds to you as follows:
*The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. *But put simply, *it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010.*

*So rshermr did not lie.  He told the truth.  But you, Oldstyle, lied AGAIN,  As the post proves.

So, that is just two more occasions.  both where you have said multiple times that those posts did not occur, and we have over and over answered that they did.  And now it is proven, you are a multiple offender, lying several times AGAIN.  It must suck to have no integrity.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Still trying to peddle your "conditions" excuse, Georgie?  You never cease to amuse...

All you do is lie because you constantly try to pretend that you know something about economics when it's obvious that you're one of the board's most ignorant posters when it comes to that topic.  "A-B=Jobs Saved"?  That's YOU making an economic argument!  That's YOU proving what a complete bullshit artist you are when it comes to that topic!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 4, 2016)

It's a simple thing, Georgie...

Either provide the economic formula used to determine "Jobs Saved"...as you've repeatedly claimed to be able to do...or admit that you were just shoveling grade A bullshit (as usual!) when you made that claim!


----------



## Faun (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Tell ya what .... If I link to any of my posts where I listed any economic policies that Obama passed, you leave the forum forever. If I can't find any because you're telling the truth that I never did, I leave forever. And this isn't based on your opinion if they were successful or not since you're only here to argue they weren't. All I have to show is that I've pointed some out, which you are denying I ever did.

Either take this bet or expose yourself once again as the lying con tool the forum sees you are....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



LOL...so it doesn't matter if the economic policies that Obama passed were successful or not...all you have to show is that he HAD a policy?  That in and of itself shows how pathetic Barack Obama's economic plans have been, Faun!

Here's a concept...list the economic policies that Barry pushed that created jobs and grew the economy.  The guy has spent trillions on economic stimulus...it should be a walk in the park for you to list the Obama economic plans that worked...yet you never seem to be able to!  Why is that, Faun?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Would you like to see the post that specifies the condition that would get you your formula, me boy.  As I did before.  It will prove you are lying again, and it will waste peoples time.  Again.  But that is what  you like to do.  Let me know.  I never lie, as you well know.  And I can prove what I have said, as you well know.  You make the choice.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


LOL...so it doesn't matter if the economic policies that Obama passed were successful or not...all you have to show is that he HAD a policy?  That in and of itself shows how pathetic Barack Obama's economic plans have been, Faun!

Here's a concept...list the economic policies that Barry pushed that created jobs and grew the economy.  The guy has spent trillions on economic stimulus...it should be a walk in the park for you to list the Obama economic plans that worked...yet you never seem to be able to!  Why is that, Faun?
You, me boy, said you wanted policies.  And that neither Faun had done so.  I showed you that both of us had.  You lied, we did not.  Now you are wanting to change the rules.  Funny.  In your little con tool mind, you seem to think that lying gives you the right to demand things.  It does not.  
Now, I have asked you MANY times to provide me with a bill meant by republicans to help curb the damages of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, but you can not.  Funny.  You are a comedian, but we are laughing at you, not with you, me boy.
Now, by the way, you have stated that Obama spent Trillions on economic stimulus.  Which is another lie.  Want to try to prove you were telling the truth, so I can prove you were lying.  Or do you give up?


----------



## Faun (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Of course it matters that they were successful. That's not the point. The point is ... no matter what policies I mention, you're going to ignore and deny their success. We know this because we've been down this road before. That's why you won't touch my bet. You're a phony and a fraud (i.e., a con tool) whose soul purpose is to deny and obfuscate. 14 million jobs have been created since the recovery and you think you can actually deny any of those jobs were due to the president's policies. Funny though, if we were losing jobs, you be blaming Obama.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I will be happy to, me boy.  Here's the concept.  If (notice, me boy, there is a condition And we know how you ignore conditions) you provide proof of even one trillion spent by the obama team on stimulus, I will prove the obama bill did create jobs.  As I have proven before.    Should be easy, since you say he spent multiple trillions.  But since you are lying, if I were you, I would apologize for the lie.
If, on the other hand, you take the challenge, and you can not prove he spent at least a trillion dollars on stimulus, then you apologize and leave the board.

My bet is you will be turning yourself inside out to change the subject.  Because you lied again, and there is no way you can win.


----------



## Faun (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Notice the con tool ran away from my bet?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yes indeed.  His normal procedure over the past years is to talk like he is tough, then run like a coward.  Normsal


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 4, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> Associated Press ^ | Jun 3, 2016 5:37 PM EDT | Christopher S. Rugaber and Josh Boak
> U.S. hiring slowed to a near-standstill in May, sowing doubts about the economy’s health and complicating the Federal Reserve’s efforts to raise interest rates. While unemployment slid from 5 percent to 4.7 percent, the lowest since November 2007, the rate fell for a troubling reason: Nearly a half-million jobless Americans stopped looking for work and so were no longer counted as unemployed. Employers added just 38,000 jobs in May, the fewest in over five years. Less-educated workers bore the brunt of the hiring slump, with a quarter-million high school dropouts losing their jobs in May. That has perpetuated a long-term...



Another winner!


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Also, lets consider obummer's increases to the national debt and deficits. 

Maybe one or more of the leftards can explain how printing worthless money to 'stimulate' an economy only to result in marginal growths in jobs and absolutely no reduction in the debts is a good thing.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I would like to see the post that explains why you need to have a "condition" met before you're willing to provide a formula that you already stated that you had!  Waste time?  Dude, you've spent WEEKS now posting this ridiculous bullshit...all because you can't bring yourself to admit that there is no formula for determining "Jobs Saved"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 4, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What I've pointed out, Faun...is that you're struggling mightily to show us what policies put forth by Barack Obama have created jobs.  What I've pointed out is that improvements to the economy and job creation have in large part happened DESPITE Barry...not BECAUSE of him!  The biggest driver of economic growth over the past few years has been cheap energy...something brought about not because of any policy that Barack Obama has pushed but rather because of fracking technology that he actively sought to curtail.  We don't have cheap oil and natural gas because of Obama...we have it despite him!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 4, 2016)

I asked for economic policy that Obama pushed that created jobs and grew the economy and Faun gave me "Cash For Clunkers"...a program that cost billions and didn't create jobs or create real economic growth.  It's like my asking for the formula for determining "Jobs Saved" and having Georgie give me A-B=Jobs Saved.  

Yes, you replied to my question but it wasn't with an answer...it was with bullshit.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I asked for economic policy that Obama pushed that created jobs and grew the economy and Faun gave me "Cash For Clunkers"...a program that cost billions and didn't create jobs or create real economic growth.  It's like my asking for the formula for determining "Jobs Saved" and having Georgie give me A-B=Jobs Saved.
> 
> Yes, you replied to my question but it wasn't with an answer...it was with bullshit.



We are 20 TRILLION dollars in debt but I have no worries. . . Because with the revenues we get from schemes like "cash for clunkers" we can pay that off (with interest) in just a few hundred years! 

Maybe.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Run?  You mean like pretending to put someone on ignore because you don't have an answer to their question?  Is that the kind of cowardice that you're talking about, Georgie?

I haven't gone anywhere throughout this entire string.  You gave me A-B=Jobs Saved and then tucked tail.  That's you...not I.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I had a condition because I wanted to.  Simple as that.  Now you agreed to it, but you did not have to.  And I have posted no ridiculous anything, me boy.  I showed you the post with the condition, me lying con tool.  You saw it, and tried to say you did not.  But I do not have to explain anything to you.  At all.  Ever.  It was my decision, and if you did not like it, you had the option to leave it alone.  
But instead, you keep pushing for an answer without doing what I said you had to do to get an answer.  Then you lied, over and over and over, saying that I gave you no condition.  So, finally I pulled forward the post proving that you had been lying over and over and over.  So, I am done talking with you.  Because you have proven yourself a liar, many times over.  And there is no value, EVER, in dealing with a liar.  Because all you get is NEW LIES on top of OLD LIES.

Now, I know this is not what you want to believe, but everyone but you understands.  I have no obligation to prove anything to you.  Nor anyone else.  Those who lie to me on a couple occasions, I do not work with.  But people like you who lie, provably, scores of times, are not worth my time, or the time of anyone, me boy.  You are a total waste.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I asked for economic policy that Obama pushed that created jobs and grew the economy and Faun gave me "Cash For Clunkers"...a program that cost billions and didn't create jobs or create real economic growth.  It's like my asking for the formula for determining "Jobs Saved" and having Georgie give me A-B=Jobs Saved.
> 
> Yes, you replied to my question but it wasn't with an answer...it was with bullshit.



Both Faun and I did what you said we did not do.  Before you made the claim  We proved you to be a liar.  Simple as that.  Your opinion on anything is of no value because:
1.  You are a con tool.
2.  You are a serial liar.  
What I posted was Faun, and then I, showing you the exact posts that were designed to help the problems created by the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  They were indeed designed with that in mind.  Both of us stated the Stimulus was one of those bills that Obama passed to respond to the recession your heroes caused.  So, me boy, you loose.  You are again caught lying.

You loose, cause you were proven to have lied.  And as I predicted, in writing, you would then be back to try and change the rules.  Because, me boy, you are a lying con tool.  And that is what con tools do.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Yes, indeed, you ran.  Now as predicted you are back trying to change the rules.  Because, me boy, as all recognize you lied.  You got caught.  And now you are trying to change the subject.  Sad.

And there you are lying again.  I stated clearly that I would provide the formula you so badly desire, though in fact we all know you could care less.  And in that post, I stated clearly that you would get the formula as soon as you showed a republican bill designed to address the problems caused by the great Republican Recession of 2008.  Which I already brought back and showed you, proving you had been lying.  So, no one is at all surprised at the fact that you are lying again.  I have stood ready for weeks and weeks to respond as I promised if you met the condition of showing the bill.  But, you can not show the bill, though you said there were many.  Because you lied.  Again.  So, you loose.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> the problems caused by the great Republican Recession of 2008. .



Republican Recession???



"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."-Barney Frank




Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Ah, when was it that I "ran"?  You're the one who declared that you were putting me on ignore simply because I asked you to provide the economic formula that was used by the Obama Administration economists to determine "Jobs Saved"!  I haven't gone ANYWHERE, Georgie...nor will I!  You lied about having me on ignore.  You lied when you posted that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved.  You lied when you said you have the formula for determining "Jobs Saved".  All you've DONE in this string is tell lies...post nonsense about "conditions" and spam that silly "Me boy" crap...like THAT is going to hide the fact that you're a total fraud who keeps painting himself into a corner by pretending to know something about economics!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for economic policy that Obama pushed that created jobs and grew the economy and Faun gave me "Cash For Clunkers"...a program that cost billions and didn't create jobs or create real economic growth.  It's like my asking for the formula for determining "Jobs Saved" and having Georgie give me A-B=Jobs Saved.
> ...



And it's LOSE...you illiterate loser!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So Oldstyle, the proven LIAR, asked the following:
Ah, when was it that I "ran"? Multiple times.  One was when you gave up on your side of the bargain.  Which was to provide a simple response, a bill by a republican that was aimed at reducing the damage from the Great Republican Recession of 1998.  You had the option, but could not do so.  But did not have the class or integrity to admit that you did not.   You're the one who declared that you were putting me on ignore simply because I asked you to provide the economic formula that was used by the Obama Administration economists to determine "Jobs Saved"! So, again, you are lying as you well know.  I put you on ignore because you would not provide your part of the bargain, and kept lying, time after time after time saying I did not require a condition.  You were playing games then, as you are now.  Because you are a lying con tool. I haven't gone ANYWHERE, Georgie...nor will I!  You lied about having me on ignore.  Hardly, dipshit.  No such thing.  I never, ever lie.  Which is why you can never catch me lying.  Saying that I lied, me poor ignorant tool, is different than proving I lied.  And you can never prove i lied because I never, ever lie.  You lied when you posted that pathetic A-B=Jobs Saved.  You lied when you said you have the formula fo  r determining "Jobs Saved". I did not ever lie.  If you think I did, prove it.   All you've DONE in this string is tell lies...post nonsense about "conditions" and spam that silly "Me boy" crap...like THAT is going to hide the fact that you're a total fraud who keeps painting himself into a corner by pretending to know something about economics!
People who know something about economics talk about economics.  And they can not generally be proven wrong.  Now, you, on the other hand just post con dogma, accusations with no basis, and personal attacks.  Never, ever an economic argument.
So, where is that republican bill you said you could produce to show that republicans actually wanted to help out of work workers from the Great Republican Recession of 2008, me boy.  When are you going to correct that lie of yours?
Relative to the "me boy", it is simply a term I use when talking to obviously inferior people.  Like liars.  Used to be a term of endearment to inferior people who at least try.  But you do not try.  You simply waste everyone's time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What is A-B=Jobs Saved?  Is it a real economic formula used to determine jobs saved?  Or is it a lie...something that you made up trying to hide the fact that you don't have the faintest idea what the formula is that the Obama Administration used to come up with their numbers for "jobs saved"?  You never lie?  You CONSTANTLY lie!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So Oldstyle, twisting and turning trying to prove I lied, because he has been caught lying a number of times, says:

What is A-B=Jobs Saved?  Is it a real economic formula used to determine jobs saved?  Or is it a lie...something that you made up trying to hide the fact that you don't have the faintest idea what the formula is that the Obama Administration used to come up with their numbers for "jobs saved"? It is indeed a real formula.  It is definitely not a lie.  Because I never lie.  Ever.  You never lie?  You CONSTANTLY lie!\
The only lie, me boy, is that I owe you a formula for nothing.  I said there was a condition, which was that you would provide the bill that republicans sent forward to address the misery of the unemployment caused by the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  As you said you could.  So, let me be clear, because you are playing games:
1.  You have said I owe you a formula and that I did not set the condition as above.  
2.  I brought forward my post that clearly laid out the condition.  In plain english, no question about it.  
3.  #2 above proved that you had been lying multiple times. 
4.  Now you are turning yourself inside out to make it sound like I lied to you.
5.  Per 2 above, I proved that you are lying again, not I.
6.  It is abundantly clear that you have mental issues.  There is nothing important enough for all the lies you have made.  And for all of your personal attacks.  And all of your untrue accusations.
7.  You lost this argument a long time ago, and simply come back at it over and over, again lying and playing games that waste people's time.  
8.  You, I, or anyone can offer to provide some thing, any thing, based on a condition.  No problem at all.  And you can make good on the condition, and then have owing the thing you wanted.  
9.  You, I, or anyone can refuse to meet the condition, at which point they have no right to whatever the condition covered. 
10,  You did what #9 states, and you have nothing coming.
11. No one with a rational mind needs the above 10 items explained to them.  So, we all know that you are A. A lying tool. B.  Playing games.  C.  Wasting our time.  
So, based on 1 through 11 above, FUCK OFF.


----------



## Faun (Jun 6, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > the problems caused by the great Republican Recession of 2008. .
> ...


Name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked or expose yourself as a lunatic rightie...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 6, 2016)

couch protester said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.
> ...



So couch protester said:
Yeah, he sure did fix it alright, I mean contain the situation alright.

So, ok, we understand.  You like an economy where we are loosing over 500,000 Because you are a con tool, and you can always find some bat shit crazy con web sites where you can cut and paste.  Cause, of course, being a congenital idiot con tool, you have no ability to make an actual argument.  Way over your head.
And why that Obama guy would initiate policies that would stop all that misery of the people out of a job is well beyond you.  Cause, being a con tool, you hate the middle class.  
You see, couch potato, it is sad that a dipshit like you can only cut and paste drivel from attack sites.  Sad for you, that is.  Because you have proven yourself to be of no importance at all.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Seems to me Obama is and has put us back on track.  You guys remember wanted to elect John McCain and stay the course.  Don't forget that.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 6, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


Yeah.  Absolutely.  And didn't he have a really cool VP candidate?  What was her name?  The Alaska nightmare!  What a presidential card. She could see russia from her porch.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 6, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Seems to me Obama is and has put us back on track.  You guys remember wanted to elect John McCain and stay the course.  Don't forget that.



*Yellen: *
*
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Monday sketched a generally positive picture of the economy and labor market,* saying Friday’s dismal jobs report was “concerning” but policymakers still plan to gradually raise rates this year.

She did not specify whether a rate hike at the Fed’s June 14-15 meeting was still feasible, but financial markets are giving less than 5% odds of such a move and Yellen said nothing to attempt to alter that view. She also didn’t tip her hand on the likelihood of a July rate increase, though fed fund futures say the chances are about 31%.

Generally, however, Yellen emphasized the cumulative labor market’s progress and voiced only measured concern about Friday’s report, which revealed that just 38,000 jobs were added in May, a nearly six-year low. The Labor department also revised down its estimates of April employment additions to 123,000.

“Although this recent labor market report was, on balance, concerning, *let me emphasize that one should never attach too much significance to any single monthly report,”* Yellen said in a speech at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. She noted that *other key labor market indicators, such as initial jobless claims, have remained low and public perceptions of the labor market based on consumer surveys “remain positive.”



*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2016)

Faun said:


> Name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked.



dear, Barney is a socialist who did not want to reform the GSE's even as they were about to cause a great depression!! When he saw how stupid he was he did change his mind!! 

Barney Frank: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fanny Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower income people into homes they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it"


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 6, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked.
> ...


Ok. so we have it.  You hate barney because he is a dem, and you have no idea of any  bill barney blocked, because ...well, because you know absolutely nothing about anything.


----------



## Faun (Jun 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked.
> ...


Having failed to name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked, you expose yourself as a rightie lunatic.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Having failed to name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked, you expose yourself as a rightie lunatic.

Thanks for playing.

Poor boy just posts con talking points.  It is not in his pay grade to determine truth.  And besides, truth is too often opposite of what he WANTS to believe.  But we must remember, he is a congenital idiot.  So it is not his fault.  Just bad luck.


----------



## Markle (Jun 7, 2016)

Faun said:


> Name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked or expose yourself as a lunatic rightie...



You should know, or you are like most Progressives, extremely accomplished at living in denial that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were responsible for many of the changes forced on Fannie and Freddie.  Barney and Chris forced regulation changes on Fannie and Freddie which required they increase the percentage of sub-prime, ie high risk, loans in their portfolios.

By doing so, that required that all standards be lowered for all loans.  That also led to the "no doc" or "liar" loans.  The INTENT (Progressives always cloak their loonie ideas in,,,IT MAKES US FEEL GOOD) terminology.  Common sense has no place among Progressives. 


Democrats actions leading to Mortgage Collapse B.B.

From New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


From Bloomberg News
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0


The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs, ie Fannie, Freddie etc.)
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs


Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis; Meltdown

The Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble
Barney's Rubble


----------



## Markle (Jun 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Yeah.  Absolutely.  And didn't he have a really cool VP candidate?  What was her name?  The Alaska nightmare!  What a presidential card. She could see russia from her porch.


----------



## Markle (Jun 7, 2016)

*


Faun said:



			Having failed to name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked, you expose yourself as a rightie lunatic.
Thanks for playing.
		
Click to expand...


Between you, Rsherme and G5000, I don't know which is the bigger fool for Progrogressives...well, it's certainly possible too that you are all one and the same poster with a lot of socks.

True too, studies have shown that Progressives are reluctant to view or consider view opposed to their own whereas, Conservatives are much more likely to consider and view those views opposed to their own.

*
*Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008*
*Somehow our ever vigilant media has failed to notice this press release from September 19, 2008 From White House.

(Maybe if the White House had posted this at the Daily Kos our media may have noticed it.)*
*The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs*

*
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

Read all...http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-called-for-reform-17-times-in-2008*


----------



## Faun (Jun 7, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Name a single GSE reform bill Barney Frank blocked or expose yourself as a lunatic rightie...
> ...


So what? You're a piece of shit. You posted how Bush warned Congress that GSE reform was needed. No sooner were you shown that Republicans were in charge of Congress, Republicans failed to get Bush a GSE reform bill to sign into law, and Republicans failed to prevent the economic collapse which ensued; so you try to switch the debate to Barney Frank, one single member of the minority party who did not block a single GSE reform bill, which had Republicans gotten to Bush early on, there would have been no Great Recession.


----------



## Faun (Jun 7, 2016)

Markle said:


> *President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted*.


And Democrats gave him a bill to sign.

Republicans? They controlled the Congress until 2007 and refused to do anything about it.

Leave it to brain-dead conservatives to blame the party which got a bill to Bush's desk but ignore the party which didn't after 6 years.


----------



## rdean (Jun 7, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up


America has 5.8 million job openings

Survey: GOP business executives want immigrant workers, not voters

Republicans so dishonest.  The base votes for the very people who screw them over.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > *President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted*.



As Faun says:
And Democrats gave him a bill to sign.

Republicans? They controlled the Congress until 2007 and refused to do anything about it.

Leave it to brain-dead conservatives to blame the party which got a bill to Bush's desk but ignore the party which didn't after 6 years.

*And I agree, absolutely, with your assessment:  *
As RATIONAL PEOPLE, WE KNOW:  the truth is the truth.  The con's job, which they accept once told what to believe, is provided to them as what to do.  Their job.  Because, like Markle, they are stupid.  They argue the talking points they are given, as good con tools.
No other group is willing and able to accept any groups talking points.  Liberals actually value truth.  And if you lie, they will figure it out, and  be angry at whoever lied to them.  Cons, on the other hand, never care about being lied to.  They are part of a group think mentality, and need "knowledge", which to them is what they are told in the form of talking points.  And if you can finally corner them, prove their point wrong, they get angry.  But not because they were lied toby whoever gave them the untrue talking point.  They get angry at you because you have proven them wrong, and simply go directly back to the talking points.
So, it is a really simple existence for cons:
1.  Receive talking points.
2. Automatically believe talking points.
3.  Never, ever question talking points.
4. Try to spread talking points
5. Believe you are now smart, because you have these wonderful new talking points.
6. Never, ever have a rational argument because you were given the talking points and were told to believe them.

Pathetic.  But for a perfect example of the above existence of a con tool, observe Markle.


----------



## Markle (Jun 8, 2016)

rdean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...



Please provide us with the reliable source and link to the poll showing that REPUBLICAN (NOT DEMOCRAT) business executives want immigrant workers.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Already done.  About 3 o4 4 posts back.  Really, you could check.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 8, 2016)

rdean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...



'Frightening' number of unemployed have stopped looking for work

"This is a tale of two economies," Express CEO Bob Funk said in a statement. "It's frightening to see this many people who could work say they have given up."

The results come just a few days after a government report showed that *the unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in May*, but *the drop came primarily because of a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate*. The number of people of all ages whom the government considers "not in the labor force" swelled by 664,000 to a record 94.7 million Americans, according to Labor Department data.

Job creation, after averaging over 200,000 for much of the recovery, has slowed considerably this year. May saw just 38,000 new jobs, part of a trend in which payrolls have grown an average of 116,000 over the past three months and less than 150,000 for all of 2016.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Google it.
> 
> And thanks Obama.
> 
> If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up



The unemployment rate is only one criteria for measuring the health of the economy. Other criteria include the rate of growth which has been anemic for nearly all of BO's term. Another is the wealth gap which has exploded under BO, wage growth which has been stagnant also with BO. So go ahead and thank him for more poor people employed in low end jobs if you want.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Oh but guys like Trump are slick.  They don't hire illegals.  They hire legal companies who hire illegals.  That way Trump and ROMNEY can pretend to be innocent.

None

*Illegal immigrants did lawn care for Mitt Romney*

So we know the last two Repubican nominees were pro illegal immigrants.  One hired illegals and the other one got up in front of America and told us we need them because we are too lazy.

Now I know you won't find this a credible source but don't expect to read this stuff on Fox pal.

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 8, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google it.
> ...


Do not tell me about the wealth gap that we were warning you about for decades.  OMG!  And don't try to put that on Obama.  Unfuckingbelievable.  Really.  

Here was us warning you about it in 2005, but you didn't want to listen because these were't "credible" sources.  Fucking douchbag!

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

What the fuck were you saying in 2005?  You were saying the economy was great and anyone making excuses is just a slacker.  Now here you are telling us what we already knew 16 fucking years ago.  Wow!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Tyson Foods Indicted in Plan To Smuggle Illegal Workers

Tyson Foods is certainly not the regional company it was 40 years ago or the large national company it was just a few decades ago. It’s now a global meat processing and distribution company, and you probably didn’t know that 90% of the pepperoni on frozen pizzas comes from a Tyson company.

These are the companies fucking us.  Clearly it is the GOP who defends and protects them.  Stop being intellectually dishonest with us.  We aren't as stupid as you are if you don't get that it is the GOP who loves illegals.  In fact your party plays you on this issue.  

That’s the value of a contract business between Tyson Foods and the U.S. government that could be in jeopardy if the company is found guilty in an ongoing criminal probe by the Environmental Protection Agency over toxic chemicals released by a plant in Monett, Mo., last year. Tyson Foods recently settled a civil suit with the Missouri’s Attorney General agreeing to pay $530,000 for that unlawful dumping that killed 100,000 fish.

When you read shit like this, who's side do you think Tyson is on?  The GOP who are anti regulations or the Democrats who make corporations act responsibly?

Tyson Foods spent $226,649 on political contributions in 2014. The Republican candidates received $128,200, while $61,200 went to the Democratic candidates and $30,000 to independents.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Tyson Foods spent $226,649 on political contributions in 2014. The Republican candidates received $128,200, while $61,200 went to the Democratic candidates and $30,000 to independents.

Tyson Foods Indicted in Plan To Smuggle Illegal Workers


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Tyson Foods Indicted in Plan To Smuggle Illegal Workers

Tyson Foods is certainly not the regional company it was 40 years ago or the large national company it was just a few decades ago. It’s now a global meat processing and distribution company, and you probably didn’t know that 90% of the pepperoni on frozen pizzas comes from a Tyson company.

These are the companies fucking us.  Clearly it is the GOP who defends and protects them.  Stop being intellectually dishonest with us.  We aren't as stupid as you are if you don't get that it is the GOP who loves illegals.  In fact your party plays you on this issue. 

That’s the value of a contract business between Tyson Foods and the U.S. government that could be in jeopardy if the company is found guilty in an ongoing criminal probe by the Environmental Protection Agency over toxic chemicals released by a plant in Monett, Mo., last year. Tyson Foods recently settled a civil suit with the Missouri’s Attorney General agreeing to pay $530,000 for that unlawful dumping that killed 100,000 fish.

When you read shit like this, who's side do you think Tyson is on?  The GOP who are anti regulations or the Democrats who make corporations act responsibly?

Tyson Foods spent $226,649 on political contributions in 2014. The Republican candidates received $128,200, while $61,200 went to the Democratic candidates and $30,000 to independents.

Twenty years ago, if you were a mexican and still in mexico, but wanted to know where to go once in the US, american corporations set up shop in mexico to tell them where the should go once they made it in, to get a job.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Here is another link that will show you what us liberals were saying back in 2006 about this problem.  But again, you wouldn't fucking listen to any left wing links so you just blew off what we were saying.  But notice now when Trump says what we were saying, you fucking get it?  See what a partisan hack you are?  If your party tells you that illegals are doing jobs Americans won't do, you repeat that like the fucking parrots that you are.  But then they can just as easily work your sorry asses up with talk of illegal immigrants.  

Anyways, we were explaining to you back in 2006 that your party is actually divided on this issue.  On one side you have the corporations who love the cheap labor and on the other hand, the GOP caters to racist white anti immigrant Americans.  So this is a touchy subject for the GOP.  But they can very easily just put all the blame on the Democrats because you are all too ready to swallow that bullshit.

No bleeding heard liberal keeps illegals in this country.  Paychecks keep them here.  And what party do most business owners belong to?  Hell, even small business owners who have no business being in the GOP think they are Republicans because Republicans say the right things and really that's all you people need is to be given good lip service.  Proof of that is how Republicans are all too ready to forgive trump as long as he stops saying stupid shit.  Doesn't matter to them that he thinks stupid shit.  Just keep it to yourself don.  That's all they are asking.  Republican voters think all that same stupid shit but you can't say that in a general election.  You have to lie to the people.  You have to not tell them your true agenda and feelings.  Sad.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 8, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



(the best part, for con tools, is the part in parens.  (and Labor is Left Behind).  Because cons hate labor.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Even when they are/were labor they still hate labor.

They don't realize the labor movement helped them too


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 9, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



First,  you didn't say anything or hear me say anything in 2005, so let's try a hint of intellectual honesty here. Second, 2005 was 11 years ago, not 16. Why are socialist so bad at math? 

So if BO is not responsible for the income gap, does he still get all the credit for the low employment rate, or did you also predict that 16 years ago in 2005?  I think I understand your repeated swearing, very impressive.

Profanity is the last refuge of the truly ignorant." - Anonymous

A single profane expression betrays a [person's] low breeding." -Joseph Cook


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



So if BO is not responsible for the income gap, does he still get all the credit for the low employment rate, or did you also predict that 16 years ago in 2005?  I think I understand your repeated swearing, very impressive.
So, y)ou suggest that Obama, the sitting presidents actual name, caused the problem of wildly unequal income distribution.  Even though the problem has existed for the past several decades.  Perhaps he started it all as a college student/? No one can bee that stupid, can they buck?  
So, when Obama became president, we were shedding over 600,000 Jobs Per Month.  Get it, me boy?  The economy was in free fall.  Rational and credible economists were quite concerned, most believing we were headed toward a depression.  So, who put together a bill to stop the bleeding?  Republicans brought forward and voted for no bills to help.  Obama and democrats did.  So, should we think the recession was a democratic problem.  Since they brought bills to stop it.  Or republicans, who did absolutely nothing?
Does anyone think what you are saying is just plain ignorant.  Or is it base stupidity.  Or are you simply another con tool.  BINGO.

Profanity is the last refuge? of the truly ignorant." - Anonymous
Uh, you bring total ignorance to the board as a con troll.  And make stupid and unsupportable accusations against a sitting president.  And do not use his name.  Proving you have no class, and no integrity.  Then you worry about profanity?  You have to be kidding.  Except you are really that stupid.  When you see someone acting like an ass hole, me boy, you should not be surprised when you are called an ass hole.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 9, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I love it when one of these cons says something stupid, I lose it, then they come back and say me cursing them somehow suggests they are right or have won the argument.

Anyone who blames Obama for the results of the bush recession just isn't being intellectually honest. The question is do they know it or do they believe the shit they say?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 9, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


So is the OP in this three being intellectually honest


sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...




If you are going to start a thread praising BO for the unemployment rate as if it is the only metric that matters,you should be prepared to defend it without whining and cursing like a spoiled adolescent.  And please save the lecture about being disrespectful to the president because I use his initials, are you really that thin skinned?

Therefore, if  you are going to credit BO for the unemployment rate you should consider all the things relative to health of our economy.

  Please list the steps the Dems and Hussein (his real name, happy?) took to set the economy straight as the Rep sat and watch, rather than just making it up because it fits your fantasy narrative.

My impression is that the sitting presidents generally get too much credit/blame for the state of our economy. People like you (socialist) think the government can and should micro-manage to economic bliss, and that is just unreasonable. Economies move up and down and rarely if ever in a straight line. They are very complicated and a bunch of lawyers in Washington should not be making policy in an effort to  influence something they don't understand, IMO. 

You and I may have things in common, but you seem to think that socialism should be applied in mega scale to over 300 million people; I feel we should limit the federal government to the very specific responsibilities given in the constitution, and let the individual states deal with education, healthcare, and other social welfare issues. There are examples of socialism working, but only in smaller populated countries where the population is much more homogenized. Governments can only be a drain on the economy, because they don't produce anything. Instead they are the necessary overhead, and any seasoned business person will keep a close eye on overhead.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 9, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



My apologies to Sealybobo. In my previous post I mistakenly attributed comments made by Rshermr to you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...





BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



If you are going to start a thread praising BO for the unemployment rate as if it is the only metric that matters,you should be prepared to defend it without whining and cursing like a spoiled adolescent.  I find the fact that you have problems with cursing is your problem, me boy.  I find the fact that you are a lying con tool much more serious.     And please save the lecture about being disrespectful to the president because I use his initials, are you really that thin skinned?  The deal is, I have been voting for presidents since Reagan, and lived through presidents since Eisenhower.  I never used attempts to disrespect presidents, ever.  Because I value class and self respect.  Now, I have known and conversed with con tools for thirty years.  Some of my best friends, and my brother, are con tools.  And I understand fully your intent to use childish language to disrespect the president.  BO and Hussein are examples of the childish methods used by ignorant minded tools like yourself.  And simply show you have neither class nor integrity.  
Therefore, if  you are going to credit BO for the unemployment rate you should consider all the things relative to health of our economy.
Now, that is a stupid statement.  Obviously we do not have the time to consider all economic issues.  You obviously have a very tenuous understanding of economics, overall.  We are, however, in a thread discussing the ue rate.  So lets see if you can discuss it.  

  Please list the steps the Dems and Hussein (his real name, happy?) took to set the economy straight as the Rep sat and watch, rather than just making it up because it fits your fantasy narrative.

OK.  As soon as you can tell me what the republicans have done so far to help the unemployment rate. Because what the Obama team did is way to obvious for even you to miss. 

My impression is that the sitting presidents generally get too much credit/blame for the state of our economy. My belief, too, dipshit.  Truth is that congress has a lot to do with it.  As does the state of the economy when they take control.  Now, did you have a point? People like you (socialist) think the government can and should micro-manage to economic bliss, and that is just unreasonable. Uh, my bet is that you do not even know what socialism is.  I do.  I am not a socialist, dipshitt.  Not am I a Laissez Faire, Capitalist/ Libertarian.  Economies move up and down and rarely if ever in a straight line. They are very complicated and a bunch of lawyers in Washington should not be making policy in an effort to  influence something they don't understand, IMO.  So, you want the "invisible hand" to take care of things?  Are you a Libertarian, me boy?

You and I may have things in common, (Like we both breath air?) but you seem to think that socialism should be applied in mega scale to over 300 million people; I feel we should limit the federal government to the very specific responsibilities given in the constitution, and let the individual states deal with education, healthcare, and other social welfare issues.  Wow, that lines up perfectly with the bat shit crazy web sites, including conservative talking points site.  Must be a complete coincidence.  You see, I have no favorite economic type.  Any system that works well for the majority of the population works for me.   There are examples of socialism working, but only in smaller populated countries where the population is much more homogenized.  Tell us what socialist countries there are, in your mind.  Because there are mixed economies.  But there are no successful socialist countries.  As there are no successful Communist, Capitalist, or Libertarian economies.  (libertarianism defines a social system, including the required economic requirements)  Governments can only be a drain on the economy, because they don't produce anything. Ignorant statement.  Got some proof?  Instead they are the necessary overhead, and any seasoned business person will keep a close eye on overhead.
Let me help you to understand why what you are saying is bullshit.  
1.  The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
2.  The Reagan Recession of 1982.
3.  The Great Republican Recession of 2008.
All created during republican administrations.  And the three largest recessions in the past century. 
You need some understanding of economic theory.  You seem to have only talking points, which you *like to believe.  *A really common trait among conservative tools.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 9, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No Bucktooth you were talking to me.  It was after I made this comment and posted these links showing you that back as far as 2005 we were warning you about the widening wealth gap and I remember specifically the right wing reply to that.  They said THEY DIDN'T CARE!  They said that's free market capitalism.  I said, "we use to have 25% of the $ and now we only have 10%.  Would you be ok if the rich had 99% of the money and us 1% and you guys said, "every man for himself, free market libertarian style capitalism where government is powerless to do anything about it".

Now you say you care about the wealth gap?  Show me you cared about it before Obama got into office.  The internet is a pretty amazing fucking thing.  It saves articles from really far back.  So if you have an article you can show us that shows you worried about the wealth gap in 2007 well we would fucking love to see it.  Just fucking do a google search like I did.

Now cry that my sources are too liberal.  Let me guess, you don't like Thom Hartmann.  Well so fucking what?  I'm showing you that back in 2005 we were saying the right things and YOUR SIDE was fighting us every step of the way.  Now your side wants to blame our side for the wealth gap?  Hardy Har Har.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



The laughable thing is that for decades, to today, conservatives have said that the wealth gap is both natural and no problem.  Now they see it as a problem and want to blame obama.  Because they are cons.  And cons can not reason.  And they believe what they are told to believe.  Because it is easy.


----------



## Markle (Jun 9, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Tyson Foods Indicted in Plan To Smuggle Illegal Workers
> 
> Tyson Foods is certainly not the regional company it was 40 years ago or the large national company it was just a few decades ago. It’s now a global meat processing and distribution company, and you probably didn’t know that 90% of the pepperoni on frozen pizzas comes from a Tyson company.
> [...]



Congratulations, you were able to find one example, from fifteen years ago.

Providence Journal
*January 18, 2002*

*Tyson's Immigrants*

*Tyson Foods Inc., America's largest meat producer, has a weakness for sharp practices.*

*When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, where Tyson is based, there were allegations of influence-peddling in the state government, aggravated by the fact that the governor's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, also served as a lawyer for Tyson. When Bill Clinton was president, a Tyson executive was convicted and sent to prison for trying to bribe Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. (The executive was later pardoned by President Clinton.)*

Now comes news that Tyson faces a 36-count federal indictment for reducing costs in its poultry factories by smuggling illegal aliens into the country from Mexico and providing them with fraudulent work papers. The government asserts that Tyson arranged for illegal aliens to be delivered to 15 plants in nine states, and obtained phony documents for the aliens so that they would be legally employable in the counties and states where the Tyson plants were situated.

[...]

The Clinton's and Tyson's Foods Close Bond

###

[...]

*In 1974 as well as 1992, candidate Clinton has actually embraced powerful corporate interests and much of their agenda despite his rhetoric against them. When Clinton ran for Congress in 1974, the largest employer in the Third District of Arkansas was Tyson Foods, based in Springdale, which was well on its way to becoming the nation's largest poultry producer. In 1995, Tyson Foods ranked "110th on the Fortune 500 list, and sold 6,000 products in 57 countries, from fresh chickens to taco fillings," according to an August 1994 company profile in The New York Times.

The chairman, Don Tyson, is a colorful figure who in the late 1970s designed his corporate office as a replica of the Oval Office in the White House, with doorknobs shaped like chicken eggs. Tyson was estimated to be worth $800 million. He supported Clinton in the 1974 race, and according to author David Maraniss, the Tyson family donated a campaign telephone bank which was operated from an apartment near the University of Arkansas, although it should be noted that no such "in-kind" contribution was reported by the campaign to the Federal Election Commission. *Clinton never talked much about the company itself publicly, but instead spoke empathetically about the plight of chicken farmers.

The Tyson-Clinton relationship continued in Washington, of course, and it grew out of a special culture. Probably no one has better captured the real essence of the political-financial nexus in Arkansas than journalist Michael Kelly, who wrote that Arkansas "has been ruled for almost all of its existence, and is largely ruled still, by a thin upper crust of Democratic party officials and Democratic legislative leaders and important landholders and businessmen."

"This elite, bound together not by party or even ideology but by mutually advantageous relationships, holds sway over a small and politically disorganized middle class and a large but well-beaten population of the poor.

[...]

AllPolitics - Follow The Money

###

*Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire : Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.*
June 12, 1994|    SARA FRITZ |

SPRINGDALE, Ark. — He is an unlikely looking millionaire kingmaker--a balding, impish man whose trademark khaki work uniform belies his wealth and power.

Still, Donald Tyson, who succeeded in building his father's small poultry business into a multimillion-dollar food-processing empire, has been widely portrayed as a driving force behind the political ascendancy of Bill Clinton.

*Indeed, during the 1992 presidential campaign, Texas billionaire and independent candidate Ross Perot dubbed then-Gov. Clinton "chicken man" because of his close relationship to Tyson and to Arkansas' poultry industry.

And Clinton himself drew attention to the association when he acknowledged to a campaign audience that he had sacrificed the environment in Arkansas to create more jobs for the state's poultry farms.

[...]*

Clinton Ties to Tyson Scion Still Drawing Critics' Fire :  Politics: Some allege Arkansan got special treatment from Agriculture, Commerce departments. He denies it.

More?


----------



## Markle (Jun 9, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The laughable thing is that for decades, to today, conservatives have said that the wealth gap is both natural and no problem.  Now they see it as a problem and want to blame obama.  Because they are cons.  And cons can not reason.  And they believe what they are told to believe.  Because it is easy.



Typical of you to lie.

We conservatives are not saying it is a problem, we are pointing to the FACT that the policies and doctrines of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama have made the situation far worse.

As you deny, this is but one reason.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The laughable thing is that for decades, to today, conservatives have said that the wealth gap is both natural and no problem.  Now they see it as a problem and want to blame obama.  Because they are cons.  And cons can not reason.  And they believe what they are told to believe.  Because it is easy.
> ...


      [/QUOTE]
Really?  You post most, but not all, of a graph, dipshit.  With no link, dipshit. Please, me boy, what did you think that proved?  Dipshit.
Please, dipshit, if you think that Obama made it worse, tell me how. And for gods sake, tell me how republicans have passed bills to make it better.  Name a .bill.  Or simply tell me you are too ignorant to do so.

And, dipshit, tell me why Republicans not bringing a single bill forward to help the problems they created with the great Republican Recession of 2008 helped anything.  Or why blocking every piece of legislation brought forward to help, by democrats, helped.  Or name a single bill they brought forward. 
Dipshit.  Jesus, it pisses me off to have to deal with someone as brainless as you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 9, 2016)

Markle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Tyson Foods Indicted in Plan To Smuggle Illegal Workers
> ...


Uh, did you have a point, or are you just picking and choosing political attacks arbitrarily?
Really stupid, but irrelevant, post.  
Did you think that the male clinton was running for a political position.  Really, have you always been this stupid, or have you been working on it.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Really?  You post most, but not all, of a graph, dipshit.  With no link, dipshit. Please, me boy, what did you think that proved?  Dipshit.
Please, dipshit, if you think that Obama made it worse, tell me how. And for gods sake, tell me how republicans have passed bills to make it better.  Name a .bill.  Or simply tell me you are too ignorant to do so.

And, dipshit, tell me why Republicans not bringing a single bill forward to help the problems they created with the great Republican Recession of 2008 helped anything.  Or why blocking every piece of legislation brought forward to help, by democrats, helped.  Or name a single bill they brought forward.
Dipshit.  Jesus, it pisses me off to have to deal with someone as brainless as you.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, just an observation- Rshermr just called Markle brainless. I suppose in Rshermr's mind you must call someone a dipshit at least a half dozen times per post to prove you have a brain.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Hmm, just an observation- Rshermr just called Markle brainless. I suppose in Rshermr's mind you must call someone a dipshit at least a half dozen times per post to prove you have a brain.[/QUOTE]

Ah.  So you are confused.  And ignorant.  You prove you have a brain by posting logical information and backing it up with rational and impartial sourced information.  You prove you have no brain when you use irrational and partial sources, or no sources at all, to attempt to back up drivel.  Like your posts. 
And I call post authors who waste my time dipshits.
Dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What's "laughable" is that you liberals blame conservatives for the "wealth gap" but when you look at the numbers income inequality EXPLODED under Barry!   What's even more amusing is now you want to put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office...a candidate who has taken millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street fat cats...and you expect SHE is going to look out for the "little guy"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Hmm, just an observation- Rshermr just called Markle brainless. I suppose in Rshermr's mind you must call someone a dipshit at least a half dozen times per post to prove you have a brain.[/QUOTE]

Rshermr continually whines about "personal attacks" yet he is usually the first person in a string to go that route.  It's who he "IS"!


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The most hilarious is when they bitch and moan about Corporations exporting all the jobs overseas and praise dubummer for the great employment rate at the same time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

Chuz Life said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Which is really funny when you consider that the man Barack Obama chose to be his "Jobs Czar" was the CEO of General Electric...and GE was one of the biggest exporters of American jobs to China!

What ever happened to the "Job Czar" by the way?  Has anyone heard even a peep from that lofty appointee in years?  Gee, think that was just more Obama pretending to address a problem by creating another layer of Big Government to deal with it but really doing nothing at all?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You should have been a Bernie Sanders supporter

Why declining manufacturing leads to income inequality

The higher income for the top 1% completely distorts the political system. With more power for Wall Street and billionaires, politicians who depend on the rich and powerful for campaign funds pass more bad policies, leading to even worse income inequality, in a vicious cycle.

 income and wealth inequality have been getting much worse over the last half-century., not just under Obama.

First, manufacturing generates so much wealth that a middle class can develop, as happened in the 19th century. Before that time, what little surplus wealth was generated was grabbed by the ruling elite, and almost everybody else engaged in the toil of farming. But the surplus that manufacturing creates can also be taken by the ruling elite, leaving everyone else in the same boat as before. However, the second reason manufacturing leads to a middle class is that manufacturing requires high skill levels — which is why Germany now, and the United States before, have had comfortable middle class families working in factories. When people have high skills — assuming they can organize, as in unions — then they have power, and with power comes better income and better income equality.

But if the manufacturing sectors start to decline, then so does the wealth-generating power of the country, as well as the power of the middle class. And thus we find that the United States is declining in power and in its middle class. 

Income equality, and manufacturing, both peaked around 1968 in the United States. Manufacturing has almost always been the quintessential middle class sector because manufacturing employs about the same percentage of the workforce as the income it receives. In 1968, 25% of the workforce was engaged in manufacturing, and 25% of the country’s income went to manufacturing. On average, in 1968 people in manufacturing received the average income of the economy. No other sector can boast this “middle class-ness”.

From 1968 to 2009 the manufacturing sector declined from one quarter of the economy — every fourth working person — to about one in every 11 people, a decline of about 16% of the total employment pool. Where did those people go? Most of them went into the lower income service workforce, which grew from 12.8% to 20.5% of the workforce (and many others stopped working altogether). So, on average, the people that moved from manufacturing to low income services lost 1/3rd of their income, if not more.....

But I'm sure you know all this, right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Glad you guys are finally fed up with jobs going overseas.  In 2007 leading up to McCain vs. Obama you guys pretended and defended.  Seems you've changed your tunes as of late.  You argued with us when we said it but now that Trumps saying it you're licking the tip of his cock like its a lollypop.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

What's "laughable" is that you liberals blame conservatives for the "wealth gap" but when you look at the numbers income inequality EXPLODED under Barry!   What's even more amusing is now you want to put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office...a candidate who has taken millions of dollars in contributions from Wall Street fat cats...and you expect SHE is going to look out for the "little guy"!   [/QUOTE]     [/QUOTE]

The most hilarious is when they bitch and moan about Corporations exporting all the jobs overseas and praise dubummer for the great employment rate at the same time.
So, hardly, me boy.  The ue rate had dropped from the great republican recession of 2008, when it reached over 10%, to under 5%, which I understand bothers you immensely.  Sorry, it is simply fact.  No bragging or praise about it.  It was really a simple, obvious move by Obama and Dems.  Our country was loosing over 600,000 jobs per month when Obama was sworn in.  He pushed, and dems voted for, and passed the Obama stimulus.  And the job losses stopped, and job gains have occured monthly and persistently since.  
Now, as you know, absolutely no Republicans voted for the stimulus.  NONE.  Which is odd, since their hero, Ronald Reagan had used the stimulus to great effect after his tax cut failed miserably. 

*By the way, have you noticed I always use the past presidents full and proper names.  It shows respect, class, and integrity.  Barry and dubummer show childishness, lack of class, and no integrity.  Thanks for showing all what you are.*

Which is really funny when you consider that the man Barack Obama chose to be his "Jobs Czar" was the CEO of General Electric...and GE was one of the biggest exporters of American jobs to China!
Actually, you are pushing a lie.  Again.  Obama appointed no Czars.  That title was provided by the media and politicians.  Are you simply trying to show your ignorance?  
Czar Search
What ever happened to the "Job Czar" by the way?  Has anyone heard even a peep from that lofty appointee in years?  Gee, think that was just more Obama pretending to address a problem by creating another layer of Big Government to deal with it but really doing nothing at all?
Hard to find a czar when there never was one.  Kind of a stupid question.

Still waiting for a single economic argument from you, me boy.  And have been waiting for months to hear what republicans did to diminish the damage from their Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Apparently you can find no bill from your republican politicians.  So, at this point, you admit by inability to provide such  a response that you admit they did nothing.
Here is what has worked under the Obama administration, me boy:


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I personally think CEO's are paid too much in this country but that's a result of them sitting on each others boards and voting for those salaries.

As for why manufacturing jobs in the US started to decline in the late 60's?  Look at why they boomed in 50's!  We were one of the few industrial nations to come out of WWII with an intact industrial infrastructure.  Our manufacturing sector boomed because we were supplying the rest of the world while they rebuilt themselves.  At some point that advantage was going to disappear and there really wasn't anything we could do about it.  All the finger pointing about who is to blame for manufacturing jobs going overseas ignores reality.  The jobs left because it's cheaper to make things elsewhere.  Raising labor costs even higher or passing more legislation that raises the cost of energy or healthcare isn't going to improve the situation...it will simply accelerate the job loss.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Maybe deep down, just like with oil, for years we stop manufacturing and we let Africa, China, India and Mexico eat up all their natural resources until they don't have any left and we become the largest oil producer and manufacturer one day.  Wouldn't that be great?

And who cares if Chinese and India and Mexico manufacture now?  That doesn't mean we had to buy from them.  We certainly don't sell to them.  We shouldn't buy from anyone we don't sell to.  China doesn't buy our cars.  And we purchased the cars we made in the 60's.  We produced and we purchased.  We didn't have to outsource the manufacturing but corporations wanted to and if we complained they cried PROTECTIONISM but the fact is every country protects their vital industries.  All except us because our workers are or were the highest paid.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



How long have you been been having thoughts like that about Donald Trump's cock, Sealy?  Like a lollypop?  Really...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Interesting theory, Sealy!  Not based in reality but then again that's usually a struggle for you progressives...isn't it!  You think if we stop all manufacturing that it will somehow "eat up" the manufacturing capabilities of other countries?  How does that work?  There isn't a finite amount of manufacturing that can be done like there is a finite amount of oil on the planet.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yup.  Some of that is true.  However, you like most cons ignore the undeniable fact that when we had totally private healthcare, we had the highest cost healthcare among the advanced nations.  And you ignore the fact that we still have private, non socialized healthcare.  And that health care costs have been raising more slowly since obamacare started.  What we have is totally private healthcare, with federal regulations.  
Then, while we have proposals to raise the minimum wage, it will not put us beyond what other advanced nations are paying for labor.  Not at all.  Minimum wage is simply a conservative talking point topic.  It is and has never been a competitive issue.

International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 2015 - Summary Tables
*12 April 2016*
International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 2015 - Summary Tables | The Conference Board


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow, you do like to twist what people say.  What he was saying (now listen carefully so you do not have to lie later) is that countries use up their natural resources.  There is indeed a finite amount of natural resources, but not of manufacturing.  But manufacturing becomes finite when the resources are gone. Even a 10 year old could understand that, quite easily.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


How much steel does he think is buried in the ground?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Someone said to me the other day, "we used to have cheap/affordable healthcare in this country.  I got sick or my wife got pregnant and it was $35 or $100 or I don't remember the exact dollar amount but the fact is, back in the day the doctor would take $100 to stitch you up and be happy.  Today they take $35 co pay or deductable and then bill your insurance company $1000.  It's bullshit.  We've all seen those hospital bills where they bill our insurance $5000 or $10000 or more for some bullshit procedure.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Ah.  So you are confused.  And ignorant.  You prove you have a brain by posting logical information and backing it up with rational and impartial sourced information.  You prove you have no brain when you use irrational and partial sources, or no sources at all, to attempt to back up drivel.  Like your posts.
And I call post authors who waste my time dipshits.
Dipshit.[/QUOTE]

Profanity is the tool  for those who either lack a compelling argument, or the ability to express it. Which are you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



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!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Profanity is the tool  for those who either lack a compelling argument, or the ability to express it. Which are you?[/QUOTE]
It's the best way to show you how we are feeling when typing a response.  Don't take it personally.  Someone can still be debating with intellectual honesty and thoughtfulness and still occasionally say I think you are a stupid cock sucker.  LOL


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


It's the best way to show you how we are feeling when typing a response.  Don't take it personally.  Someone can still be debating with intellectual honesty and thoughtfulness and still occasionally say I think you are a stupid cock sucker.  LOL[/QUOTE]

Yea, I get your point, and if posters like rshermr didn't use profanity in nearly every post I'd cut him some slack. But when somebody can't resist but call names and swear all the time, I truly question their sophistication and intelligent. Besides, it creates anger and ill will which definitely stifles the free exchange of thoughts and opinions. Let's put it this way, I can sit down, have a beer and debate with someone who shows respect for other's ideas. But guys like him always seem so angry and disagreeable that I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with him.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Yea, I get your point, and if posters like rshermr didn't use profanity in nearly every post I'd cut him some slack. But when somebody can't resist but call names and swear all the time, I truly question their sophistication and intelligent. Besides, it creates anger and ill will which definitely stifles the free exchange of thoughts and opinions. Let's put it this way, I can sit down, have a beer and debate with someone who shows respect for other's ideas. But guys like him always seem so angry and disagreeable that I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with him.[/QUOTE]
This place wouldn't be the same without reasonable Republicans.  I don't like talking to people here who I agree with about politics but I also don't like to talk to people who are die hard right wingers.

There are three kinds of voters.  Dicks Pussies and Assholes.  I really just don't like dicks.  Assholes are shitty but they usually don't bother us pussies too much but what I don't like about them is they don't realize even they get fucked by the dicks.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Yea, I get your point, and if posters like rshermr didn't use profanity in nearly every post I'd cut him some slack. But when somebody can't resist but call names and swear all the time, I truly question their sophistication and intelligent. Besides, it creates anger and ill will which definitely stifles the free exchange of thoughts and opinions. Let's put it this way, I can sit down, have a beer and debate with someone who shows respect for other's ideas. But guys like him always seem so angry and disagreeable that I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with him.[/QUOTE]
Please, me boy, do not feel I am angry.  I just think you are a dipshit.  So far you have shown no ability to have a rational discussion.  Just because you think you can does not mean you can.  Because you have shown yourself to be stupid.


----------



## Markle (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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.



That's really WAY too much common sense for our Progressives to handle at one time.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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.


----------



## Markle (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Someone said to me the other day, "we used to have cheap/affordable healthcare in this country.  I got sick or my wife got pregnant and it was $35 or $100 or I don't remember the exact dollar amount but the fact is, back in the day the doctor would take $100 to stitch you up and be happy.  Today they take $35 co pay or deductable and then bill your insurance company $1000.  It's bullshit.  We've all seen those hospital bills where they bill our insurance $5000 or $10000 or more for some bullshit procedure.



Today every believes health insurance should cover every hangnail or a pimple.  It would be like your car insurance paying for you gas, oil, tires along with all repairs.  Imagine what your car insurance would cost.

So the doctor bills the insurance company, Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid $1,000.00  Of that, the insurance company, etc, pays $500.00  Of that $500.00; $250.00 goes toward malpractice insurance.  Doctors have to order every test in the book or be sued.

We could easily have affordable health care IF people were able to buy health insurance like they do auto insurance.  "Back in the day" we could buy "major medical".  You paid for having a cut hand stitched up.  If you had a major illness or accident, the insurance covered the expense.

Today, government MANDATES that we have coverage for many things we don't need or want.

In addition, we desperately need tort reform.  The solution is simple to frivolous lawsuits being settled because that is cheaper than paying attorney fees.  We switch to a loser pays system.  Do you think that attorneys would take a contingency case if they weren't dead certain there was a solid case?  That if they lost, their client would have to pay their fee and the doctors or hospitals costs?


----------



## Markle (Jun 10, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Yea, I get your point, and if posters like rshermr didn't use profanity in nearly every post I'd cut him some slack. But when somebody can't resist but call names and swear all the time, I truly question their sophistication and intelligent. Besides, it creates anger and ill will which definitely stifles the free exchange of thoughts and opinions. Let's put it this way, I can sit down, have a beer and debate with someone who shows respect for other's ideas. But guys like him always seem so angry and disagreeable that I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with him.



I seldom reply to rshermr.  His posts are senseless and his hate, anger, and, profanities are just examples of a little man with childish ways.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


So, anyone want to do a search on labor costs by country.  Any of you brilliant cons want to suggest what year you want to compare?  Do any of you brilliant cons understand that labor cost means little without coupling it with productivity?  
Of course not.  Because you are too ignorant.  Really, calling others stupid with the lack of intelligence you show does not pass the giggle test, me boy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, I get your point, and if posters like rshermr didn't use profanity in nearly every post I'd cut him some slack. But when somebody can't resist but call names and swear all the time, I truly question their sophistication and intelligent. Besides, it creates anger and ill will which definitely stifles the free exchange of thoughts and opinions. Let's put it this way, I can sit down, have a beer and debate with someone who shows respect for other's ideas. But guys like him always seem so angry and disagreeable that I wouldn't even want to be in the same room with him.
> ...



Yes rushmr is an angry angry vile dirty guy who seemingly is here only to vent his disturbed spleen. At one time he did the gay pirate routine to the max, now he limits it to "me boy". Is that nuts? Maybe we made him nuts by pointing out how insane  Marxism is ?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 10, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Someone said to me the other day, "we used to have cheap/affordable healthcare in this country.  I got sick or my wife got pregnant and it was $35 or $100 or I don't remember the exact dollar amount but the fact is, back in the day the doctor would take $100 to stitch you up and be happy.  Today they take $35 co pay or deductable and then bill your insurance company $1000.  It's bullshit.  We've all seen those hospital bills where they bill our insurance $5000 or $10000 or more for some bullshit procedure.



Today every  Every what, dipshit?  believes health insurance should cover every hangnail or a pimple.  Prove it.  It does not, and can not.  You are simply making a statement based on an empty mind.  It would be like your car insurance paying for you gas, oil, tires along with all repairs.  Imagine what your car insurance would cost.
Imagine is a good word, me boy.  Because you are not describing anything real.  Our medical insurance is no better than the medical insurance in 35 other industrialized countries.  For the most part, it is worse.  But it costs way more.  Any idea why???

So the doctor bills the insurance company, Obamacare, Medicare or Medicaid $1,000.00  Of that, the insurance company, etc, pays $500.00  Of that $500.00; $250.00 goes toward malpractice insurance.  Doctors have to order every test in the book or be sued.
Prove it, dipshit.  Because it is not true at all.  Just another stupid accusation, with no proof.

We could easily have affordable health care IF people were able to buy health insurance like they do auto insurance.  "Back in the day" we could buy "major medical".  You paid for having a cut hand stitched up.  If you had a major illness or accident, the insurance covered the expense.
Problem is, me boy, you do not ever check out what you are saying.  Back in the day, we had the most expensive medical of any major industrialized company.  So, you are simply wrong.  

Today, government MANDATES that we have coverage for many things we don't need or want.
You must have proof of your statement.  Truth is, we have no more mandates than nearly every other country in the world.  You are simply wrong again.

In addition, we desperately need tort reform.  The solution is simple to frivolous lawsuits being settled because that is cheaper than paying attorney fees.  We switch to a loser pays system.  Do you think that attorneys would take a contingency case if they weren't dead certain there was a solid case?  That if they lost, their client would have to pay their fee and the doctors or hospitals costs?
OK with me.  
Problem is, you always line up perfectly with the bat shit crazy con sites you spend your time with.  They are routinely wrong, and therefor, so are you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The rest of the world isn't buying American.
> ...


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

Nobles need not pay taxes.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Did someone say tort reform? Omg every 4 years I always hear republicans bring up tort reform. Definitely a right wing talking point.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 10, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



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!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


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 (Jun 10, 2016)

It's politicians from both sides of the aisle that have been playing that game, Sealy...they raid Social Security taking our money to pay for their pet projects...and we're too fucking stupid to call them on it and send them packing!  Our political leaders are like that bum outside the convenience store that hits you up for money so he can buy a "cup of coffee" when you KNOW that he'll be spending that money on a bottle of booze.  We keep giving the bums more money.  Shame on us!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I notice you are making accusations, again without any proof.  So, since we know you are a con tool, why should we believe you??


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



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????


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 12, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



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 (Jun 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




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

Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



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 (Jun 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


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 (Jun 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



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 (Jun 13, 2016)

[/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 (Jun 13, 2016)

[/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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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 (Jun 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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.





Oldstyle said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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 (Jun 13, 2016)

"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 (Jun 13, 2016)

.[/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 (Jun 13, 2016)

*Pseudologia Fantastica...*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2016)

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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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]


Oldstyle said:


> 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!





Oldstyle said:


> 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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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 (Jun 13, 2016)

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?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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?





Oldstyle said:


> 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?



Your posts sum you up, dipshit.  Ignorant conservative troll attacks and lies do not impress anyone, me boy.  You are a simple clown.  Unable to ever win an economic argument.  Back to your dishes, me boy.  Perhaps you can have a conversation about the best dishwashing detergent.  Because the rest is beyond you.
Just wondering, dipshit.  What the hell makes a clown like you think that anyone takes you seriously.  You are simply capable of posting con talking points.  Every single time.  With absolutely no other capability.  And trying to back the "arguments" with right wing nut case sources.  Yeah, os, you are really impressive.  To yourself.
But apparently you are impressed with me.  And you know very, very little about me.  Your a fucking food services guy.  How impressive so you think that is.
And by the way, me boy, you have a degree in history, so you say.  Yet you work washing dishes.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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!


    [/QUOTE]

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...
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![/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
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...[/QUOTE]

Fuck off, OS.  Everyone who has been following this bullshit of yours knows that you are lying, and that I proved that you lied.  And that you agreed to the condition.  And that you can not meet the condition.  And that you long ago lost this argument, and are simply pretending that you did not.  Because, me boy, you have no integrity.  You see, dipshit, it is you, as all know, that has proven himself full of shit.  And you are doing it again.
I am so sorry that you can not figure out the formula.  But you must understand, OS, I do not like you.  And you have not earned the right to see the formula.  Because, in my humble but correct opinion, you are an ass hole.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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!


    [/QUOTE]


Of course you did not criticize me for saying I had a secretary.  Because you said I was lying when I said I had a secretary, me lying con tool.  
And it was a simple typo that you found and were so proud of.  All I said was that I was used to having my secretary catch typo's.  Not surprising at all to normal people.  Just you trying to find something to criticize, since you are incapable of economic discussion.
Then there is the eighth grade education insults.  But I can prove a masters degree, and a ba degree, should you be willing to take my bet.  But you are just a simple little con tool, a true dishwasher mentality, and you will not take the bet, because you know you are full of shit.  That is just you.  Making up ignorant insults.  I wonder how you actually live with yourself.  If I were that small, I would be way too depressed to post.  But not you, eh.  Because you are used to it.

So, do you think your post has anything at all to do with this thread?

Please show any proof of any accusation you made here?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2016)

All that foul language and bile...and yet STILL no economic formula?  You're slowly coming to the conclusion how bad you look in this string...aren't you, Georgie?

*What are the Symptoms?*

*Frequent Unnecessary Dishonesty*
The symptom most easily recognized when diagnosing Compulsive Lying Disorder is frequent unnecessary dishonesty. Individuals will lie about anything and everything, even in cases when they have nothing to gain from concealing the truth. For example, an individual affected with this unfortunate disorder may lie when asked what his or her favorite food or drink is. In the majority of situations in which this question is asked there is no logical reason for answering dishonestly, yet a compulsive liar will automatically. This often results in inconsistency in relationships when the compulsive liar happens to be incapable of keeping track of his or her lies.


*Attention Seeking Behavior*
Compulsive lying disorder often develops very early in childhood due to a child’s need or desire to seek out attention from caregivers and peers. By fabricating stories in childhood, they often gained the fascination and disbelief of those around them, which led to others paying more attention to the extraordinary nature of the child’s story. Children have vivid imaginations, so at first parents often brush off the child’s lies and allow them to get away with it under the assumption that the child will simply “grow out of it”. However, if the lying behavior is allowed to go on too long, then it becomes nearly irreparable and compulsive lying disorder develops.


*Story Fabrication*
Compulsive liars feel the constant need to convey to others that they are superior and deserving of more attention then the other children in their cohort. In order to achieve this goal, they construct elaborate stories about themselves, often involving fantastic adventures and incredible feats that are intended to display them as a hero in the eyes of their peers. However, once the individual is caught in the lie, they are looked upon with contempt and dislike, which then causes them to lie even more in order to shake the unpleasant label. Once the compulsive liar reaches adulthood, these mystical stories because more grounded in nature, but still maintain their awe-inspiring intent.


*Covering Up*
Though compulsive liars often take extreme care to keep others under the spell of their deception, once in awhile the web of lies unravels and the liar is seen as is without any of his dishonest walls. When this occurs, the liar works quickly and frantically to rebuild those walls, constructing more lies in order to rebuild himself into what he was previously seen as. This often involves elaborate stories of being falsely accused, constructing lie after lie with the intention of defending his or her supposed innocence. If this method, as well as any other attempt at lying, fails and the compulsive liar is forced to tell the truth, he or she will often become incredibly nervous and display a great deal of uncomfortable behavior.


*Same Story, Different Characters*
Plagiarism is a key factor in the life of a compulsive liar. This often involves twisting and warping stories heard from peers, acquaintances, or movie plotlines into plausible adventures that could have occurred in the liar’s life. Crafting these storylines takes a great deal of effort on the part of the individual since the biggest fear of a compulsive liar is being “found out”. Of course, much of this effort is done subconsciously, which results in individuals being unable to recall that the story is a lie. If a compulsive liar was attached to a lie detector machine, it’s likely that their statements would come across as the truth simply because they’ve told them so many times that they sincerely believe the fabricated event actually occurred.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2016)

Dude, they could teach a clinic on Compulsive Lying Disorder with what you post here!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, they could teach a clinic on Compulsive Lying Disorder with what you post here!



Dude  (I want to pretend I am 12, also):

Please show us what statement I have made that is a lie, and prove it.

I am absolutely certain you will fail, because I never ever lie.

Did you think that this post of yours has anything to do with the thread?

Did you think that this post of yours has anything to do with Economics?

Do you enjoy wasting people's time?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> All that foul language and bile...and yet STILL no economic formula?  You're slowly coming to the conclusion how bad you look in this string...aren't you, Georgie?
> 
> *What are the Symptoms?*
> 
> ...



Nice job, Oldstyle.  It describes your problem well.  Now I, on the other hand, NEVER, EVER lie.  I hope you can get some help.  But posting this blather, and thinking anyone cares, proves you are probably beyond help.


----------



## Markle (Jun 13, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Please elaborate.


----------



## Markle (Jun 13, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Did someone say tort reform? Omg every 4 years I always hear republicans bring up tort reform. Definitely a right wing talking point.



Why do you oppose tort reform?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone say tort reform? Omg every 4 years I always hear republicans bring up tort reform. Definitely a right wing talking point.
> ...


It's just a right wing talking point every 2016 2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 1992. Lame old argument


----------



## Markle (Jun 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 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 respond to Rshermr at all?  Playing solitaire would seem to be a more valuable use of your time.


----------



## Markle (Jun 13, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You dodged the question.  Why do you oppose tort reform?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone say tort reform? Omg every 4 years I always hear republicans bring up tort reform. Definitely a right wing talking point.
> ...




Why do you support it???  Provide proof.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



Because he really, really likes me.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do I think that a formula to determine "Jobs Saved" has anything to do with economics?  That would be a yes!  Do I think Compulsive Lying Disorder have anything to do with economics?  That would be a no! 

So did you want to get BACK to the discussion of economics?  Because if you DO...then now would be the time for you to provide the economic formula for determining "Jobs Saved"!  If you can't...and you insist on making this string about your lies...then I guess that's what we'll be stuck with.  As for "wasting people's time"?  You could have ended this farce weeks ago by simply admitting that you don't have the faintest idea how Obama's economic team came up with their numbers for "Jobs Saved"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



Probably because I enjoy watching him squirm when he gets caught lying!  It really is as funny as a Seinfeld rerun!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


So did you want to get BACK to the discussion of economics?  Because if you DO...then now would be the time for you to provide the economic formula for determining "Jobs Saved"!  If you can't...and you insist on making this string about your lies...then I guess that's what we'll be stuck with.  As for "wasting people's time"?  You could have ended this farce weeks ago by simply admitting that you don't have the faintest idea how Obama's economic team came up with their numbers for "Jobs Saved"

So, as a dishwasher, you are suggesting that there is no such thing as jobs saved.  However, the cbo believes there is such a thing as jobs saved.    So, me boy, you loose.  

So, let me ask again, since the above sentence is absolutely nothing new.

Again you suggest I have lied, but you are unable to tell me what the lie is.  So, you are admitting you can not name a lie I have posted, as usual?

Do you enjoy wasting people's time?

Did you not know what a condition is?

Did you not notice that you are unable to meet my condition?

Did you really think that I like you?

Did you think that I am obliged to respond to you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



But you have not yet stated what lie I have posted.
So, what lie have I ever posted?
Pleas show proof, or admit you have none.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 14, 2016)

Still refusing to admit you don't have that formula, Georgie?  The lie is that you ever had one...you know it...I know it...anyone who's followed this joke of a thread knows it!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Still refusing to admit you don't have that formula, Georgie?  The lie is that you ever had one...you know it...I know it...anyone who's followed this joke of a thread knows it!



Do you have a mouse in your pocket, dipshit?  No one is paying attention to you, OS.  Just you and I, and I am bored to tears with your bs.
But no, I am not lying, as you well know.  But truth is, you are refusing to honor the condition you agreed to.  And, me boy, I am not making that up.  I have already proven that I did require a condition, and you did agree to it.  But, today, you are lying again.  Really, me boy, have you no integrity??  Of course not. 
Con tools are generally liars.  And you help to prove that fact.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still refusing to admit you don't have that formula, Georgie?  The lie is that you ever had one...you know it...I know it...anyone who's followed this joke of a thread knows it!
> ...



The only thing you've "proven" is that you were lying when you said you had the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved".  All your bullshit about conditions and Con tools is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from your inability to provide that formula.  You got caught telling another lie because that's what you DO!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Got it.  We now have a con tool again saying he is not a con tool.
We have OS, a proven liar, saying he does not lie.  But you have recently been proven to have lied on multiple occasions.  So, you lie but you are not a liar.  Got it.

How do we know you are a con tool?:
1.  You always, in every single case, pick the response provided in nearly every single bat shit crazy con web site.
2.  You never pick a response that is different from the bat shit crazy con web sites.
3.  You lie constantly, a trait well developed in the con tools.
4. You have done so consistently for years.

How do we know you are a liar:
1.  You make statements that say you did not say something, but when your post is pulled forward and cited, you actually did say what you claim you did not say.
2.  Your specific lies can be shown to have happened over and over.
3.  You have been making the lies for years.

So, really simple, OS.  You are at this point a known conservative tool, who lies constantly.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The only thing you've "proven" is that you were lying when you said you had the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved".  So you are making an accusation that I lied,  But you can not prove what you say.  Because I never, ever lie.  All your bullshit about conditions and Con tools is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from your inability to provide that formula.  But I stated when this subject was brought up by you that I would provide the formula you so badly want when you provided what you agreed to do first.  Which was to provide proof of a republican bill to address the problems caused by republicans by the Great Republican Recession of 2008 which they caused.  As you know.  So, me boy, you are lying.  As I can prove again as you well know.  But so far, I can find no one who is not satisfied by the post, under your name, which proves what I am saying, which I have already provided.  You agreed to the condition required by me, but then could not meet the condition.  So, as any slightly rational mind would understand, I owe you nothing.  In fact, you are asking for something you have no right to.  Because, again, you are lying.  And I do not like liars.  And I do not like YOU.  So, if you could  find a logical reason why I owe you an answer, I would change my mind.  But as you know, there is no such reason.  You simply lied about what you could provide, got caught in your lie, and are now having to play your little con tool games, while making a fool of yourself.
So, I am sure you have more personal attacks to make.  But, you see, no one cares.  If you could stick to the truth, stop the personal attacks, and make a single economic argument, it would be different.  But so far, you have proven you can not.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

Still pretending that you actually HAVE a formula?  You're the biggest fraud on this board, Rshermr!  

All your conditions and declarations that "I NEVER LIE!!!!!" can't hide the fact that you lie constantly and get caught doing so regularly!

You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!  That's the only formula you've ever had which is to say...you've NEVER had one!  You've been here for weeks now lying and saying you did.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

What's laughable is your constant refrain that what you want to do is discuss economics!  It's laughable because trying to discuss economics and pretending that you have a degree in the subject is what ALWAYS gets you into trouble.  Why?  Because you so OBVIOUSLY know so little about economics that whenever you try and talk about the subject you invariably say something that no economics major would EVER say, thus exposing yourself!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Still pretending that you actually HAVE a formula?  You're the biggest fraud on this board, Rshermr!
> 
> All your conditions and declarations that "I NEVER LIE!!!!!" can't hide the fact that you lie constantly and get caught doing so regularly!
> 
> You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!  That's the only formula you've ever had which is to say...you've NEVER had one!  You've been here for weeks now lying and saying you did.





Oldstyle said:


> Still pretending that you actually HAVE a formula?  You're the biggest fraud on this board, Rshermr!
> 
> All your conditions and declarations that "I NEVER LIE!!!!!" can't hide the fact that you lie constantly and get caught doing so regularly!
> 
> You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!  That's the only formula you've ever had which is to say...you've NEVER had one!  You've been here for weeks now lying and saying you did.



Ok.  How about a moment of truth, me boy.  If you are capable.

If a person lies, over the years that you have discussed things with me, you should be able to prove that I lied at least once.  Not claimed I lied, because you do that all the time.
Now with you, I have proven that you lied several times.  See the difference.  Because I never, ever lie.

Now, where is that economic argument.  Lets start the count again, of consecutive posts by you without touching the subject matter of the thread.  We got past 25 times last time.  Want to break the record?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's laughable is your constant refrain that what you want to do is discuss economics!  It's laughable because trying to discuss economics and pretending that you have a degree in the subject is what ALWAYS gets you into trouble.  Why?  Because you so OBVIOUSLY know so little about economics.  Whenever you try and talk about the subject you invariably say something that no economics major would EVER say, thus exposing yourself!



I want you to be certain that you know how sad I am that you do not think I have a degree in economics.  I mean, I am totally devastated. 
Because, os, I am sure that you know dish washing.  I am certain you are a true expert on economics.  I mean, it must be complete coincidence that your "knowledge" comes from bat shit crazy con web sites.  So, I guess you would like everyone to believe that you are so disgusted with the process that you do not want to show your economics chops.  And of course, we all believe you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's laughable is your constant refrain that what you want to do is discuss economics!  It's laughable because trying to discuss economics and pretending that you have a degree in the subject is what ALWAYS gets you into trouble.  Why?  Because you so OBVIOUSLY know so little about economics.  Whenever you try and talk about the subject you invariably say something that no economics major would EVER say, thus exposing yourself!



I want you to be certain that you know how sad I am that you do not think I have a degree in economics.  I mean, I am totally devastated. 
Because, os, I am sure that you know dish washing.  And as a dishwasher, I am certain you are a true expert on economics.  I mean, it must be a complete coincidence that your "knowledge" comes from bat shit crazy con web sites.  It probably is just a coincidence.  
So, I guess you would like everyone to believe that you are so disgusted with the process that you do not want to show your economics chops.  And of course, we all believe you.
One question, me boy.  If I did not believe you had a history degree, I would make you prove it on the basis that if you could prove it I would pay you big time, and if you could not, you would pay me big time.  As I have offered you on all the accused lies you have made of me.  I mean, I gave you the ability to make $10K, or more or less, if you would take the bet.  And you could  make the bet using an impartial source and escrow, to protect your investment.  But you did not take the offer.  Because you know you will lose.  But you keep making the claim, knowing you do not believe it, because you have no integrity.  
Got it.  Big mouth.  No balls.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still pretending that you actually HAVE a formula?  You're the biggest fraud on this board, Rshermr!
> ...



Moment of truth?  Is this where you finally provide the economic formula to determine "Jobs Saved"?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

Integrity is a simple concept...it's backing up words with actions.  

Moment of truth?  Do you actually HAVE any integrity?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

You know what's sad, Georgie?  That I know so much more about economics from having taken two entry level courses in the subject decades ago...then someone who supposedly graduated with a college degree in economics!  That's not a testament to my knowledge...it simply underscores your lack thereof.

I get a chuckle out of your continued attempts to get a rise out of me with the whole "dishwasher" thing!  Sorry to disappoint you but I learned way back in elementary school to ignore stupid insults.  Feel free to keep that one coming though, little buddy...it's about all you've got at this point!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You know what's sad, Georgie?  That I know so much more about economics from having taken two entry level courses in the subject decades ago...then someone who supposedly graduated with a college degree in economics!  That's not a testament to my knowledge...it simply underscores your lack thereof.
> 
> I get a chuckle out of your continued attempts to get a rise out of me with the whole "dishwasher" thing!  Sorry to disappoint you but I learned way back in elementary school to ignore stupid insults.  Feel free to keep that one coming though, little buddy...it's about all you've got at this point!


I was not trying to get a rise out of you, dipshit. But relative to ignoring stupid insults, I think I will ignore you for a while.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

Only you would deem asking for someone to provide an economic formula as an "insult"!

Not only do I think you should ignore me, Georgie...I'd suggest avoiding me at all costs!  When you see that big red question mark?  Tuck tail and run!  If you don't...you ARE going to get more abuse for being a fraud!  If you don't...then you ARE going to get exposed!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Only you would deem asking for someone to provide an economic formula as an "insult".
I did not ever say that asking for an economic formula was an insult.  That is a really stupid statement, dipshit.  But if you say I did, I would find the post and show it to everyone. Which, of course, you would if you could.   But you can not, because I did not.  Really, me boy, you should stop your lying.   What I think you should do is provide me with the condition  i required of you, the condition you said you would provide, which would then allow me to provide you with the formula.  But again, you lied.  You could not provide me with the republican bill that attempted to help reduce the damage of the great republican recession of 2008.  And therefor I can not and will not provide you with the formula.  

Not only do I think you should ignore me, Georgie...I'd suggest avoiding me at all costs!  When you see that big red question mark?  Tuck tail and run!  If you don't...you ARE going to get more abuse for being a fraud!  If you don't...then you ARE going to get exposed.  Wow, now that was a cool post.  I am so afraid of the big red question mark,   And you sound so tough, me boy.  Something tells me you have a very, very small life that you are trying to make up for. Did you think you were going to put the fear of god into me.  Fat chance, me boy.  I have spent my life dealing with people that have class.  You are a simple and obvious fraud.  
Perhaps you should expose me, dipshit.  But you can not, because I never, ever lie.  What you are really saying, of course, is that you are going to lie about me again.  Got it.  So what is new?  Hell, oldstyle, you already started lying at the beginning of this post.  Saying "Only you would deem asking for someone to provide an economic formula as an "insult"."  Which is something that I never said, ever.  Making you a liar again, already.  At least you are consistent.  Do you see, oldstyle, I just proved you lied.  Something you can not do, since I never lie.
But it is nice to see you admit that you can not argue economics.  And that you can not address the subject ot this thread.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

[/QUOTE]   You know what's sad, Georgie?  Yes, indeed, Oldstyle.  You are sad. Any other questions, me boy?
You know what's sad, Georgie?    Yes, I just answered that question.  See above, me boy  You seem to be repeating yourself.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 15, 2016)

All that bluster and personal attack (dip shit? really? lol) and still no formula for "Jobs Saved"!  Why do you even bother?  It's obvious you were lying when you claimed to have the formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved"...and it's obvious that you will continue to post garbage like the above in an attempt to save face!

"Mr. A-B=Jobs Saved"...that's who you are...a fraud who hides behind "conditions".


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> All that bluster and personal attack (dip shit? really? lol) and still no formula for "Jobs Saved"!  Why do you even bother?  It's obvious you were lying when you claimed to have the formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved"...and it's obvious that you will continue to post garbage like the above in an attempt to save face!
> 
> "Mr. A-B=Jobs Saved"...that's who you are...a fraud who hides behind "conditions".



What does "hide behind" mean to you?

Did you notice I provided the condition for your equation when first asked for that equation, by you?

My condition is quite simple, why do you refuse to meet it as you said you would?

So, since you will not meet the condition, may I assume that you can not?

Is that what you are doing, OS, saving face since you can not meet the condition as you claimed you could?

I made a deal with you, os.  I said if you would produce the bill by republicans, as I requested, I would provide the formula.  You did not.  Now you are trying to blame me.  It is, obviously not my fault, but yours.

Do you enjoy playing this game you are playing, OS?

If anyone but you is paying attention to this, they must be bored as hell.  Do you enjoy boreing others, OS?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2016)

You stated that you had the formula.  When I asked you for it first you gave me A-B=Jobs Saved.  Then you gave me "conditions".

What's obvious is that you never had the formula and lied when you said you did.

Now run along, Georgie.  You've embarrassed yourself once again...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]
OS, do you have a serious drinking problem?  Maybe you should go get help.  Look at your post:
You stated that you had the formula.  When I asked you for it first you gave me A-B=Jobs Saved. A-B=Jobs Saved obviously does not give you all the detail you need, as a stupid con tool.  You have proven incapable of actually reasoning.   Then you gave me "conditions". Untrue, me lying con tool.  The condition was provided when I first stated I would give you the formula.  I said, initially, when I first stated that there was a formula which I had, that I would give it to you* ONLY* if you agreed to and provided that which was the condition.  And you know what the condition was, and *you agreed to provide it *in exchange for the formula.  Since then, you have done nothing but lie, and lie, and lie.  The condition is still the same, OS.  No change.  I stand ready to honor the deal.  I refuse to play your games.  You, on the other hand, want to play games.  Because that is all you have.  And you love wasting people's time.

What's obvious is that you never had the formula and lied when you said you did.
Ah, but I did have the formula.  And I do have the formula .  And you want it to bad.  Keep begging, because it shows the real you, OS.
Now run along, Georgie.  You've embarrassed yourself once again...
I am not embarrassed, because I am simply trying to honor our agreement. Honor, me boy. Look it up.  You should be embarrassed, but as a lying con tool, you are not.  You are part and parcel of the dishonor that you represent.  You are trying to steal the formula without paying, paying being providing the condition you agreed to.
By the way, me boy.  You have no power to tell me, or anyone, to run along.  That is simply more of your delusion.
By the way, you stated the following, in a post you made yesterday:
Yesterday at 6:26 PM#1493
Not only do I think you should ignore me, Georgie...*I'd suggest avoiding me at all costs*! *When you see that big red question mark? Tuck tail and run! If you don't...you ARE going to get more abuse for being a fraud! If you don't...then you ARE going to get exposed!
So, apparently you think you are a superhero, with the "big red question mark".  Just wondering:
1.  Are you a child, or do you just act like one?
2.  Did you get the idea some time that the "big red question mark" was an indication of something other than your ignorance?
3.  What makes you think you are capable of handing out abuse?
5.  Why do you prefer to play your child's game rather than discuss something?
6.  Are you incapable of reason?
7.  When do I get to see the abuse from you, since you are a child?
8.  Why do you like wasting people's time, OS?  
9.  Is your life really so empty that you love this game playing?
10.  Is your delusional behavior long standing or has it developed recently in your child's mind?*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2016)

It's so painfully obvious that you DON'T have the formula used to determine "Jobs Saved" that you're embarrassing yourself each time you make that claim!

You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!  You're George Costanza.  You're a poser.  You're a liar.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It's so painfully obvious that you DON'T have the formula used to determine "Jobs Saved" that you're embarrassing yourself each time you make that claim!  We are all so sorry you are in pain.  I am sure a shrink could be of help.


     [/QUOTE]
You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!  You're George Costanza.  You're a poser.  You're a liar.

So, you:
1.  Do not have the super powers you said you have.
2.  You simply make up insults.
3. You make up charges.
Where is your proof?  Simple enough, you have only insults, but you have no proof of anything.  My opinion is that you are simply playing games.  Again.  Tacky, me boy, just proving your lack of integrity.  Just more of the same OS, lies and stupid statements.  
Next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2016)

My "proof" is your inability to provide the formula.

You can prove me wrong of course by simply stating the formula but we both know that won't happen because we both know you've never had the formula and have been trying to bluff your way out of that lie for weeks now.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> My "proof" is your inability to provide the formula.


Well, your proof is blown.  Because I have the ability to provide it, at my discretion.
You can prove me wrong  It is not necessary to prove you wrong again, that has been done several times.  of course by simply stating the formula but we both know that won't happen because we both know you've never had the formula and have been trying to bluff your way out of that lie for weeks now.
What we know, me boy, is that you are lying again.  You simply have to provide the information on the bill that the republicans sent to the floor.  The one you said you would provide.  The one you have refused to provide, perhaps because it does not exist.  Which, of course, shows you again to be a liar, because:
1.  You pretend that you did not agree to the condition I set forth when I agreed to what you would do for my providing the formula you so badly want.
2.  So that would tell anyone with half a brain that it was not I that lied, but that I am keeping my word.
3.  And it would tell anyone with half a brain that you are not willing to keep your word.
4.  And it would tell anyone with half a brain that you are lying, AGAIN.

My plan, me boy, is to provide you a lesson in ethics.  And to show you that having integrity is a good thing.  But so far, you seem more interested in being a con troll, and lying, and not keeping your word.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2016)

You're a liar, Rshermr!  You've never had the formula.  You wouldn't know "integrity" if it ran up the inside of your pants leg and bit you on the Anthony Wiener!  Someone with integrity would admit that they promised something that they couldn't deliver and move on...you've chosen to try and lie your way out of the corner you painted yourself into.

You are the George Costanza of the US Message Board...someone who habitually lies to make themselves out to be someone that they  obviously are not and then has to lie again and again to cover up their first lie.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

[/QUOTE]      [/QUOTE]    You're a liar, Rshermr!  You've never had the formula.  You wouldn't know "integrity" if it ran up the inside of your pants leg and bit you on the Anthony Wiener!  Someone with integrity would admit that they promised something that they couldn't deliver and move on...you've chosen to try and lie your way out of the corner you painted yourself into.
Actually those who know me would tell you you are full of shit.  I *never lie,* me boy.  And I do indeed have integrity.  It takes effort, which you do not expend.  You earn integrity, it is not something you just "have".  You do not know me, and never will. You do not understand a person, like me, who does all he can to be honest, have honor, and class.  I suppose it is hard to do so when you are a con troll.
Someone with integrity, like myself, would do exactly what I am doing.  Which is to keep my word.  And make sure that you keep yours.  If there was a condition, which you have admitted there was, I simply require you to honor (look it up) your word to produce the condition that I required.  
Since you do not have honor, and therefor do not honor your word, then I have no intent of EVER, in my lifetime, providing you with that which you were promised if you would have met your promise.  You have proven, to anyone with honor, that you have none.

But you lie, Oldstyle.  Have your lies proven to all.  Lie again.  Have your lies proven.  and on and on and on. To say you have no class, no honor, no integrity, is so obvious that it is not in question  for ANYONE who has paid any attention and has any bit of class themselves. 
You are the George Costanza of the US Message Board...someone who habitually lies to make themselves out to be someone that they  obviously are not and then has to lie again and again to cover up their first lie.
Sorry, me boy.  I am me, and I never, ever lie.  Playing the George Costanza game is your thing.  Best of luck with that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2016)

LOL...of course you have "no intent of EVER" providing me with the economic formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Saved"!  How could you?  You've never had the formula...nor does one exist.

Anyone who has paid attention to this string would have been asking themselves weeks ago..."Why doesn't that Georgie guy post that formula and shut up that Oldstyle guy!"  Then when they watched you hem and haw about conditions and post declaration after declaration about how you NEVER LIE...they'd end up saying to themselves..."That Rshermr is full of shit.  He doesn't have the faintest idea what the formula was for determining "Jobs Saved" and he's just doing a song and dance to keep from having to admit he doesn't have what he swore he did have!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 16, 2016)

If there's one thing I've learned in life...it's that the people who actually HAVE honor and integrity seldom have to brag about it!  It's the bullshit artists that feel the need to tell you over and over and over again how honest they are!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> LOL...of course you have "no intent of EVER" providing me with the economic formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Saved"!  How could you?  You've never had the formula...nor does one exist.
> 
> Anyone who has paid attention to this string would have been asking themselves weeks ago..."Why doesn't that Georgie guy post that formula and shut up that Oldstyle guy!"  Then when they watched you hem and haw about conditions and post declaration after declaration about how you NEVER LIE...they'd end up saying to themselves..."That Rshermr is full of shit.  He doesn't have the faintest idea what the formula was for determining "Jobs Saved" and he's just doing a song and dance to keep from having to admit he doesn't have what he swore he did have!



But no one is watching your game.  You have bored everyone with your games and lies and bullshit.  You have proven nothing at all, except in your addled mind.  We all know you are a sad clown.  And that you have no class
AND ALL KNOW HOW YOU COULD GET WHAT YOU WANT.  SIMPLY DO AS YOU SAID YOU WOULD, AND STOP LYING ABOUT IT.  BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT YOU HAVE COMMITTED TO DO SO.  
AND ALL KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN A LIAR.  SO NO ONE BELIEVES ANYTHING YOU SAY.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> If there's one thing I've learned in life...it's that the people who actually HAVE honor and integrity seldom have to brag about it!  It's the bullshit artists that feel the need to tell you over and over and over again how honest they are!


SO YOU ARE A PERSON WHO HAS NO INTEGRITY OR HONOR LECTURING ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE IT?  GOT IT.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 17, 2016)

Back to posting in red letters and caps again?  Like that's going to make you more credible with your lies?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Back to posting in red letters and caps again?  Like that's going to make you more credible with your lies?





Oldstyle said:


> Back to posting in red letters and caps again?  Like that's going to make you more credible with your lies?



So, let me try to help you again.  Because you really need help.  The color is to help you, with your weak little brain, understand that I am calling you out on your lies.  I do not need colors for any other reason.  Because I always concern myself with integrity.  I would feel guilty if I ever told untruths.  And because of that, I never, ever lie.  
Now, as a con troll, you use any tool you feel you need to stay within your agenda.  Including:
1.  Conservative talking points, which have no relation to truth.
2.  Posts from Bat Shit Crazy con web sites which are agenda driven, with no relation to truth.
3.  Posts that are made up from whole cloth, always based on Far, Far, Far right concepts with no relation to truth.
4.  Personal attacks, based on agenda and hate, never having any relation to facts or truth.

So, what is also noticeable, to the point that it can not be missed, is that facts provided to con trolls like Oldstyle simply roll off like water off a ducks back.  Because as a con troll, Oldstyle's belief system is based on what all cons systems are based on.  Cons like Oldstyle:
1.  Believe what they want to believe without regard to truth.
2.  Believe what makes them angry. because they love being angry.
3.  Believe what their group believe, because their group, rather than truth, justifies their beliefs to themselves.  Group think is strong in the con troll mind.
4. Love to have their beliefs given to them, so that they do not have to do the hard work of trying to look at evidence and facts.  It is simply much simpler to be told what to believe.
5. Never check out their beliefs to be sure they are true, since they do not care about truth.

So, red color is a small price to pay to get through the nonsense that blocks the understanding of anything a con  is asked to consider.  Though, in truth, it is generally of no real help.  Agenda is all that drives a con troll like Oldstyle.  Truth, for a con troll, is not at all important.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 17, 2016)

More bullshit excuses from "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!

Don't have the formula...do you, Georgie?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> More bullshit excuses from "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"!
> 
> Don't have the formula...do you, Georgie?


Yes.  And I am tired of telling you I do.  dipshit.  
All you have to do is meet the condition that you agreed to when you first requested the formula.  Simple.  So, I can assume you are not interested in the formula, but rather just want to play your childish litle game.  
Or is it that you admit there is no bill ever brought forward by any republican to address the problems caused by the great Republican Recession of 2008.  
So, Oldstyle.  You said :
1.  there was such a bill>
2.  You would show us what that bill was.
But you did not honor your statement.  You showed nothing.  You named no such bill.  So, you have no right to anything.  Nothing  Nada.  
As any honorable person would admit.  But then, you have no honor.  
Just honor the commitment you made, or run and hide.  Because you are NOT going to admit there was and therefor is no such bill.  And you are again Lying. 

But then, you do not have a bill name or number.  Do you, Oldstyle. Just more classless behavior.  Demanding something that you do not have coming.  Not honoring your statement.  
Just acting like a con troll, and playing dishonest silly childish games.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2016)

So you'll write all of that...but you won't write a simple economic formula?

Do you REALLY think anyone believes you have it at this point, Georgie?  Even the liberal lemmings don't want to back you on this one!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So you'll write all of that...but you won't write a simple economic formula?
> 
> Do you REALLY think anyone believes you have it at this point, Georgie?  Even the liberal lemmings don't want to back you on this one!



Silly game playing and lying.  It is soooo easy for you to find out, but you lied and can not keep your word to provide the response to my condition.  Too bad, me boy.  You lied, now you are unable to get what you say you so badly want.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2016)

Why would I "want" something that I know doesn't exist?

The only person who desperately "wants" to get the economic formula for "Jobs Saved" is you Georgie!  Why?  Because after lying that you had it...you discovered it doesn't exist!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Why would I "want" something that I know doesn't exist?
> 
> The only person who desperately "wants" to get the economic formula for "Jobs Saved" is you Georgie!  Why?  Because after lying that you had it...you discovered it doesn't exist!



So, that is a new claim, me lying con.  If you do not want it, why would you ask for it over and over and over?  But that is it, isn't it Oldstyle.  You know it is available to you. You know you only have to uphold your side of the agreement.  But you will not.  So, you really do not want it, do you, me lying con.  You are simply asking for it as part of a childish game.  Because you will never ever find out if I have it or not.  I do, of course, but you just want to play a game.   A childish stupid little game that only a con troll would play.  Since you could require that I provide you with the formula that I have by simply admitting that there never was a bill provided by conservatives to help address the damages of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, or by providing a bill if it did exist  But you can not show such a bill because no such bill exists. 
But you would rather play games.  Because you have no integrity.  
So, lets review:
1.  Integrity requires that you do as promised, and show us the bill put forward by republicans or admit there is no such bill, and you were lying.
2.  But you do not do so.  Because there is no such bill.  Because the republicans did not want to help.  They wanted the economy to be as bad as possible.  Because they are un-american.  They care about politics, not the middle class.
3.  And I maintain my integrity by simply requiring that you do as  you agreed.  So that I would provide you the formula you now say you do not want.  

Got it.  You are a game playing con troll.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 18, 2016)

I know it doesn't exist, Georgie...I've known all along that it doesn't exist..so why would I want something that I KNOW doesn't exist?  There is no economic formula for determining "Jobs Saved"!  The Obama Administration pulled those numbers out of their ass.  They made them up.  Sort of how you made up your college education, proof reading secretary, and having a formula for arriving at "Jobs Saved"?

This is simply one more example of you painting yourself into a corner claiming things that are obviously not true.  One would think you'd learn from your previous foot in mouth episodes but that doesn't seem to be the case.  Once again you get caught telling lies and once again you respond as you always do...spammed posts shrilly declaring your honesty and me boy personal attacks.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 18, 2016)

I know it doesn't exist, Georgie...So, you who have a fantasy of a name based on a decades old sit com and apparently love the game of using a name based on that sitcom, and you want to be taken seriously??  Just wondering. I've known all along that it doesn't exist..so why would I want something that I KNOW doesn't exist?  You say, then, that you are asking for something that you "know" does not exist.  But you know nothing, me boy.  You may believe, but if you are trying to say you are so smart that you "know" something then you are not passing the giggle test.  Again. There is no economic formula for determining "Jobs Saved"! Right.  So you say.  Though you have asked for it over 30 times. The Obama Administration pulled those numbers out of their ass.  They made them up. You know better, of course,  The statement that they made them up is, however, pulled from your ass. Sort of how you made up your college education, proof reading secretary, and having a formula for arriving at "Jobs Saved"?
That would be your opinion, based on the fact that you are:
1.  A proven liar.
2.  A person with a very small and unimportant life.
3. Incapable of rational thought.
4.  A con troll game player.

This is simply one more example of you painting yourself into a corner claiming things that are obviously not true. No corner, me boy.  Because I do not lie, and I do not claim anything I believe to be untrue.  
You have been proven to have lied several times.  By me bringing posts forward that you lied about.  Definite, proven lies.  But I never, ever lie.  Period.  Which is why you can make accusations that I have lied.  But can not prove your accusations ever.  You simply make accusations and pretend the accusations are true.  Because, me boy, since I never ever lie, you always must lie to try to say I did lie.  Again, proving you have no integrity.  Dipshit.

*But *it is nice of you to say you know that there is no formula.  You know, the one you have asked for over 30 times.  Because it shows that you are a liar again.  And a game player, again.  And that you waste people's time for no reason at all. As usual.  
But here is your problem, me boy: There is indeed a formula that you will never, ever get.  *Because I now have proof that you do not want it.  Thanks for that.*  And it is now not only that you did not meet the condition you agreed to.  

And again, posting on an economic thread, you have made no economic argument, but rather simply made unproven and unprovable personal attacks.  And you have shown a total lack of concern for others by wasting their time.  Post after post after post.  You are a sad case.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 19, 2016)

I'll never ever get the formula because the formula doesn't exist.  All the rest of that is nothing but bullshit to cover the fact that you can't come up with one and never will.

You lied about A-B=Jobs Saved.  You know it.  I know it.  If you had even a dollop of class you'd admit that and apologize.  That won't happen though because lying is what you DO here.  It's why you're George Costanza.


----------



## gipper (Jun 19, 2016)

So true....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 19, 2016)

gipper said:


> So true....


the beauty of our mixed capitalist economy is that 10,000 corporations go bankrupt each month proving that laws and regulations have a long way to go before they truly protect corporations. Its totally Marxist and stupid to pretend our corporate slaves are somehow protected by laws and regulations.


----------



## Markle (Jun 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> So true....



Quite a few fries short of a Happy Meal aren't you?


----------



## gipper (Jun 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > So true....
> ...





Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > So true....
> ...



I guess you guys missed all the bailouts and the massive regulatory state that protects large corporations.

Our central government runs a protection racket for our largest corporations.  Very much like the Mafia.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Ed misses everything.  For him, the cool part is that he never notices that he missed anything.  Just part of being stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> Our central government runs a protection racket for our largest corporations.  Very much like the Mafia.



if so why are you so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see? What do you learn from your fear?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Missing something?  You mean like the economic formula to determine "Jobs Saved"?

Funny how you always whine about personal attacks, Georgie...but you're never shy about making them yourself!


----------



## gipper (Jun 20, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Our central government runs a protection racket for our largest corporations.  Very much like the Mafia.
> ...


Just posting the truth as I see it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 21, 2016)

gipper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



if govt is protection racket for corporations so why are you so afraid to present your best example for the whole world to see? What do you learn from your fear?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Hey guys. I just found a thread I started in 2008 called us jobless claims rise to a 5 year high. Keep in mind Republicans at the time said things were great bush was great vote for McCain. 

But today they aren't happy that jobless claims have now fallen to a 4 decade low?

That's brainwashed pure and simple.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




Actual unemployment is around 23 percent. The stats are are only for those still collecting unemployment. When they can no longer collect benefits, they no longer count as being "unemployed". Wages are totally stagnant. 51 percent that even have a job make less than 30K which is 15 buck and hour. 38 percent make less than 20K which is ten bucks an hour....so tell me oncer again how great a job the Barrypuppet has done????


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

Tale of the tape right here, folks......

Alternate Unemployment Charts


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


What would you tell someone who has a history or communications degree who can't find a job?

And I remember telling you guys about real unemployment in 2008 but you guys said we were just making excuses and go back to school or start your own business and anyone who couldn't find a job was making excuses.

You also said manufacturing workers made too much so you sent their jobs overseas. What did you think all those blue collar workers would do? Work at Walmart for $10. And is it their fault, Republicans who created NAFTA and sent their jobs overseas? Obama and Clinton's and the government's fault or is it that person and their parents fault.

Seems the only ones you'll never blame are Republicans


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> 
> Alternate Unemployment Charts


Shadow gov stats? 

Do you realize a lot of former workers have taken your advice and started their own companies? If they are a painter carpenter landscaper chances are they are working under the table so you won't see them on the books.

You're also counting baby boomers who are retired.

You didn't care about the unemployed in 2008 why you blaming government now? I thought government didn't have much to do with the economy? You're using all my 2008 arguments but bush was handed a surplus. Obama was handed a great recession


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



 I wasn't in this forum in 2008 so I do not fit into that category. Neither party is worth a fuck and they are simply different sides of the same coin when the rubber meets the road. All of this is nothing but theater because they are nothing but corporate officers of USA.INC that is a foreign owned corporation by the international bankers. Until we stand up as one voice and declare that we no longer wish to be under their Universal Commercial Code and debt slavery system? It doesn't mean a flying fuck as to whom is president. The last president that actually tried to help us was JFK and that same corrupt system that killed him has only gotten stronger over the last 52 plus years. The demise of the middle class was an orchestarted move by the power elite and the machinations of that plan were put in place by the Club of Rome starting in 1970 when the middle class reached it's apex and it has been all downhill since then.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


We need to tea bag the democratic party. And the masses need to start voting every 2 years.  When everyone votes the two parties cater to the middle. When only extreme right and/ or left vote in midterms the politicians only cater to the extremes. It's how we get Michelle bachman or Ted Cruz.

Yes we know the whole system is corrupt and bankers control it. Not one politician has a plan to pay off our debt.

Other than trump. He'll just renig or go chapter 11. He knows a thing or 3 about that.


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Your figures are wrong. I heard unemployment is closer to 426%.


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> 
> Alternate Unemployment Charts


shadowstats.com


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> ...


Bush is taking credit for the jobs people had in October 2008 knowing what was coming.

And Republicans count baby boomers in their "jobless" claims.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> ...




 People that are of retirement age are not counted in the stats. IF we had a legitimate "gubermint", they would act as the referees to insure that free trade practices placed everyone on an equal footing and prevent monopolies.. What we have now is a huge corporate conglomerate that actually runs the very corporations that people complain is running "gubermint" when it is actually the other way around.Composit "gubermint" is actually the majority shareholders of every Fortune 500 corpotation and their subsidiaries. You can find all these out by learning how to to read the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) which is required by every corporate entity and SINCE every city, town, country and state is merely a subsidiarie of USA.INC, they have to file a CAFR. USA.INC has over 185,000 subsidiaries all of which can be looked up on the DSun and Bradstreet website. USA.INC and it's subsidiaries take in more money per year via their investments than the entire private GDP. They own amusement parks, golf courses, real estate, race tracks, etc, etc along with the stocks they have and they don't pay a single dime in tax. I found that The Sate Of Texas INC (my state) is sitting on over a trillion dollars in hard assets...and that is just the state offices. That doesn't even include the holdings of the huge cities like Dallas, Houston, Ft Worth, etc, etc.....it's all a huge scam and they pass their corporate credit card off on us to pay via taxes, licenses, fines and fees. Houston, Texas, for instance, is sitting on so much cash and stocks that it could fund the essential services for the next 17 years without collecting one dime in property taxes, fines or fees.


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You know you're insane, right?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> ...



Faun SEZ?????? "If my hgubermint tells me that unemployment is under 5 percent then you can believe that I believe it because my beloved "gubermint" would never lie to me because I am too important do you hear me?????" (snicker)

BTW, Faun, shadowstats is a legit website and has no political affiliation.....


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Funny so far I agree with a lot of what you say.

Today I was listening to how India places tariffs on imports. Can you believe that? We should protect our vital industries too.

Sorry, I'll continue reading your post. I didn't want to forget my point. Yes the government is the referee or should be and not one that's paid off


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Faun, to someone that is as ignorant as you are and to someone that has spent thousands upon thousands of hours researching the things I know? I am sure I sound "insane" to you...the problem  for you is that I can back up what I claim...you point to your corporate "gubermint" for truth.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




We should do the same thing...we should protect workers from having to compete with goods made from slave labor. I am not a neocon nor am I a "republican" since I woke up as to how things really work, btw. We had a good tariff system in place until the international bankers hijacked our monetary system in 1913. The global elites want "free trade" because they stand to make the most from slave made goods while beating down those that pay a living wage. I see what has happened to this country in the last 35 years. I have done ok...not rich by any stretch of the imagination but I am "ok" and I freely give away any excess. What does worry me is what I am leaving behind for my kids  and all the children that are going to try and eek out a living and that is the burden I carry. This is a debt slavery system with foreclosures and bankruptcies built right into the system and the banking oligarchs end up holding hard assets from the extension of credit created by nothing but a few keystrokes on a computer and this system exists in very country but a few and ran by the same oligarchs.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I completely agree Dale. 

Reasons I'm voting hillary is I don't want trump rubber stamping ayn rand fan Paul Ryans legislation and I don't want trump appointing a conservative justice to the supreme Court.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Both parties know the federal reserve was taken over by private bankers in 1913 because guys like Rand Paul and Ron Paul have told them but they all know trying to change that is political suicide


----------



## Faun (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


_"shadowstats is a legit website"_






Their numbers are bullshit. Hardly a legit site. He bases his numbers from the U-6 rate and then adds in more folks he thinks want a job. Magically, he comes up with a rate 2½ times higher than the U-6. Keep in mind, if you factor in every soul in the U.S. aged 16 and over who is not working, they represent 37%. That includes folks who retire, stay at home moms/dads, independently wealthy who don't want to work, folks collecting government checks who don't want to work, high school students who don't want to work, people actually working in the shadow economy, etc...

But I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who thinks senior citizens are not counted in unemployment statistics; so there's no chance you will understand any of this. Which leads me to point out that I'm not posting this for you -- you're beyond help. I'm posting this for the benefit of others so they too can see just how flippin' insane you are.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




I don't blame you in the slightest given the legacy of the last president that was a neocon. In a perfect world, both GW, GH Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice would stand before a Nuremeburg like trial for crimes against humanity. With that being said? The Clintons are thicker than thieves with the Bush crime family and the Clintons are tied at the hip with the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Hillary and Bill belong to the CFR and have attended Bilderburg meetings where the most elite of elites meet. I would have been prone to support the Libertarian candidate until he selected a globalist and CFR member to be his VP. Trump is the wildcard.....is he the fly in the ointment of the establishment since they have landed on him with both feet? I don't know....I simply know that nothing will change with Hillary and the global elites would rig the voting system if Trump was legit since there is no paper trail and the Diebold machines have backdoored softare tht can change the outcome.

Change is only going to come when enough people like you and me see the scam of a system for what it is and stand up against it. Since I had my awakening 4 years ago, I have had the opportunity to come across like-minded thinking people and I see a mass awakening happening. I appreciate the conversation...you really do care about this country and the people as do I.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Work eligible is someone that is in their 80's??? Do tell???? Work participation rate is at it's lowest in 37 years and you want to blame that on "baby boomers"?? Who is the idiot now?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Now let's get the idiots to show up every 2 years not 4. Midterms are the bilderbergs secret weapon.


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Typical of Progressives.  Facts and the truth cause them to break out in cold sweats, get light headed and fall over like a log.  Shadowstats is a legitimate website and we understand that you know that as well.  If you did not, you wouldn't have to make such a fool of yourself with all you ridicule.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 21, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Plenty of blame to go around. How about companies who refuse to hire the unemployed?


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


You like many on this forum, are stuck in partisan mode.  

Clearly both parties are corrupt and criminal.  It matters not which one did what.


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> ...


You will believe the government, but not Shadowstats.  This clearly indicates you need help.  You WANT to believe propaganda and denigrate the truth.  Sadly, there are too many Americans like you.

I guess the Participation Rate means nothing to you.  Statist dupes...they are everywhere.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


I understand facts frighten you. Does the truth hurt? Fact is you voted for McCain even though jobless claims were high and now you complain about Obama when jobless claims are at a 4 DECADE low. Now who's a partisan again?

And don't ask us libs to play checkers while you play chess.


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You think you know who I voted for.  This too indicates a serious mental problem.  I have not voted for an R or D for a long long time...so you clearly are delusional.  

You think Obama has done a great job on the economy, which again indicates a serious mental problem.

Do you understand what this chart means?


*Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey*

*Series Id: *LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
*Series title: *(Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
*Labor force status: *Civilian labor force participation rate
*Type of data: *Percent or rate
*Age: *16 years and over


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


As long as you aren't suggesting I vote GOP and as long as you aren't we're cool. You essentially don't vote. It's like I'm arguing with someone who doesn't vote


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


WTF...I don't care who you vote for.  Have I demanded you vote for anyone?  WTF man!!!


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


There are about 9 million seniors working....

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

.... and get this... despite your idiocy  to the contrary, they're all counted in the labor force.

Guess that makes you the idiot.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Anybody with a domain name can post any nonsense on the internet. That doesn't make them legitimate. And unlike shadowstats, the government is actually collecting data on unemployment, so why would I believe shadowstats, who largely bases their figures on numbers they don't have; over the government, who bases their figures on numbers they do have?


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yeah and the government can do the same thing, but in their case, you believe the government.  It would never misrepresent or outright lie right?

The chart I posted is from the GOVERNMENT.  You believe it now?


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


The LFPR started ascending in the early 60's as baby boomers began reaching working age; and began descending when they started hitting retirement age.






... to wingnuts, this is rocket science.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Who said I don't believe that chart? Of what significance towards indicating the health of the job market do you delude yourself into believing the labor force participation rate plays?


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yeah...I forgot.

95 million working age Americans not working, has no effect on unemployment...


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 22, 2016)

Highest nonparticipation rate too.  Even Yellen noted that.


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> Highest nonparticipation rate too.  Even Yellen noted that.


Means nothing because the government claims unemployment rate is 4.7%....yippee...everything is blue sky and lollipops!!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Unlike you, Sealy...we're not fooled by a "recovery" that has left much of the population behind and is buoyed by a stock market that more closely resembles a house of cards than a sturdy structure!  Statistics are a wonderful thing unless you use them to deceive yourself.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Obama's "Jobs Czar", the CEO of General Electric, sent more jobs overseas than practically anyone I know...NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton.  It seems the only ones YOU'LL blame are Republicans!


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


If they don't want or need to work, so what? And the vast majority of them don't want to.

Let's try this again, since you wouldn't answer the first time... Of what significance towards indicating the health of the job market do you delude yourself into believing the labor force participation rate plays?


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Can you enlighten me with what percentage of those 95 million represent the 'vast majority?'


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


94% represents a "vast majority."

For a third time...

Of what significance towards indicating the health of the job market do you delude yourself into believing the labor force participation rate plays?


----------



## gipper (Jun 22, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


where did you get the 94%?


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


 Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now

Why are you avoiding answering...?

4th time....

Of what significance towards indicating the health of the job market do you delude yourself into believing the labor force participation rate plays?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


OMG, I just said in another thread that the only reason you right wing assholes will admit that corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes is because the CEO of GE is Obama's Czar.  The very next thread I see is this one?  OMFG you guys are so predicable.

Remember before he was Obama's Czar and we were telling you GE paid no taxes and you guys denied that was true?  Now you admit it?  LOL.  Now you have a problem with jobs going overseas?  Now you don't like free trade?  Fucking joke


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Problem OS has is that admitting the truth would require posting something that is not a Right Wing Talking Point.  Please, we must be realistic. Con trolls are not into rational thought.
Here are some actual facts, which are very, very simple to find for people with working minds.  Which lets out Con trolls:

*Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates*
*Key Facts*

Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide incomein 2010.
U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.
Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates
And all you ever here from con trolls is how corporations pay the highest rates of taxes of any country in the world.  This shows you why they are lying, and why posted tax rates have nothing to do with tax rates paid.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I remember telling you guys that corporations weren't paying taxes and it was only when Obama made GE CEO his czar that you finally admitted it.  You guys are just silly.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So let me get this straight...you're using GE as one of your examples of how "cons" are ruining the country?  Did you not get the memo that the CEO of GE...the guy that off shored more jobs than just about anyone else in American business...is the guy that Barry made his "Jobs Czar"?  Kindly explain why this is a GOP thing...when one of the main characters if one of Barry's "best buddies"!  Duh?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What's "silly" is a President who campaigned on "Evil Corporations" but then rewarded one of the worst CEO's when it came to job outsourcing and not paying taxes...a seat on his Cabinet!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I found a post from 2008 where you guys argued with us that companies like GE pay no taxes. You said it wasn't true.

But now that GE CEO is a czar, now you admit corporations pay no taxes? Do you see what a political hack?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Well, he didn't. I know you rush foxbots think we "hate corporations" but isn't that just right wing blabber?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What I don't "like" Sealy is Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who talk out of both sides of their mouths...condemning big business when they run for office after taking millions from those same businesses in campaign donations!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So now I'm "you guys"?  Kindly hold me responsible for my own posts and not the posts of someone else!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


They have to. It's a corrupt system in case you haven't noticed.

Also notice for every $1 they give to Democrats they give $10 to the GOP.

They'd give dems an equal amount but dems refuse to completely sellout labor.

Dems can't make the same promises because they represent labor too so they don't get as much.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

Di


sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Did you just claim that Barack Obama DIDN'T run for President on a platform of making corporations pay more in taxes?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Di
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> ...


Is that one of his promises he wasn't able to deliver on?

Are Republicans going to make them pay more? If not, what's your point?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

Or did you just claim that Obama didn't name Jeffrey Immelt as his Jobs Czar?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 22, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Di
> ...



Wasn't able to deliver on?  Dude, he didn't even try to deliver!  You're so naive about both Obama and Clinton it's almost laughable to watch you bumble your way through this string!  They have BOTH been bought off by people like Immelt...you're just too stupid to figure it out!


----------



## gipper (Jun 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not accepting your 94% number.  It is BS.  If you believe it, you might be a statist dupe.  

This too might explain why you are incapable of understanding the relationship between the unemployment rate and participation rate...you believe the lying State.  

From Forbes:
The drop in labor force participation rates concerns economists for several reasons. First, it depresses economic growth, which is already at anemic levels of 0.5%. Second, it puts pressure on the federal budget at a time when we are facing historic fiscal constraints. The less workers there are, the more the tax base shrinks. And third, any time out of the labor force impacts workers’ future earnings trajectories should they return to work, due to lost training and on-the-job experience.

While part of the decline in workforce participation is the result of an aging population and increased schooling for young adults, this is far from the full story. The employment rate of 25 to 54 year olds has also dropped since 2000. This suggests that other factors – such as low wages or work disincentives in government benefits  – are also responsible.

The Concerning Drop In Workforce Participation And Role Of Family-Friendly Policies


----------



## Markle (Jun 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.

Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.

What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.

Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.


----------



## Markle (Jun 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> [QUOTE="
> 
> If they don't want or need to work, so what? And the vast majority of them don't want to.
> 
> Let's try this again, since you wouldn't answer the first time... Of what significance towards indicating the health of the job market do you delude yourself into believing the labor force participation rate plays?



This has been explained to you many time but you continue to pretend you are ignorant..or are you really that ignorant?


----------



## Markle (Jun 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Is that one of his promises he wasn't able to deliver on?
> 
> Are Republicans going to make them pay more? If not, what's your point?



Specifically, who pays corporate taxes?

Has or has not Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama raised corporate taxes?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> But today they aren't happy that jobless claims have now fallen to a 4 decade low?
> 
> That's brainwashed pure and simple.



too stupid by 100000%. Todays jobs pay less so we are working and getting poorer!!

Bill Clinton:“The problem is, 80% of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 finnan*cial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. So that’s what’s the matter.”


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="
> ...



Yes, Federal Reserve always states it is concerned with low LFPR because it means economy is too slow to provide jobs for all who want to participate in the labor market. 1+1=2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 23, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> . Not one politician has a plan to pay off our debt.
> 
> .



of course thats really really stupid!! Republican have proposed 30 Balanced Budget Amendments and Demcorats have killed them all.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > . Not one politician has a plan to pay off our debt.
> ...



Not so.  Of course, because you are a serial liar.  But balanced budget amendments are really bad ideas.  As any economist would explain to you.  Or I could, should you want.  But for congenital idiots like you, I charge.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 23, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > . Not one politician has a plan to pay off our debt.
> ...



As well they should. The government should spend to stimulate the economy during a recession.  During a war, balancing the budget would mean imposing a tax to pay for the war.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 23, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And they get us into two wars/Quagmire's and give tax breaks to the rich/corporations at the same time and then say we need to cut entitlement spending.

Which was their goal all along.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 23, 2016)

[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

So, merkle, thinking he has a brain (being delusional) suggests the following:
This has been explained to you many time but you continue to pretend you are ignorant..or are you really that ignorant?

You are way too stupid to try to explain anything.  You are, me boy, quite obviously simply posting bat shit crazy con talking points.  Here is a bit of truth (look it up) about the talking point you are stuck on now, dipshit.  And it proves, as I can with many quotes from many experts,  you are WRONG.  Because you are a lying con troll.

"However, Fujita concluded, “*Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement*. This implies that the decline in the unemployment rate since 2012 is not due to more discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.”

Still, Priebus’ comment, tying the entirety of the drop in the labor force participation rate to “the Obama economy,” ignores some of the demographic and structural forces that have been driving the participation rate down for more than a decade, and that are expected to continue to drive the rate down for decades to come"
Declining Labor Participation Rates

So, instead of trying to understand ANYTHING, Merkle, being a con tool, does what con tools always do.  He takes what he is told to believe and tries to spread the drivel as truth.  But it is not, of course.  It is simply a lie cooked up by Priebus and friends for the weak minds of the con trolls that listen to his lies.  And believe them.  Because they like to be told what to believe.  Because they are STUPID.  And dipshits.

And then you have the gaul to suggest that you could explain anything.  Perhaps you should use a link to your lies next time, dipshit.  But then, a link to a bat shit crazy con web site is really simply proving you to be a waste of time. 

And yes, Markle, I know I spelled your name wrong.  I do that for those who have no integrity.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


  

As if it matters whether you accept it or not. 

The numbers are what they are. And I also note, that 94% is based on *the same numbers from the same source* YOU referred to when you pointed out there are 95 million people not in the labor force.

That leaves you picking and choosing BLS figures; in typical rightard fashion, ignoring the ones you find inconvenient.



gipper said:


> This too might explain why you are incapable of understanding the relationship between the unemployment rate and participation rate...you believe the lying State.
> 
> From Forbes:
> The drop in labor force participation rates concerns economists for several reasons. First, it depresses economic growth, which is already at anemic levels of 0.5%. Second, it puts pressure on the federal budget at a time when we are facing historic fiscal constraints. The less workers there are, the more the tax base shrinks. And third, any time out of the labor force impacts workers’ future earnings trajectories should they return to work, due to lost training and on-the-job experience.
> ...


More nonsense. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone with a functioning brain that the concern is a shrinking tax base when tax revenues have increased every year since 2009 and are currently at an all time high...







What you're too ignorant to comprehend is that the labor force participation rate is not an indicator of the health of the job market. How could it be? It's pressured mostly by demographics. The biggest increases to it were the result of baby boomers hitting working age, civil rights, and the women's lib movement. Those demographics pushed it up and now, as baby boomers are retiring at record numbers, they contribute heavily to pushing it down. Even worse for your defunct argument, if the current labor force participation rate was an indicator of the health of the job market or the economy, then that would mean the economy now is better than the economy was at any time prior to 1978, which is ludicrous. It would also mean the economy during the height of Bush's Great Recession was better than almost all of the years Reagan was president, which is also ludicrous.

In terms of the percentage of the population that is working, which actually does measure the health of the job market, that has barely dropped since Obama's been president; and that's entirely due to the decrease of government employees, which has fallen by ½ million (more about this in a moment). The percentage of the population working in the private sector has risen under Obama from 47.5% to 48.1%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

.... private sector growth since the recovery began following the Great Recession has been steady. The annualized increase as percentage of the population going as far back as BLS data goes...

Clinton .... +0.68%
Carter ..... +0.63%
Reagan ... +0.50%
Obama .... +0.44%
Bush41 .... -0.32%
Bush43 .... -0.60%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

*... and here's the worst part for your position ...* the only reason the overall employee/population ratio has dropped negligibly (3/10ths of one percent) is due to Bush's Great Recession *and the decrease of government employees*. You're so blinded with rightwingnut talking point, you're a conservative who's actually arguing against conservative policies ; namely, the shrinking of the government. Because you have no idea what you're arguing, you're pissing and moaning about the LFPR which doesn't indicate the health of the job market while your ignorance prevents you from understanding the decrease in government employees (a conservative position) is largely attributable for the overall drop in the employee/population ratio.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.

Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.

What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.

Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.[/QUOTE]

Poor try.  Failure again for you, dipshit.  And I am not a friend of yours, either good or bad.  Because I dislike liars.  What you ignore, of course, is that Millions of older workers retire every single month.  Older retirements are increasing much faster than new entrants are entering the work force.  Which you would know if you read the information available to you.  But then, as a con troll, you do not like facts.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="
> ...


Really? Then either you can show any post between post #1565 (where I asked for the first time) ... and post #1590, where gipper finally tried to explain it.

If you don't show such a post, you expose yourself as just another lying con tool like your 
brethren, Oldstyle.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Don't be a Markle. Millions of seniors are not retiring every month. 

Last year, there were slightly more than a million for the entire year.

2014: 39,008,771
2015: 40,089,061

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Total increase of folks retiring and collecting SS was 1,080,290 for the year ... or about 90,024 per month.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



45 posts since I first asked Markle, _*"What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate,"*_ and he still can't say.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...





I listen to economists on youtube all the time like Jim Willie that have been claiming the real Unemployment is over 20 percent if not higher for the last three years. I know that becasuse you are a shill for the Barrypuppet that you want to pretend like everything is great and wonderful but the fact remains is that things suck for 101 million people that are on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while Barrypuppet allows in illegals and flies in muslim refugees that WE have to pay for. Your rose colored glasses keep you from seeing the real truth....enjoy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 23, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Thanks.  I got lazy, and thought I remembered it being millions per month. Should have looked it up again.   But at least the points I was making were correct:
1.  The number of retirees is something like 12 times as great as new labor force entries.  
2.  The fact is, as shown, the talking point the con trolls are using are just that, talking points.  They are not at all true, and there is no impartial source saying the talking points are true.
3.  The participation rate does not show anything about the health of the job market, and certainly not about the economy.

The issue is brought up by every con tool.  That is what they have to attack the good news about the job market, which they hate.  It is a really sad thing when someone from the US hates it so much when things are not going really badly.
The difference between cons and rational beings is that rational beings admit their mistakes, while cons NEVER, EVER admit theirs.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Well maybe you can answer the question then that Markle could not ....

*What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?*


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I see no good news whatsoever and it is only going to get worse. I love this country but I am not one to whistle past the graveyard and pretend that everything is better just because MY guy is in the WH.....it is what it is and things totally blow in this country and with the Barrypuppet and the neocons pushing TPP down our throtas, shit will get even worse.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Seeing as how you're too deranged to even distinguish a network sign-off propaganda video from an Internet hoax, I see little chance beyond sheer coincidence that you will be right.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Good deal.  Jim Willie is recognized by everyone with a rational mind as a complete fraud, and a nut case.  Kind of tells me what to expect of you.  
So we have your opinion, and you must know how much we all respect your opinion.  Dipshit.
I mean, economic information from Jim Willie.  You would be an obvious nut case if you were just kidding.  But you actually believe the dipshit.  Making you one for certain.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I have no idea but the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll. The numbers are totally "fudged" and do not represent the unemployment problem of DECENT paying jobs in this country.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Your inability to see how things actually are isn't my problem. Your beloved "gubermint" that you cling so tightly to is nothing but a fraudulent corporate entity that you pledge allegiance to.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, anyone that will not declare the greatness of the Barrypuppet and pledge allegiance to the leftard commie posse of sniveling pussies is a "nutcase". You are a blithering IDIOT or a shill if you actually believe that USA.INC is thriving, dipshit....seriously.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?*
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

If you have no idea how he arrives at 23% unemployment; then you have no idea that his site is _*"legit."*_


Thinking is clearly not your strong suit.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


It's true my ability to detect a hoax is not your problem; but your mental instability certainly is.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




How does the Barrypuppet and crew come up with the figure that we only have 4.9 percent unemployment? If you actually believe that, it's not me that has an issue with "thinking". Personally, I believe that 23 percent is being generous to the Barrypuppet's term.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Wow.  You are so profound.  Barrypuppet.  Leftard.  Commie posse.  Sniveling pussies.  Sorry, me poor ignorant toad, you proved your relevance when you actually bragged (not admitted, but bragged) about listening to Jim Willie for his economic expertise.  Do you get your political news from watching Sunday morning cartoons?  
Got it.  You are truly not relevant.  Simple enough.  Have you checked out the conspiracy section, me boy?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



LMAO! Hey, it's not me that doesn't find it odd that out of all the cameras disposed of around the Pentagon on 9/11 that they have only released a few frames of footage. You don't believe that your beloved "gubermint" uses subliminal messages in order to steer the huddled masses and you don't believe that they would ever stoop to false flag attacks and events.....keep believing in Santa Claus.....ain't no sweat off of my balls.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Here's another question you can't answer.... you'll notice that shadowstats mirrors the U-6 rate from 1994 only at a higher rate; but then deviates from the U-6 at around 2009...






... and now for the question you can't answer (at least not with any amount of lucidity) .... *what changed in 2009 with the way the BLS collects CPS data to cause shadowstats to veer off into la-la land?*


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Awwww, did you get all "butthurt" because I don't pay homage to the Barrypuppet and his leftard commie followers? I know waaaaaaayyyy more than you. You couldn't stand "toe to toe" with me in a debate or discussion on the best day you ever had.  You are are a partisan shill with no critical thinking skills whatsoever.....so chew on that, punkinpuss.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Anything that doesn't paint the Barrypuppet in a good light is going to piss of partisan shills like you. You kiss his skinny shanks when he has followed the orders of his puppetmasters to the proverbial "T" that has killed job growth. Part-time workers are counted as being "employed" and still the numbers suuuuuuck.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I am sure it is.  Because that is how your little mind works.  You would believe jim the clown rather than a group of impartial professional economists.  Makes sense to me,  And explains why i so cherish your opinion.  Dipshit.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Of course I can show how the government comes up with their figures...

 How the Government Measures Unemployment 

If you weren't so full of shit and posting from a bullshit site like shadowstats.com, *you'd be able to do the same. *


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


And here folks, is dale's typical response when his idiocy is exposed under a spotlight... he deviates to another topic.

Along with the same tired strawman that since I proved his propaganda video containing subliminal messages was an Internet hoax, that I therefore believe the government is not capable of such deviousness; which of course is neither true nor ever stated. It's just more goo oozing from his deranged mind.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! "impartial professional economists"!!!!!!!!!!!!! Impartial economic "professionals" that are lying their asses off!!!!!!!!!LMAO


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


You keep proclaiming superior knowledge; yet it's your very own posts which belie that delusion.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Nice to know you have such a high opinion of yourself.  You have no economic knowledge, me boy.  That was proven by you when you referenced jim dipshit as your favorite source.  And stand toe to toe with you?  I am so impressed.  And really worried.  But then, it is probably because I respect you so much

Here is the thing, me boy.  Seriously, I am pretty sure that you are congenital idiot.  I learned all about it like you learn your economics, watching some quack on the internet.  And sure enough, that is it .  You are a congenital idiot.  Which is a good thing for you.  Cause it indicates it is not your fault.  Just plain bad luck.

And I am completely certain that the only reason I would have any problem standing toe to toe with you would be that you must really smell.  Is that it, dipshit?

I mean, really, trying to impress anyone with your obvious lack of knowledge and utter stupidity is simply indicating you have no clue. 

So, me boy, we are still waiting for your proof of the ue rate you believe in.  Or is simply that you like to believe it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



And I notice no proof, again.  Yup, but not jim dipshit.  So, good, you just proved you have no chance of making a rational argument.  Got it.
And did you know, me poor ignorant tool, that laughing like that is a near certain indication that my diagnosis of you being a congenital idiot is likely true.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


The only thing I'm kissing is the proverbial paddle I'm kicking your ass with.

Here's yet another example... you go by shadowstats.com, even though you don't have the foggiest clue how he arrives at the numbers he posts, and now you can't explain what the BLS changed in 2009 to inspire shadowstats.com to go off the rails that year.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Actually, you proved nothing but we covered that but what you cannot admiot is that you are a shill for the Barrypuppet and anything that paints this fraud in a good light, you push with childlike faith and then swing your little cyber purse when others don't by the bullshit.......see how that works???


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You have that right.  The guy (or girl) is indeed delusional.  And rather childish.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Yet more insanity from you. Is that all you have? Mind explaining what a video from decades ago has to do with "barrypuppet?"


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




I know much more about the economy than you. I bet you believe that the Federal Reserve central banking system is a "good thing" and that their member banks that parctice "fractional banking" works as well....don't ya? Let's discuss how this works and how the Promissory Note system actually works and how it goes all the way back to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933...I will bury your ass. Here is the first challenge for you...tell me why a central bank is a "good thing".


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


He's batshit insane. 

I demonstrated that over yonder --> How EVIL is liberalism anyway?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Your posts prove that there is nothing that can be proven to you.  No possible way to talk rationally to a totally irrational tool.  But you are funny, and that is worth something.  So,  you believe only numbers posted by sources totally partial.  Good deal.  And you do not believe in economics sources that are impartial.  You must have had a difficult time in your econ classes in college.  Oh, but then, why would anyone as smart as you believe yourself to be go to college.  Hell, you could teach the class with all your knowledge.  
We are all just so impressed, me boy.  I mean, anyone who is as taken with them self as you and still is out of an institution is really impressive.  To them self.  Just remember, it is congenital.  So it is not your fault.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Great, more deflection and strawmen. 

This from the putz who swears by shadowstats.com's unemployment  number even though he admits he has no fucking clue how or why that figure is derived.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You have no clue about MK-Ultra, MK -Naomi, or how the Tavistock and Brookings Institute and the Frankfurt School used propaganda, subliminal messaging and neuro-linguistic programming using not only visual images but mneomics as well. My knowldge of this topic is so over your head that it would be akin to trying to explain Boolean algebra to a chimp....it's simply a waste of time. You are one of the brain dead sheeple....bottom line.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So, feel free to "school" me in the ways of leftardism...make your argument as to why I should become a leftard and grab onto collectivism instead of individual rights and how the  "State" is always right.......convince me that communism is the wave of the future, "me boy". Here is your platform to tell me how you think the cow actually consumes the cabbage. I am open-minded which is why I know more than you but anyone can learn from someone....so "take it away"....convince me that I should become a leftard.......


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You perfectly struck the nail with the hammer.... there is no way to prove anything to any of these rightard dots here. They reject all evidence they find inconvenient and cling to nonsense like shadowstats.com, which they can't even explain how their numbers are derived. They live in some bizarre alternate universe where up is down, black is white, and the only "truth"s are those they get from the echo chamber.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Again, to highlight your insanity.... those were clandestine government programs that your deranged brain _thinks_ *the government revealed to the public in a network sign-off video.* Meanwhile, I found, and showed you the same video which did not contain the subliminal messages that were added to create an Internet hoax.

Like I said.... you're batshit insane.  Completely bonkers.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You have no clue.  Everyone who has encountered you  understand that.  You really need to stop before your head blows up.  I know you have been working to believe you are smart.  But I know smart, and you are not it.  No one who is smart brags about being smart.  As all rational people know, smart people do not need to say they are smart.  But dumb people?  Ever been to a tea party rally?  There is almost as much stupid in that crowd as in your little pea brain.  And they, like you, think they are very smart.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Yeah, Faun....."da gubermint" never fudges numbers. The current employment figures are an unmitigated JOKE. But I will give you the same opportunity that I hgave your pal....please make your case as to why I should become a lefard shill lioke you and embrace the ways of communism...because at the end of the day, that is EXACTLY what you come across as. What benefits are there to be had to be a leftard like you....totally open-minded here......make your case about the benefits of a statist controlled society.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You're too crazy and stupid to be on the left. And your mind is so open, all the gray matter leaked out.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ummm, it was played at regular speed, dumb ass. You found that web site by going to a conspiracy website where someone thought they could debunk it by playing iit t regular speed whioch made no sense. You would have never found that piece done at regular speed had you not done a "Google" search and then click on the fist site that you thought could debunk itr which WAS a conspiracy website. You can lie as much as you want but I know differently. Like I stated before, I know more about this topic than your little brtain could even fathoim or comprehend.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Actually, Faun is a seeker of truth.  As am I.  And having wondered about you, we both gave you a chance and you proved yourself to be a liar, or just plain delusional.  In the end, you proved yourself to be both.  Are you going for the trifecta, me boy"


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




If I was crazy and stupid, I would BE a leftard that believes in a benevolent communist "gubermint" would look out for me. You obviously believe that communism or socialism is the way to go and that make YOU "batshit crazy".


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Neither you or Faun would know "the truth" even if it came up and bit you on the ass. I asked you to make a case as to why people should be leftards and you bailed...wassamatter? No strength in your convictions? "School" me in the ways of leftardism and the benefits thereof...don't be shy nor ashamed of what you propose. You should be jumping at the opportunity to spread the word and message of the leftard....don't hold back!!!!!


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


This is still my favorite post of the night. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




G'head, dale.... tell me again how accurate and legit shadowstats.com is even though you have no fucking clue how he derives at his figures....

To give you an idea of how stupid you are for posting such idiocy... that would be like me insisting the Chrysler building in NYC is the world's tallest building; and when asked how tall is it -- confessing I have no fucking clue how tall it is; but I still know it's the tallest!!


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Ahh, the ever-popular pre-K rightard retort of, _I know you are but what am I? _

Yeppers, that sure does reveal your superior intelligence.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Tell me how the Barrypuppet and friends calculate that the unemployment rate is only 4.9 percent while we have 101 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while 38 percent of the populace that even have a job make less thjan 20K a year....so tell me again how great things are under the Barrypuppet........sell me on leftardism!!!! (snicker)


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



What I thought was cute was when the clown suggested there were televisions in Nazi Germany.  In the 1930's.  He must have been kidding, eh?  The first German tv was state controlled and went no where, after being introduced in 1935.  It was on air only three times per week, and had no capability to do anything at all lie what our delusional boy thinks.  It was trashed in favor of radio, and then the war pretty much ended any intent to develop tv for years.  What is most problematical was that there were very, very few tv's to receive the broadcast.  Funny.
Nice job of proving the extremely smart self promoting tool to be what he is, which is simply stupid.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I know more than you...infinitely more. You are a mere child when compared to the things I know.....deal with it.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Here is another kick in your ass. There are plenty more links that back up my assertions......sucks to be you "me boy"....(snicker)


Adolf Hitler 'planned propaganda cable TV'


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Lying doesn't help you since the subliminal message in the hoax video were also detectable at regular speed. And I showed you how I found that video with bing, no conspiracy website needed.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Here is another example of just how badly I kicked your ass yet again.....ya kinda walked into this one. (snicker)


----------



## Vigilante (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



ROTFLMFAO...not only at Joe, "The World's Dumbest Politician, and Sexual Abuser" Biden, but at the above 


AND THIS is going to take the Hindenberg's place when she is arrested? ROTFLMFAO!!!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Nope, it did not and you showed nothing about how you found anything. You simply "Googled" National Anthem Debunk" and found some post on a conspiracy website. I did the same thing and found the link that you posted because it wsas the first one. Why lie about it? What is so funny is that it proved NOTHING at all.....


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Based on what you just posted, you are way too stupid to be helped.  Perhaps, since you believe yourself to be of such superior intelligence, you should follow Faun's advice and go to the BLS site where they explain how the numbers are derived.  But that would be too simple for a really smart guy like you, eh.  I am sure you are going to provide an answer to how shadowstats get their numbers, right?  No?
here is an actual impartial analysis:
*Deconstructing ShadowStats. Why is it so Loved by its Followers but Scorned by Economists?*
EconoMonitor : Ed Dolan's Econ Blog  » Deconstructing ShadowStats. Why is it so Loved by its Followers but Scorned by Economists?
An analysis by a real economist, if you were interested.  Which I am sure you are not.  But it allows others to see your delusion closeup,


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Actually,  you're kicking yourself in the ass now. All we're doing is sitting back and enjoying the show.

Let the readers here know that your claim was that Hitler *was using* TV to spread propaganda...

_"Nazi Germany had television and used it for propaganda purposes back in the mid 1930's. They didn't reach that many households but they were working on flicker rates to send subliminal messages up until they bugged out for the United States under Operation Paperclip in 1947."_​
... but now you post a link stating it was something they were planning on doing; not something they had actually done, as your delusional mind once again tricked you.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Asked and answered.

Why are you repeating questions I already answered?

Is it because you can't answer mine?

*What did the BLS change in 2009 for shadowstats.com to stop mirroring BLS stats in 2009...?






It's put up or shut up time, dale..... which is it?*


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


That must explain why pre-K parroting are the best you can muster.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Aside from your idiocy of thinking you know better than I how I found it... a clue for you being that I didn't find it with Google, though you think I did....

The subliminal messages are detectable (not to be confused with legible) at regular speed. Just because you're not of sound mind and can't see them doesn't mean others cannot.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



There is no such thing, me poor ignorant tool, as a leftard.  Or leftardism.  Those are simply irrational names by a conservative troll.  So, since you are unable to ask a rational question, why do you think anyone would be able to explain anything to you.  You are proven irrational.  Nut case.  Beyond hope.  Delusional.  We who are rational just like the truth.  Which is not something you are familiar with.
Let me educate you, me boy.  though I know you think you are very smart, I know from years studying economics in college and in serious reading, that you know nothing.  But first, you have to understand something you do not.  It is called belief systems.  It is how people believe in anything.  And as a con, you have a well understood belief system.  It has been studied for years.  Because, you see, there is a lot of money in being able to convince people of whatever you would like.  And study after study has proven that cons are stupid.  I can give you a few of them, but I am sure you do not like studies.  As a con, you have several unique belief systems.  They include:
1.  Believing what they WANT to believe.
2.  Belonging to a group with like beliefs (Group Think).
3.  Anger is really important to you, makes you happy inside.
4.  Believing you are smart, which is, interestingly, part of being stupid, is important to you.

So, you are pissed off, believe what your associates believe, want to believe what you do believe, need on proof of anything at all, and you are completely uninterested and unaffected by things like truth, evidence, impartiality, journalism, expert opinions, or credentials of the sources you peruse.  You could care less about anything except what you want to believe and the belief of your group.  
So, rational thought works for you, and it is really convenient to be able to believe what you want.  Because you do not need to learn anything the hard way, by studying the subject.  Because you can believe what you want.
So others can not pull off your little game.  They believe what they can prove to be true.  And look for evidence on both sides.  And check out their sources of information for expertise and impartiality.  Both of which you could care less about.  We are, me boy, completely different entities.  You are happy with who you are, and I would rather be shot than be what you want to be.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You really are delusional. A tv transmission in the mid to late 30's was completely basic, and had very few receiving sets to broadcast to, dipshit.  Which is what I said.  Did you have other information, me boy, or are you just delusional again?


----------



## gipper (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


How many wouldn't retire, if they had access to good paying jobs?

We will never know for sure, but certainly a good many would stay in the work force rather than take social security and retire.

Only a dunce would think nearly 100 million Americans of working age not working, is acceptable and does not affect unemployment.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


While it's cute how you _think_ laying down points you confess, you _"will never know for sure,"_ is your idea of a cogent argument, the stark reality is that 95 million not in the labor force represents little more than a third of our 16 and over population. About the same percent as we had in 1978 and the economy was not too bad. In fact, it was an even higher than that (sometimes over 40%) from the 1940's through the 1970's and we had some good economies during those decades.

The stark reality is the labor force participation rate reflects demographics more than it does the health of the job market or the economy *and the only reason rightards keep harping on it is because we have a Democrat in the White House.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Actually, only a dunce would say something like what you just said.  With no source to back you up.  No link, but simply asking people to believe you.  You, a person with a really obvious agenda.
Imagine what you could learn if you studied the subject, like actually spent a little time going to impartial sources that had people who had the ability and time to actually STUDY the subject instead of people like you who have no background but lots of agenda.  
You see, me boy, the retirement percentage is thought to be largely because people CAN retire.  There is health care at reasonable costs prior to medicare age.  People largely do not have to wait for medicare, and have to work in order to remain covered.  
I know you believe that people are retiring because they can not find a job, which is and has always been true.  Perhaps you have not been over 60 looking for a job yet.  It is not a pleasant place to be, me boy.  Suddenly, for millions, they are in a position of having to settle for much less attractive jobs, making retirement seem like a better option.
But we all understand your agenda.  Truth is of no value to you.  Which is why you provide no link to independent and impartial information supporting you drivel.  Making you irrelevant.  

"The same day, RNC Chairman Priebus issued a statement warning that the “unemployment rate masks the low labor force participation rate” and said that “in the Obama economy” the “percentage of Americans in the labor force has shrunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.”
Priebus, March 6: We also can’t forget that the unemployment rate masks the low labor force participation rate. Too many Americans have given up and stopped looking for work altogether. In fact, in the Obama economy the percentage of Americans in the labor force has shrunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.

That message was echoed by Sen. Graham two days later on NBC’s _Meet the Press, _when he said, “I think that the labor participation rate is at an all-time low.”
The labor force participation rate, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is “the percentage of the population [16 years and older] that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work).” *Graham, who is considering running for president, is wrong about the rate being at an all-time low. However, as Priebus said, it is at its lowest point since the 1970s — 1978 to be exact.*

The following graph from BLS shows the civilian labor force participation rate between 1948 and 2015. As the graph shows, the participation rate in February 2015 (62.8 percent) is the lowest since March 1978. But *the rate was lower than that every month between 1948 and 1978.
The low point — according to historical data going back to 1948 — came in December 1954, when the rate was 58.1 percent.*
As for Priebus tying the participation rate to the “Obama economy,” there’s more to that story as well. *The labor force participation rate has been declining for more than a decade, and economists predict it will continue to decline for the next decade and more.
Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.*
Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. A*ccording to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.*
Among the r*easons *cited for the trend:
*1) The aging of baby boomers. *A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
*2) A decline in working women. *The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
*3) More young people are going to college.* As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
*So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.
Declining Labor Participation Rates

Or, another expert description of the participation rate:*
"It* was common for boomers to postpone retirement during and immediately following the downturn,* but they have gradually begun leaving the domestic labor market. About half of 63-year-old boomers were no longer in the workforce in 2014, according to a recent Gallup study. By the age of 68, less than a third of boomers were still in the labor market.
It's also important to note that the percentage of older workers participating in the labor market started climbing in the mid-1990s, well before the Dot Com bubble crashed and the Great Recession walloped Americans' nest eggs. The narrative that older workers are still reluctant to retire solely because of the Great Recession just isn't as applicable as it was a few years ago.
*"What that means is the low levels of participation we see today are not primarily due to the economic cycle. They're due to a much longer lasting demographic influence," Wolfers said. "It's actually something that's going to continue over the next decade"
Where Are All the Workers?

Con tools love to blame supposed problems on Obama and dems,  and so do exactly that.  But if you actually use your mind to reason what is going on, you find that cons ar simply being cons, and their conclusions are, as usual, stupid.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The 100 million number offered by republican sources, or the 93 million that they try to use more commonly, has been fact checked by several sources that are impartial, and always comes out to be the same.  Here is an example:
"The number cited by Perry in an interview on MSNBC's _Morning Joe_ program Friday—which is also making the rounds in Republican-leaning media—counts everybody of working age in the U.S. who's not in prison or otherwise institutionalized and could, theoretically, be in the the labor force if they wanted to be.

*That would include people who have retired or are too disabled to work, full-time college students, and parents staying home to care for children.* Hence the careful way Perry constructed his statement as “people not working.”
Parsing Rick Perry's Numbers on People Without Jobs
So, the 100, or 93, million number is a lie.  Simple ordinary lie that has been disproved many times.  Unless you consider people who have retired as unemployed, or those that physically can not work, or those in college, or stay at home parents.  Someone who quotes a number like this is either butt stupid or a liar.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm curious, Faun...do you consider Rshermr to be truthful?  Or does the board's resident George Costanza get a pass from you when he starts shoveling his bullshit?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 24, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr!  (eye-roll)


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

*What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?*[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr!  (eye-roll)

Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie.  He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants.  Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real.  Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid.  But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition.  That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  He agreed, but then could never find such a bill.  Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession.  Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition.  Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition.  But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying.  Over and over and over.  So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his.  And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care.  Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem.  Needs to see a doctor.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> The government should spend to stimulate the economy during a recession.



100% stupid of course. Spending does stimulate and taxing to get the money to spend destimulates. 1+1=2 but not to a liberal.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 24, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> *What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?*


   [/QUOTE]

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr!  (eye-roll)

Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie.  He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants.  Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real.  Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid.  But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition.  That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  He agreed, but then could never find such a bill.  Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession.  Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition.  Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition.  But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying.  Over and over and over.  So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his.  And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care.  Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem.  Needs to see a doctor.[/QUOTE]

You gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved"...proving once and for all what a complete fraud you are!  

The only one who's ever been "desperate" for the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved" is YOU, Georgie!  I've known it didn't exist from the start.  You were so ignorant that you actually thought it did.  Now you posture with nonsense about conditions...when if you really HAD any honor...you'd admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on!


----------



## Mcflipper (Jun 24, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2016)

Mcflipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


So when Bush, campaigning for president in 2000, ran on the platform that we had a surplus, that it was the government overcharging us, and because of that he was going to give us a tax rebate and rax cuts -- *he was lying?*

_"Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend.

But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

And I will act on principle.

On principle ... every family, every farmer and small businessperson, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love.

So we will abolish the death tax.

On principle ... no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government.

So we will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket.

On principle ... those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help.

So we will lower the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and double the child tax credit."_​


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > *What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?*



Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr!  (eye-roll)

Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie.  He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants.  Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real.  Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid.  But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition.  That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  He agreed, but then could never find such a bill.  Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession.  Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition.  Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition.  But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying.  Over and over and over.  So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his.  And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care.  Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem.  Needs to see a doctor.[/QUOTE]

You gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved"...proving once and for all what a complete fraud you are! 

The only one who's ever been "desperate" for the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved" is YOU, Georgie!  I've known it didn't exist from the start.  You were so ignorant that you actually thought it did.  Now you posture with nonsense about conditions...when if you really HAD any honor...you'd admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on![/QUOTE]

No, me boy.  I can not give you something that you agreed to provide the condition to get.  That would simply reward your  classless and un-honorable behavior.  You have shown no integrity.  You agreed to show the bill in order to get the formula.  Not my fault you did not.  But, since you did not, no formula for you, me boy.  But you could simply admit there is no bill,  and move on.  Then you would at least show a tad of honor.  Not enough but some.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 24, 2016)

Mcflipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong.  Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up.  But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points.  Which, me boy, are lies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 24, 2016)

At


Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved"...proving once and for all what a complete fraud you are!

The only one who's ever been "desperate" for the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved" is YOU, Georgie!  I've known it didn't exist from the start.  You were so ignorant that you actually thought it did.  Now you posture with nonsense about conditions...when if you really HAD any honor...you'd admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on![/QUOTE]

No, me boy.  I can not give you something that you agreed to provide the condition to get.  That would simply reward your  classless and un-honorable behavior.  You have shown no integrity.  You agreed to show the bill in order to get the formula.  Not my fault you did not.  But, since you did not, no formula for you, me boy.  But you could simply admit there is no bill,  and move on.  Then you would at least show a tad of honor.  Not enough but some.[/QUOTE]


Is there anyone out there who thinks Rshermr has the formula?  Anyone?  Anyone?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 25, 2016)

"No, me boy. I can not give you something that you agreed to provide the condition to get."

Here's a hint, Georgie...when you start posting convoluted sentences like THAT one...it's a sure sign that you're talking out of your ass!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




No such thing as a "leftard"? Of course there is...there are many of them in this forum....you may know them as "demcrats"...I know them as leftards and pseudo-liberals that are really nothing but communists and socialists at heart and they don't have the slightest fucking clue as to how this debt based fiat currency even works.They are fucking CLUELESS about it and claim that if only people paid more in taxes that things would be better!! Leftards are not pissed off that some have it bad as they are pissed that some seem to have it "too good". Leftards willingly pick the pockets of others while using every avenue possible to keep from paying taxes to the Fed bankers, an international banking cartel that creates credit out of thin air....by the way, a central bank and a graduated income tax are two of the planks of the communist manifesto. The very ones that you rail against are the same ones that have used those like you like a crack-addicted hooker to push their agenda.

I have no use for the neocons and they disgust me greatly, but they were late to the party. The liberal left has been the tool to every globalist's idea for "social engineering". Yeah, I know more than you...infinitely more. You "studied" economics? Did they teach you about the Federal Reserve Act and it's history and how the internantional bankers took the bankrupt USA.INC into receivership in 1912 thus the Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Did your economic classes teach you as to how the Crash of 1929 was orchestrated by the same group of theives that claimed the Fed Act of 1913 would prevent what happened in 1929? I doubt it. Did your "economics class" explain to you how after the orchestrated the Crash of 1929 that they coerced FDR into compelling the American people into turning in their gold under threat of imprisonment and a huge unpayable fine that the Fed bankers stole in a fiat debt note in exchange for REAL money with an intrinsic value??? I seriously doubt it. I could go on and on as to how you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, "me bitch". I know more than you...infinitely more. You couldn't walk 100 feet in my shoes without your frail shoulders falling underneath the weight. You know nothing about usury and how the Fed attaches interst to every note and how their member banks practice fractional banking or the history of the Promissory note where your signature actually creates money as if it was a printing press and why that is. You don't even know that your labor and sweat equity were pledged as surety against the debt due to the bankruptcy of 1933. You don't know diddly squat......I do.

Get it now, "me punkinpuss"?????


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


      [/QUOTE]


Yup.  Got it.  We all understand that you are a totally ignorant con tool, with no mental chops to carry on an argument or a discussion.  That much is obvious.  You have no knowledge, but lots and lots of talking points and drivel from baseless web sites.  The fact that you believe yourself to be something special is amusing, but really just proof of numerous studies that show that stupid people like to have their knowledge spoon fed to them and be told what to believe, and then always think they are very smart.  The fact that you even try to get people to believe that you have educated yourself is a joke.  My guess is you never could get in to a college, because you are too stupid. 
What is funny is that you traffic in non english based words that you and other con tools have made up, as though they are real and have meaning to rational people.  They do not.  But, on the other hand, your comment about not knowing diddly squat is kind of cool, and a true projection of the real you, me boy.  You truly do know nothing, though your delusional mind apparently tells you that you do.

Be boy, you can no doubt cary on conversations with other conspiracy theorists, quoting sources that are not considered credible by anyone except other conspiracy theorists.  You are part of your group, and you are great at* finding your "truth" based on what you want to believe, group think, and being told by charlatans what to believe.*  But that is it.  No one with a rational mind takes you seriously.  At all.  And no one listens when you puff up your chest and tell people how smart you are and how much you know.  You are a simple joke, and are extremely* irrelevant.  *Had you missed the fact that no one is paying attention to you?  Or are you so delusional as to believe you make any difference at all?  You simply prove in no uncertain terms that the studies about stupid people are true.  You are an actual living example!  

I never brag about how much I know.  Others who are quite knowledgeable never brag about how much they know.  Any person who has paid his dues to have a good deal of knowledge simply shows their knowledge, but NEVER try to tell people how much smarter than them they are.  That, me poor ignorant boy, is proof positive of a stupid person with no background to play with those with understanding.  It puts you firmly in the too stupid to bother with camp.  And thanks for making that evident.  Dipshit.
But what is cool for you is that your malady has a name:
*Dunning–Kruger effect*

You are, however, a number of things:
Immaterial, irrelevant, frivolous, inconsequential, useless, worthless, and more.  I could go on, but you have already wasted several minutes of my time, and you are not at all worth the effort.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Yup.  Got it.  We all understand that you are a totally ignorant con tool, with no mental chops to carry on an argument or a discussion.  That much is obvious.  You have no knowledge, but lots and lots of talking points and drivel from baseless web sites.  The fact that you believe yourself to be something special is amusing, but really just proof of numerous studies that show that stupid people like to have their knowledge spoon fed to them and be told what to believe, and then always think they are very smart.  The fact that you even try to get people to believe that you have educated yourself is a joke.  My guess is you never could get in to a college, because you are too stupid.
What is funny is that you traffic in non english based words that you and other con tools have made up, as though they are real and have meaning to rational people.  They do not.  But, on the other hand, your comment about not knowing diddly squat is kind of cool, and a true projection of the real you, me boy.  You truly do know nothing, though your delusional mind apparently tells you that you do.

Be boy, you can no doubt cary on conversations with other conspiracy theorists, quoting sources that are not considered credible by anyone except other conspiracy theorists.  You are part of your group, and you are great at* finding your "truth" based on what you want to believe, group think, and being told by charlatans what to believe.*  But that is it.  No one with a rational mind takes you seriously.  At all.  And no one listens when you puff up your chest and tell people how smart you are and how much you know.  You are a simple joke, and are extremely* irrelevant.  *Had you missed the fact that no one is paying attention to you?  Or are you so delusional as to believe you make any difference at all?  You simply prove in no uncertain terms that the studies about stupid people are true.  You are an actual living example! 

I never brag about how much I know.  Others who are quite knowledgeable never brag about how much they know.  Any person who has paid his dues to have a good deal of knowledge simply shows their knowledge, but NEVER try to tell people how much smarter than them they are.  That, me poor ignorant boy, is proof positive of a stupid person with no background to play with those with understanding.  It puts you firmly in the too stupid to bother with camp.  And thanks for making that evident.  Dipshit.
You are, however, a number of things:
Immaterial, irrelevant, frivolous, inconsequential, useless, worthless, and more.  I could go on, but you have already wasted several minutes of my time, and you are not at all worth the effort.[/QUOTE]

Never has someone posted so much and yet said so little. You had no rebuttal nor could you refute what I posted...you wasted paragraphs of utter bullshit prose lamely attempting to demonize and marginalize what I know.... and needless to say? It gave me a good laugh. It rips you up inside that I know more than you....infinitely more because if you had any conviction of what you be believe as "fact"? You have have written something with more substance than that worthless excuse for a reply. Once again "me leftard"...I kick your ass and I kick it for the entire forum to see....bend over and offer me yet another target to hit on that bruised ass of yours. (snicker)


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Never has someone posted so much and yet said so little. You had no rebuttal nor could you refute what I posted...you wasted paragraphs of utter bullshit prose lamely attempting to demonize and marginalize what I know.... and needless to say? It gave me a good laugh. It rips you up inside that I know more than you....infinitely more because if you had any conviction of what you be believe as "fact"? You have have written something with more substance than that worthless excuse for a reply. Once again "me leftard"...I kick your ass and I kick it for the entire forum to see....bend over and offer me yet another target to hit on that bruised ass of yours. (snicker)[/QUOTE]

You are, of course, simply posting from an empty mind.  Please look up Stupid People Studies.  It would help if you could understand your malady.
Relative to refuting what you say, you need to understand the rational mind, which you obviously neither have nor comprehend.  To make a rebutal of a post by someone who is stupid, and provides no proof of their contention, is a total waste of time.  And tends to put you on the same level as the person making the baseless post.  That, me boy, is a total waste of time.  So, in technical terms, stop wasting peoples time with baseless drivel that you have NO proof of.  No one, myself included, pays any attention.  You are like a dog barking, and those who have ever listened to you have long ago stopped paying attention.  For instance, I just scanned your paragraph, saw no links to prove your contentions, and say the following for your help.  Though I know it is a waste of time.
Get Help Before You Hurt Yourself


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 25, 2016)

What's amusing is that the same guy who's excuse for writing like an eighth grader is that his "secretary" normally proofs his correspondence...is now telling someone else that he doubts they went to college?  You can't help but laugh...


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You are, of course, simply posting from an empty mind.  Please look up Stupid People Studies.  It would help if you could understand your malady.
Relative to refuting what you say, you need to understand the rational mind, which you obviously neither have nor comprehend.  To make a rebutal of a post by someone who is stupid, and provides no proof of their contention, is a total waste of time.  And tends to put you on the same level as the person making the baseless post.  That, me boy, is a total waste of time.  So, in technical terms, stop wasting peoples time with baseless drivel that you have NO proof of.  No one, myself included, pays any attention.  You are like a dog barking, and those who have ever listened to you have long ago stopped paying attention.  For instance, I just scanned your paragraph, saw no links to prove your contentions, and say the following for your help.  Though I know it is a waste of time.
Get Help Before You Hurt Yourself[/QUOTE]


Yeah, I "get it".......you have no "rebuttal" so you lamely hide behind worthless and useles rhetoric. You could never defeat me in a debate which is why you have been avoiding the facts that I posted..........lame move on your part but then again? It was the only move you had, "me boy".....(snicker)


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's amusing is that the same guy who's excuse for writing like an eighth grader is that his "secretary" normally proofs his correspondence...is now telling someone else that he doubts they went to college?  You can't help but laugh...




I have kicked his ass so thouroughly and exposed him as a fraud........the ass kicking I put on him is gonna sting for awhile....LOL!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's amusing is that the same guy who's excuse for writing like an eighth grader is that his "secretary" normally proofs his correspondence...is now telling someone else that he doubts they went to college?  You can't help but laugh...
> ...



Glad to see you are happy.  Stupid, but happy.  And, me poor ignorant con troll, you could beat no one in a debate.  Takes something you are missing:  A BRAIN.


----------



## rdean (Jun 25, 2016)

saveliberty said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Look at the rest of your article:

The greatest concentration of unemployment is in the 18-29 age group, which comprises one-third of all the jobless:

Other highlights of the poll:

83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014.

And then add in this fact:

America has near record 5.8 million job openings

And you have to wonder if people even want jobs?

Of course, congress could make education both affordable and within reach.  I mean a Democratic Congress.  This kind of help is something Republicans would NEVER, EVER do.  It's simply not who they are.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's amusing is that the same guy who's excuse for writing like an eighth grader is that his "secretary" normally proofs his correspondence...is now telling someone else that he doubts they went to college?  You can't help but laugh...
> ...



Rshermr is the biggest fraud on this board.  He's always calling for discussions about economic issues here but if you notice...anytime there IS a serious discussion about economics, Rshermr is totally lost.  He claims to have not only graduated with a degree in Economics but to have taught the subject at the college level...but didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked him which school of economics he was basing one of his claims on!  This board's answer to George Costanza thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college!

He told me that the "Jobs Saved" number put out by the Obama Administration was a verifiable statistic but when I asked him to provide the economic formula that was used to arrive at that number he seemed to have slowly realized that the number was a total fabrication...something the Obama folks simply made up to hide how few jobs they created with the Stimulus!  Then he tried to bluff his way out of the corner he'd painted himself into by providing "A-B=Jobs Saved" as the formula.  When he got laughed at for THAT farce...he came up with "conditions" that had to be met before he'd reveal the real formula...about as pathetic an attempt to hide his ignorance as I've ever seen!

But that's who Rshermr...*IS*!  He's the classic internet blowhard that claims all kinds of degrees, jobs and wealth yet displays none of the intelligence required to get degrees, jobs and wealth...which is why I started calling him George Costanza in the first place!  Be forewarned...if you call him on his fantasies...he rapidly becomes abusive.


----------



## Mcflipper (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Mcflipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



  Of course Bush was lying.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What is that, me boy.  The thirtieth straight post that has NO ECONOMIC ARGUMENT AT ALL.  And simply a number of personal attacks, based on lies.  Same lies as always.  Did you yet notice that there is no one paying attention?
Not that this is new, but you said above that I prosed to unconditionally provide you with the formula, the one you say does not exist.  And that there was no condition till later.  Here is the problem, me boy.  Here is a post where I offered to provide you the formula, complete with the requirement for the condition:

May 5, 2016 #732
*RshermrVIP Member*

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

Oldstyle, it would be so easy to see the formula that is SOOOOO important to you.* All you need to do is tell everyone what the republicans did to help create jobs during the Great Republican Recession of 2008. Or, simply admit that they did NOTHING. *
Nah. You are not into truth, me boy. Not at all
Uh, by the way, your economic knowledge is highly limited. I have yet to see an economic argument from you. Simple denials are not economic arguments. Now history, yep. If you can make an argument using economic history, that would be an improvement.

Clear back on May 5, me boy.  There are at least 40 other similar posts.  And in each one you forget to mention that there was a condition.  Lying is your thing, me boy.  You simply lie, post dogma, and post personal attacks.  ALL YOU HAVE EVER HAD TO DO IS MEET THE CONDITION YOU AGREED TO, AND THAT YOU MADE FEEBLE AND UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT MEETING.  AND YOU HAVE GIVEN UP MEETING THE CONDITION, AND NOW LIE, SAYING THERE WAS NEVER A CONDITION. 
MOST PEOPLE HAVE SOME *HONOR.  *YOU, OLDSTYLE, HAVE NO HONOR AT ALL.  
I know of no person ever who posts lies over and over and over and over.  And pretends that you did not have the lie proven before. .  And then lie again, over and over.  You are a true example of a worthless human.  

But here is the thing.  Try as you have, you have never been able to show me lying.  Which is no surprise, of course, *BECAUSE I NEVER, EVER LIE.  EVER.  Just like the majority of people in this world.  *


----------



## Mcflipper (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Mcflipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong.  Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up.  But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points.  Which, me boy, are lies.[/QUOTE]

  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




I have already exposed him as a "knows nothing" internet blowhard. He avoids addressing any of the valid points I have made that are easily verifiable if one had any intellectual curiosity. It eats him up inside that we both know more than he does. That is why he writes these long, fact free posts. What he lacks in quality, he tries to compensate with quantity.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong.  Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up.  But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points.  Which, me boy, are lies.[/QUOTE]

  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned.  In the interim, here is one I am sure of.  Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years.  And the issue here is actually easy to check:
*The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

*A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.






"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Mcflipper said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Mcflipper said:
> ...



  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can deside for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

The first link, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on.", is an article by The Heritage Foundation, which is a far right wing web site.  Nothing ever impartial about that one.
The second, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy.", was a piece written for the  New York Post by Charlie Gasparino, a Fox business celeb.  Far, far from rational and impartial, both the NY Post and the author.
The third, The myth of the Clinton Surplus, was written by Craig Steiner, a conservative columnist for Townhall, a bat shit crazy con web site.  Very, very partial
So, three for three conservative and partial sources.  You picked the trifecta.

There are many sources that discuss the Surplus during the clinton years.  There are no impartial sources that agree with the con talking points that you have posted.  In general, you can be sure they were simply conservative attacks and totally untrue.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.


   [/QUOTE]

  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong.  Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up.  But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points.  Which, me boy, are lies.[/QUOTE]

  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned.  In the interim, here is one I am sure of.  Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years.  And the issue here is actually easy to check:
*The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

*A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.






"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.[/QUOTE]


You are such a fucking joke...Clinton didn't do squat. He simply rode the internet boom that crashed just before he left. The budget was never balanced because it CAN'T be blanced. Every dollar put into existence by the parasitic Federal Reserve banking oligarchs has usury attached to it so there is no fucking way to ever "balance" the budget or ever pay off the debt because debt is money and money is debt. How and the fuck do you not know this or understand how this fiat currency/debt slavery system works? If you were so fucking SMART you would have already figured this out. The ONLY time America ever ran a surplus was under President Andrew Jackson after he refused to sign off on another 20 year charter for the Rothschild central bank which was why the War of 1812 was fought. You have proven that you know nothing about the real history of this country or the history of our monetary/fiat currency system....so go try and fool someone else that you are not an unmitigated fraud because I have exposed you "me leftard" for the knows nothing  troll that you most assuredly are.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Wow, two sources that between them have a *combined IQ of maybe 70.  Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all.  The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot.  But you, me boy, never try to argue my points.  Cause you know you can not.  Because, me boy, you are STUPID.  Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.  
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made.  I must have missed it, dipshit.  And we will see what you have.  But one rule.  Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not.  Impartial sources are the only valid proof.  Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you,  ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.  *


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.



  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong.  Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up.  But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points.  Which, me boy, are lies.[/QUOTE]

  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned.  In the interim, here is one I am sure of.  Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years.  And the issue here is actually easy to check:
*The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

*A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.






"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.[/QUOTE]


You are such a fucking joke...Clinton didn't do squat. He simply rode the internet boom that crashed just before he left. The budget was never balanced because it CAN'T be blanced. Every dollar put into existence by the parasitic Federal Reserve banking oligarchs has usury attached to it so there is no fucking way to ever "balance" the budget or ever pay off the debt because debt is money and money is debt. How and the fuck do you not know this or understand how this fiat currency/debt slavery system works? If you were so fucking SMART you would have already figured this out. The ONLY time America ever ran a surplus was under President Andrew Jackson after he refused to sign off on another 20 year charter for the Rothschild central bank which was why the War of 1812 was fought. You have proven that you know nothing about the real history of this country or the history of our monetary/fiat currency system....so go try and fool someone else that you are not an unmitigated fraud because I have exposed you "me leftard" for the knows nothing  troll that you most assuredly are.[/QUOTE]

Wow.  That was truly stupid.  You really showed your ignorance.   
Well, me boy, you lost your first effort at debating me.  I provided an impartial source, you posted your opinion, which was drivel.  So I, and others, have two choices.  We could believe you, or we could believe FactCheck.org.  Sorry, me boy, we will take the expert and impartial source every time.  YOU LOOSE.

Posting well known and vetted con talking point is a really stupid way to argue anything.  Apparently you never try to find facts, as long as the source says what you want to hear.  And after getting your head beaten in, figuratively, you stupidly suggest that you have exposed me.  What a dipshit you are, me boy.

So, you think you are so smart that what you say should be taken as truth?  Are you that stupid.  I saw your quotes, and know plenty enough to be certain that your sources are bullshit. You could not win a debate of any kind ever.  Cause you are too stupid.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source.    You said it was wrong, but offered no proof.  Of any kind.  YOU LOOSE.  I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.  

On a side note, what was your highest level of education?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned.  In the interim, here is one I am sure of.  Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years.  And the issue here is actually easy to check:
*The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

*A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.







"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.[/QUOTE]


You are such a fucking joke...Clinton didn't do squat. He simply rode the internet boom that crashed just before he left. The budget was never balanced because it CAN'T be blanced. Every dollar put into existence by the parasitic Federal Reserve banking oligarchs has usury attached to it so there is no fucking way to ever "balance" the budget or ever pay off the debt because debt is money and money is debt. How and the fuck do you not know this or understand how this fiat currency/debt slavery system works? If you were so fucking SMART you would have already figured this out. The ONLY time America ever ran a surplus was under President Andrew Jackson after he refused to sign off on another 20 year charter for the Rothschild central bank which was why the War of 1812 was fought. You have proven that you know nothing about the real history of this country or the history of our monetary/fiat currency system....so go try and fool someone else that you are not an unmitigated fraud because I have exposed you "me leftard" for the knows nothing  troll that you most assuredly are.[/QUOTE]

Wow.  That was truly stupid.  You really showed your ignorance.  
Well, me boy, you lost your first effort at debating me.  I provided an impartial source, you posted your opinion, which was drivel.  So I, and others, have two choices.  We could believe you, or we could believe FactCheck.org.  Sorry, me boy, we will take the expert and impartial source every time.  YOU LOOSE.

Posting well known and vetted con talking point is a really stupid way to argue anything.  Apparently you never try to find facts, as long as the source says what you want to hear.  And after getting your head beaten in, figuratively, you stupidly suggest that you have exposed me.  What a dipshit you are, me boy.[/QUOTE]

I posted the real history and not the bullshit that you believe and it has no political affiliation whatsoever. I despise the neocons as much as I despise the leftard clown posse. I know more than you....infinitely more. You couldn't handle the things I know. The best part of all of this  is that tomorrow, you will still be an ignorant dipshit while proclaiming you are making people "hip" to the greatness of the ways of leftardism with your ass showing and your pants down around your knees while looking like an idiot.You are the only one that thinks you know anything...and I proved that you don't.....


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*Well, let's see who the stupid fuck is.  I stated and proved that there was a surplus under the clinton administration.  The proof was in the form of an impartial and expert source.  You said I was wrong, but provided NO PROOF.  OF ANY KIND!
You loose, and have the stupid fuck award.  Sorry about that. Actually, it was exactly what I expected.  And I am not at all sorry about that.

On another note, what is your highest level of education?  I'd guess 2nd grade.  Ya stupid fuck.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned.  In the interim, here is one I am sure of.  Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years.  And the issue here is actually easy to check:
*The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

*A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.






"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.[/QUOTE]


You are such a fucking joke...Clinton didn't do squat. He simply rode the internet boom that crashed just before he left. The budget was never balanced because it CAN'T be blanced. Every dollar put into existence by the parasitic Federal Reserve banking oligarchs has usury attached to it so there is no fucking way to ever "balance" the budget or ever pay off the debt because debt is money and money is debt. How and the fuck do you not know this or understand how this fiat currency/debt slavery system works? If you were so fucking SMART you would have already figured this out. The ONLY time America ever ran a surplus was under President Andrew Jackson after he refused to sign off on another 20 year charter for the Rothschild central bank which was why the War of 1812 was fought. You have proven that you know nothing about the real history of this country or the history of our monetary/fiat currency system....so go try and fool someone else that you are not an unmitigated fraud because I have exposed you "me leftard" for the knows nothing  troll that you most assuredly are.[/QUOTE]

Wow.  That was truly stupid.  You really showed your ignorance. 
Well, me boy, you lost your first effort at debating me.  I provided an impartial source, you posted your opinion, which was drivel.  So I, and others, have two choices.  We could believe you, or we could believe FactCheck.org.  Sorry, me boy, we will take the expert and impartial source every time.  YOU LOOSE.

Posting well known and vetted con talking point is a really stupid way to argue anything.  Apparently you never try to find facts, as long as the source says what you want to hear.  And after getting your head beaten in, figuratively, you stupidly suggest that you have exposed me.  What a dipshit you are, me boy.[/QUOTE]     [/QUOTE]

I posted the real history and not the bullshit that you believe and it has no political affiliation whatsoever. 
Sorry, you posted your opinion and were unable to prove it.  You loose.I  despise the neocons as much as I despise the leftard clown posse. I know more than you....infinitely more. Actually, you know less than anyone I have dealt with for decades.   You couldn't handle the things I know.Yea, we all know you are a real winner.  In your own puny little mind.   The best part of all of this  is that tomorrow, you will still be an ignorant dipshit while proclaiming you are making people "hip" to the greatness of the ways of leftardism with your ass showing and your pants down around your knees while looking like an idiot.  You seem to have a high level of interest in naked males.  Makes sense.  You are the only one that thinks you know anything...and I proved that you don't...
Please tell us, oh master, how have you EVER proven anything.  Except, of course, that you are a conspiracy theorist and a nut case.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills.  The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills.  The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.

But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid.  You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not. 
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS.  So you loose, me boy.  Regardless of how much you protest.  Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.  
But in addition,  you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points.  Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out.  Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means.  Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward.  Dipshit.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????


----------



## Markle (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats.  But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I never used loose.  What i did was type lose.  And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose.  Happens often, when I use the mac book.  But i do indeed understand the difference. 

1.  It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in.  Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything.  Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.  
3.  USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be.  You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.  


Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense.  Bullshit.  It was a surplus.  As the source explained.  Sorry, me boy.  You lost.  sorry you are a sore looser.  

Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years.  But you have.  
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus.  It entails government assets and liabilities.   
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it.  Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake.  And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it.  Admit.  Look it up.  But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me.  You will have the same problem.   Finding an expert and impartial source.  Good luck with that.  You have failed completely so far.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources.  He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus.  Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up.  Poor guy is a clown.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



First Rshermr claims the reason he can't spell is because his "secretary" always proofs his writing...now he claims that it's spellcheck that's screwing up...not him?  There is a reason why he has the rating he does!  He's not only an idiot and a poser but he always tries to pass the buck!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


None
This article by Politifact sums up what took place during the Clinton years rather well.


----------



## Markle (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



None of my business but this was so easy it is fun to make a fool of you and your kindred spirit Rsherme.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/c810x.pdf


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I just gave you verifiable stats on what people that even have a job are making...38 percent making LESS than 20K? That is less than 10 bucks and hour and 52 percent make less than 15 an hour...so tell me how fucking great things are. I know how this all came to be and what was behind the downfall of the middle class but you want to make this about politics and political affiliations. You don't undertstand the underlying issues as to why things are like they are. I guess I really suck at communicating because I have been trying to explain the concept and the people behind it...an oligarchy of elites that see a thriving middle class as a threat to their power...but too few even wish to listen. They think we are just one election cycle away from a return to propserity under this debt slavery system that depends on an independent central bank that is behind the demise of the serfs. I am running out of words to describe this...seriously.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.

Poor boy is having all sorts of problems with his sources.  He just lost a debate about whether B. Clinton had a surplus.  Factcheck is adamant that he did indeed, but DS will not believe it, though he has no source to back him up.  Poor guy is a clown.[/QUOTE]

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



First Rshermr claims the reason he can't spell is because his "secretary" always proofs his writing.I never said that, me boy.  I said in the past she had done so.  But as a dish washer you probably never had..now he claims that it's spellcheck that's screwing up...not him?  There is a reason why he has the rating he does!  He's not only an idiot and a poser but he always tries to pass the buck
Like many, I find many of the clowns that I am responding to not worth the time of spell checking anything. 

So often I do not spend any time on it.  As many others don't.  There are phd economists on the board, and they have the same problem.  But very, very small minds do get concerned about the issue of spelling and typo's  Poor little minds.


Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




How does the Barrypuppet and crew come up with the figure that we only have 4.9 percent unemployment? If you actually believe that, it's not me that has an issue with "thinking". Personally, I believe that 23 percent is being generous to the Barrypuppet's term.

First, anyone who uses derogatory names for a sitting president, either republican or democrat, proves that he has no class, no integrity.  But then, it is common for you, me boy.
Second, if you would go to the BLS site you would find the definition of how they find it. But it is not controlled by the president, and it is not his crew.  Just more of your bullshit.  If you believe in 23%, using the same definitions as for the 4.7% number, you just lost another debate.  Unless you can quickly come up with an expert and impartial source.  Because here is the source that says 4.7% is the current ue rate:
"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — MAY 2016 The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So, you loose again.  2 for 2 for me.  O for 2 for you.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"....how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes you) so hard for you to accept? You are out of your ever loving mind if you believe that only 4.7 percent of the population is looking for a job. You are beyond stupid if you don't understand that 101 million people depend on some type of "gubermint" subsidy in order to get by....what color is the sky in your world because it's not the same as mine....but then again I don't wear rose colored glasses because some socialist clown like the Barrypuppet is the figurehead of USA.INC.......you see? I know more than you.....infinitely more....not braggin'...just fact. BTW, PLEASE learn the differenece between "loose" and "lose".....it's kinda important if you wish to be taken somewhat seriously.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?So, you think the washington examiner is impartial?  You have to be kidding.  Even you must know better.  Lets see what Sourcewatch has to say:
"The _Examiner's_ editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with _American Spectator_ senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in _Examiner_ papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former_Washington Times_ reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the _Examiner's_ political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the _Examiner's_ online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard."
Washington Examiner - SourceWatch
So, not at all impartial  You loose again.  Just can not find an impartial source, eh.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Bill "drop trou" left us no "surplus", moron...and again I can't emphasize enough your IGNORANCE of how the privately owned central bank has been nothing but a parasitic entity just like it has been on every other country that is cursed with one anmd they are all owned by the same banking oligarchs. If you were so fucking smart, you would know this.,...but the fact is that you are a blithering idiot spewing shit that does not tell the true story of the mess this coroporate entity has put us in.


How much debt did each president leave for the country?So, you think the washington examiner is impartial?  You have to be kidding.  Even you must know better.  Lets see what Sourcewatch has to say:
"The _Examiner's_ editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with _American Spectator_ senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in _Examiner_ papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former_Washington Times_ reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the _Examiner's_ political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the _Examiner's_ online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard."
Washington Examiner - SourceWatch
So, not at all impartial  You loose again.  Just can not find an impartial source, eh.[/QUOTE]

So you are claiming that USA.INC was 100 percent "debt free" and was actually running a surplus and owed nothing to the central bankers???? Is that what you are declaring because if so, you are about to get yet another serious ass kicking. What USA.INC budgets compared to their debt are two very different things. There is INTEREST attached to every single fiat dollar loaned to "da gubermint" and there is interest attached to every fiat dollar loaned out by their member banks....so with that being said? How and the fuck did Bill "drop trou" not only pay off the debt but the interest as well WHILE creating a surplus on a a fiat currency that has debt attached to every fucking note? It is impossible....a mathmatic impossibility, dumb ass....


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Other than suffering from delusions, I can't say I'm sure how you convince yourself you've made a fool of anyone? 

But thanks for the link. It reveals shadowstats makes up their own numbers. 

They claim they use the U-6 figures but then blindly add an arbitrary number of folks who have been out of work for more than a year. To reach 23% would require they add some *21 million* people to what they call their alternative rate measure. The problem there is we have had 14 million people fall off the U-6 rate since Obama's been president, not 21 million. And 8 million of them were baby boomers who retired.Millions others are those who have gone onto disability and millions of others are students who choose school over work.

Even worse for shadowstats -- there is no entity which determines how many people have been unemployed for more than a year. They claim the number is derived from a proprietary model but won't say what that model is.

They just make the number up.



> _Beyond using the BLS U.6 estimate as an underlying monthly base, I have not found a way of accounting fully for the current unemployment circumstance and common experience using just the monthly headline data from the BLS._


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


No, what you did, as you always do, is run from the topic being discussed.

We're talking about the unemployment rate and after making a complete schmuck of yourself by relying on shadowstats even though you have no fucking clue how they arrive at their figures; so you try to change the topic to employed folks. Sorry, I'm not veering off the topic because you're losing it and want to try another one.


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The CBO disagrees with you. At the time, they said there was a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. You know, the trillions Bush squandered.

SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION
Despite growing concern about an economic downturn that could put a crimp on tax revenues this year, the Congressional Budget Office informed members of Congress late today that it expects the surplus to swell to $5.610 trillion over the next decade, in line with estimates that have been circulating on Capitol Hill for weeks.​
No rational, sane person is going to believe a fruit loop dingus like you over the CBO.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You are a blithering idiot and devoid of any common sense if you actually believe that the unemployment rate is 4.9 percent...you live in a different reality but because you are a leftard, you buy into the Barrypouppet bullshit and that things are coming up roses and that we need MORE leftardism because that is the answer!!!! I believe that the unemployment  rate is much closer to 23 percent than I do that it is 4.9 percent....the numbers saying that is 4.9 are total bullshit...much like your fool-fueled rants about the greatness of leftardism...do you get the message that I am sending???


----------



## Faun (Jun 25, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"....how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes you) so hard for you to accept?


Holyfuckingshit! 

Can ya get any more retarded, dale??

Unemployment benefits have absolutely nothing to do with being counted as unemployed.

*Four common unemployment myths*

The official unemployment rate is based on a survey of about 60,000 households, *not on unemployment benefits*, which are administered by the states.​
... so who is no longer counted as unemployed ... ? Those who are neither employed nor unemployed

*Not in the labor force* (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.​
... so who is in the labor force ... ? Those who are either employed or unemployed

*Employed persons* (Current Population Survey)

Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.

*Unemployed persons* (Current Population Survey)

Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.​Do ya see that, moron?? Nothing about unemployment benefits to determine unemployed status.



Do you see now why folks here laugh at you when you claim to be so much smarter? Now STFU on this before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.[/INDENT]


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 25, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Hey, dumb fuck....if every dollar is borrowed into existence with usury attached to every note created? Where in the fuck does the money come from to pay back not only the debt but the interest attached to it? This is a perpetual debt machine that feeds on it's self while milking the people of their assets.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Your paranoid delusions worsen. Obama does not decide nor tell me what the unemployment rate is.

The message I get from you is that you're batshit insane.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I'm not about to waste bandwidth explaining tax revenues to an abject imbecile who actually _thinks _people are no longer counted as unemployed because their unemployment benefits expire.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"....how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes you) so hard for you to accept?
> ...



So 101 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy are doing so just because they can?????? STFU yourself...nothing has gotten better and nothing has improved. Kicking your ass is becoming toooo easy.

We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




So can I can put you on record that only 4.9 percent of those seeking employmentr are unable to find work.........is that your stance????? Yes or no........


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Good for you...because how could you try and explain something that you know nothing about. Every dollar in existence has usury attached to it...be it from the Fed or one of their member banks....so where does the "money" come from to pay the debt to these international banking POS? You must have an answer.... btw, having one's labor that bartered their time in exchange for something of value was never part of the U.S constitution....why does "da gubermint" feel that they are entitled to a certain percentage of my labor?  This system was set up by the international bankers that extend "credit" to USA.INC and Wooodrow Wilson and FDR pledged our labor as surety against a debt that only USA.iNC is responsible for because it is INCORPORATED. Let's say that you signed a contract to a company that agreed to mow your lawn, fertilize it  and "weed eat" it and suddenly went bankrupt....would that make you resposnible for the debt of that company? Of course not...but that is what USA.INC is...it's a corporate "for profit" entity that was contracted to provide the 19 essential "gubermint" services per the corporate charter Constitution of 1871 that creatred the "14th amendment" citizen....they collect the profits of their endeavors and their 185,000 subsidiaries and pass their credit card bill off on us and that is a fucking fact, dipshit. I know more than you....infinitely more. Kicking your ass is mere child's play.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


That's it???

You make a complete schmuck of yourself criticizing others for not knowing how folks are no longer counted as unemployed when their unemployment benefits expire *(when that's not even true)* and that's the best you can come back with???

Dale, I'm embarrassed for you even if you are too stupid to comprehend why you should be embarrassed for yourself.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Of course you can't since I never said that.

pssst ... this would be you listening to your delusions again.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


See post 1730 as I'm wasting even less bandwidth on this reply.


----------



## rdean (Jun 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.


   [/QUOTE]

  There was no surplus under Bill Clinton.  From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget.  It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong.  Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up.  But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points.  Which, me boy, are lies.[/QUOTE]

  I don't know how to provide links.  But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up.  The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: &nbsp; The Era of big government lives on."  The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy."  The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus."  You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.[/QUOTE]

I will take a look and respond on a seperate post shortly to the web sites you mentioned.  In the interim, here is one I am sure of.  Factcheck.org is a completely impartial source and has been for years.  And the issue here is actually easy to check:
*The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

*A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.






"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
And as we all know, when the rest of the country does well, the super rich do especially well.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Hey , dumb ass...they do not count those that are no longer collecting unemployment....sorry, you are wrong again.  dumb ass.  Wonder why you have no source;  
*"Jobless Rate and Unemployment Benefits*

By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 1, 2008
  Q: Does the official jobless rate fail to count people who have no unemployment benefits?

A: They are counted, too. The rate is based on a huge survey and counts those who are out of work whether they get benefits or not."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
OOPS.  Self professed really smart guy is WRONG AGAIN.  See, me boy.  There is the link, there is the statement proving what you say is wrong, and you again* LOOSE.  *And we all feel so sorry for you, being wrong every single time.  But no worry.  Being a clown, you will tell us that you were correct the whole time.  Funny.  And you said you knew so much.  So far every thing you said you know has proven *WRONG.  That is 0 for 3.  *


once it runs out, you are no longer counted as being "unemployed"  *WRONG.*  how fucking difficult is that concept (that alludes  You should try to understand the word *allude* before you use it in a sentence.  Perhaps if you had just finished high school.  I know, i know.  It was a typo.  But it is a real word, just not the correct word.   you) so hard for you to accept? Yes.  I have an aversion to believing untrue information, me boy.  Sorry you do not have such an aversion.  You are out of your ever loving mind if you believe that only 4.7 percent of the population is looking for a job.
OK. A chance for you to get one correct.  Lets see:
"The *unemployment rate* declined by 0.3 percentage point to* 4.7 percent in May, *and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care.Jun 3, 2016"
www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Uh, there it is. BLS says latest is 4.7%.  Soooooo..................*YOU LOOSE AGAIN.  LETS SEE, WHAT IS THAT.  OH YEAH.  0 OF 4 FOR YOU, 4 FOR 4 FOR ME.  WILL YOU EVER, EVER WIN A DEBATE, ME BOY?*

Sorry, me boy.  You are wrong again.  Your stats came from a bat shit crazy site, so you believed them  Your problem, not mine.  You are beyond stupid if you don't understand that 101 million people depend on some type of "gubermint" subsidy in order to get by....what color is the sky in your world because it's not the same as mine....but then again I don't wear rose colored glasses because some socialist clown like the Barrypuppet is the figurehead of USA.INC....*Jesus, you really are crazy*....you see? I know more than you.....infinitely more...No, you know nothing.  At all.  You are proving yourself, to everyone, a complete joke.  Wrong, time after time after time. *ZERO for FOUR, me boy.*.not braggin'..You certainly should not be bragging.  You are 0 for 4.  Pretty sad..just fact  Uh, again, no facts.  ZERO for fuckin FOUR, Dipshit.   . BTW, PLEASE learn the differenece between "loose" and "lose".....it's kinda important if you wish to be taken somewhat seriously.How many times are you going to try that ignorant nonsense, dipshit?  I mean, a guy who has not finished high school and thinks he should comment on spelling.  Maybe you should concentrate on you posts, and see if you could be correct  even *ONCE.
But this is kind of boring.  But then,  at this point, I be laughing.  At you. *
So far, the clown who told everyone he could get to listen (something like zero, most likely) how much smarter he is than me.  And here he is 0 for 4 against me.  Seems to be proving exactly the opposite.  If you were not such an ass hole, I would almost feel sorry for you.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You don't have the slightest fucking clue....seriously......but "Go, Team Leftard!!!"....(snicker)


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Your ass gets kicked yet again.......wasn't that hard to find this....
A Lot Fewer Americans Get Unemployment Benefits Than You Think


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



So, the delusional clown forgets to read his source article.  Must have been excited that it was a rational source.  But at least his initials are good.  DS for DipShit.
Your ass gets kicked yet again.......wasn't that hard to find this....
A Lot Fewer Americans Get Unemployment Benefits Than You Think
What the article says is that many unemployed people do not get unemployment benefits, me boy.  It says NOTHING about the unemployment rate.  Jesus, have you always been that stupid, or have you been working at it ?  You just found a link that proved nothing at all about the ue rate.  Nice job.  So, still 0 for 4.  That means, in your terminology, I kicked your ass *FOUR * times, and you kicked mine *ZERO*!!!!
Perhaps you should try a different thing.  Arguments or debates are things you are not good at.  You are just too ignorant.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent....let that sink in, moron........100 minus 62.6 = 38.4.....but you believe that unemployment is 4.7 percvent.....HOLY fuck but are you ever stupid...."Go team leftard!!!!"


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Nope, those that are not getting unemplyment are not counted in the stats and that is a fact....We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Kickin' that leftard ass yet again........

Real Unemployment - Department of Labor (U-6)


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...





Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You don't have the slightest fucking clue....seriously......but "Go, Team Leftard!!!"....(snicker)

*Says the guy who is ZERO FOR FOUR.  Wrong every single time.  But posting something about the percentage of people that are unemployed that do not get ue insurance, when he thought it was the percent unemployed, could be counted as a near miss.  No, actually, it was bullshit.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



do you simply not read your linked articles ever, dipshit.  As the BLS stated, they are indeed counted.  You were wrong then, you are wrong now.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...





Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is at 62.6 percent....let that sink in, moron........100 minus 62.6 = 38.4.....but you believe that unemployment is 4.7 percvent.....HOLY fuck but are you ever stupid...."Go team leftard!!!!"

The labor force participation rate simply tells you how many people do not want to work.  It includes retirees, people unable physically to work, those in college (look it up), those who do not need to work.  So no, it is not 38.4% of those that are counted as unemployed, because THEY DO NOT WANT TO WORK OR ARE NOT CAPABLE OF WORKING.  
NICE JOB OF EMBARRASSING YOURSELF, AGAIN.  MORON.  JESUS, YOU DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PARTICIPATION RATE.  DAMN, YOU ARE IGNORANT.

STILL 0 FOR 4.  AND LOOKING STUPID.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Spits the flaming imbecile who actually said folks are no longer counted as unemployed if they exhaust their unemployment benefits.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


It's gotten to the point where now you're just kicking yourself in the ass.






... did you even read your own link?? It says nothing about the unemployment rate or folks exhausting their unemployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Shits the idiot who doesn't know the difference between the labor force participation rate  and the unemployment rate.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit!  You're completely fucking deranged.

That article doesn't even specifically say anything about unemployment benefits or the unemployment rate.

How many more links are you going to post which highlight how delusional you are?

And why do you persist with this insanity of yours about people losing their unemployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed when I gave you the link to the BLS site, the ones who do the counting, which proved you wrong?

See that? You should have taken my advice earlier and just STFU about this before you make an even bigger schmuck of yourself.

Too late now.


----------



## rdean (Jun 26, 2016)

Republicans try to rewrite history.  Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate.  Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate.  And everything went to shit.  Them's the facts.  No way around it.  If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier.  It's as simple as that!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> Republicans try to rewrite history.  Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate.  Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate.  And everything went to shit.  Them's the facts.  No way around it.  If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier.  It's as simple as that!



You're one of the biggest idiots on this board, R-Derp!  The Dot Com Boom was over as Clinton's second term came to a close and the economy was slowing rapidly.  That was what George W. Bush inherited from Slick Willie.  Then 9/11 happened which put the economy into free fall!  What's "simple" is anyone who thinks Clinton would have fared any better than Bush did given the cards he had to play!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2016)

You know what's going to be a hoot to watch if Hillary Clinton DOES get elected President?  All of you liberal drones trying to explain why we don't have a booming economy like we did back during the Bill Clinton Presidency!  I can't wait to see it slowly dawn on you that Bill Clinton ISN'T an economic "savant"...but rather happened to be in the right place at the right time.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans try to rewrite history.  Things were only good under Bill Clinton because of the GOP control of the House and Senate.  Yet, when Bush became president, the SAME GOP still had both the House and Senate.  And everything went to shit.  Them's the facts.  No way around it.  If a Republican had been in office instead of Clinton, the Bush/GOP would have happened 8 years earlier.  It's as simple as that!
> ...


As you've been shown ... the Clinton boom, while certainly aided by the dot com boom (props to Gore), started before the dot com boom.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You know what's going to be a hoot to watch if Hillary Clinton DOES get elected President?  All of you liberal drones trying to explain why we don't have a booming economy like we did back during the Bill Clinton Presidency!  I can't wait to see it slowly dawn on you that Bill Clinton ISN'T an economic "savant"...but rather happened to be in the right place at the right time.


Likewise, if the economy does boom, it'll be amusing watching the loony right credit Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




That is true, but it is not a con talking point.  So, OS can not use or believe that.  He only believes what he is told.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Unlike you, Georgie...I don't have to use other people's "talking points" because I'm intelligent enough to make my own!  It's what you get from actually attending college, not simply pretending that you did!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



That's because Clinton inherited a growing economy from George H. W. Bush.  
You're REALLY giving Al Gore credit for the Dot Com Boom?  That's amusing, Faun...ridiculous...but amusing!


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That growing economy was due to tax increases. First by Bush, then by Clinton. Funny though... at the time, rightards credited Reagan.

And of course Gore gets some credit for the Internet. He passed legislation which helped foster its development. For example, his legislation led to the creation of mosaic. Sure, there were other networks already in place for decades, but none were used like the Internet is used today. Modaic was the beginning of the world wide Web (www) as we know the Internet today.

I know how much it pains a lying con tool like you to accept Gore's contributuons; but then, that's what makes you a lying con tool.


----------



## Markle (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Nonsense.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 26, 2016)

Mcflipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...


Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> Mcflipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Thank you thank you thank you. I didn't think to find a Republican in 1999 or 2000 talking about Clinton's surplus.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 26, 2016)

rdean said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


I have friends who I try to explain these contradictions to. I try to explain how the republicans don't really have a solution for helping the people who can't find work.

And for the people who cant find work the solution isn't affordable school because those are uneducated blue collar workers. They'll never be engineers.

I'm starting to think there is nothing we can do to change the fact that the social contract companies had with American workers is done. The only responsibility a company has is to its shareholders. This fact should dramatically alter the birth rates in this country. When $30 union workers had job security, they had kids and then put there kids to school. Today factory workers make $10 hr. They probably won't have as many kids. This low birth rate is going to hurt us.

A big part of me wishes we would lower the population but if we do the corporations and rich will just import more Arabs and Mexicans.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Mcflipper said:
> ...


Bush wasn't the only one....
_
"More *surplus* money for Washington means less money for families and workers across our country." ~ Bill Archer, 1999

"I'm glad to hear him discuss it again this evening. Unfortunately spending the *surplus* as he proposes will not save Social Security. It just temporarily props it up with extra cash." ~ Jennifer Dunn & Steve Largent, 1999

"And tonight, to show you that we are sincere and that we mean business, Republicans take a first step toward making Medicare stronger. To guarantee that seniors can rely on Medicare forever, we will add it to the Social Security lockbox, which will lock away the *surplus* for both Social Security and Medicare. We will not let anyone spend your Medicare money." ~ Bill Frist & Susan Collins, 2000

"I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative." ~ Newt Gingrich, 2011_


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 26, 2016)

Faun said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Republicans would have been all over bill if he lied about the debt. The truth is he had a projected surplus and bush squandered it.

And what would Republicans rather talk about. The fact that bush squandered it or that it was only a projected surplus? 

Makes hillary seem like the right choice. If Republicans hate her I love her because I hate them. They are obvious liars


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So you admit that George H.W. Bush gave Bill Clinton a growing economy and that Clinton gave George W. Bush a declining one?

I'm curious, Faun...what economic policy of Hillary Clinton's do you see growing the economy like it was during her husband's time in office?  Without the Dot Com Boom, I'm afraid that Hillary is going to be hard pressed to recreate what happened during that time period.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What's trump going to do? What's Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell going to do?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US?  Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington.  The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law.  Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here?  Duh...


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What do you mean, "admit?" I never said otherwise. As far as the economy under Hillary, I have no idea. No one does. There are so many variables that factor into the economy, no one could possibly accurately predict it. I will say, however, Trump's tax plan was calculated to cost us about $9.5 trillion over the next ten years, according to the tax policy center. Whereas Hillary's was calculated to raise about $1.1 trillion.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Jobs have already been created under Obama. We are currently at full employment.


----------



## Markle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



As you know and know well, lit was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, pushed through by Newt Gingrich, vetoed by President Clinton twice before it became obvious that his third veto would be overridden so he signed it into law.  It was immensely successful up to the time Lame Duck President Obama gutted it with Obamacare and his failed Stimulus Plan.

Share with us what factory workers make $10.00 per hour.


----------



## Markle (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


It's cute how when it comes to Republicans pushing through welfare reform, which Clinton signed -- y'all credit the GOP Congress...

... but when that same GOP Congress pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after the three Republicans who wrote and sponsored the bill -- y'all blame Clinton because he signed it.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It's not my fault you're too dumb to understand the labor force participation rate is affected most by demographics, not the health of the job market.

Case in point, it was lower than it is now from the time they first began recording it until the late 1970's, yet we had many healthy job markets during that period. Including many years we were at full employment. The biggest factors in driving up the labor force were baby boomers entering the work force, blacks entering the work force after civil rights, and women entering the work force following the women's lib movement.

Those were all demographics driving it up during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Among the reason driving it down now is the exit of one of those demoraphics -- baby boomers retiring.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Broken record.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Another surplus? Will the GOP president in 2024 squander it like bush did? Just give the "projected" surplus to the rich and claim its there money? Damn the debt? We know they would


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Lots in Michigan. And I've already shared. I'm not going to jump just cause you ask.

Ok, $13 hr. That better?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Or NAFTA. The only reason Clinton signed it was because bush lost. NAFTA was the GOP's baby but they only credit clinton


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Broken record?  Wow...talk about being in denial!  American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Interesting concept.  Typically if you're at "full employment" one would see an increase in wages as employers are forced to compete for the best workers...correct?  So take a stab at explaining why wages have been stagnant for the decade!  Obviously something isn't happening that the Obama Administration's economic statistics would have you believe WOULD be happening!  Are we really at full employment?  Or have we been fooled into thinking employment has improved as much as it's been claimed by manipulation of statistics?  Don't forget this is the same group of people that gave us "jobs created or saved"!


----------



## DGS49 (Jun 27, 2016)

People are adapting to a new reality, where a large swath of the population cannot find (and have given up looking for) employment that they consider acceptable.  So they scale back, and learn to live on one income, or one income supplemented by reduced social security or a part-time under-the-table job, or whatever.

It is the reverse of the New Reality that came into being in the late 60's, with the universal availability of safe, effective birth control, which gave women the prospect of full-time employment, uninterrupted by the occasional unplanned pregnancy.  This new reality brought about a dramatic increase in inflation - mainly manifested in skyrocketing housing prices - as two-income families drove prices up, while families with "stay-at-home moms" were crushed by the inflation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Not all Regulations are bad  yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs.  Are you for them?  Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go.  Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs? 

_Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org_

*When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade.  Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004.  I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.   *

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1.  There is no such thing as a "free market."

2.  The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and *how to trade*."  But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits.  Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.  If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest. 

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade."  Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."  The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.  It brought jobs back to America.  Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers.  We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That's called being brainwashed.  They've been taught to hate liberals so much they'd rather vote for ANYONE but us.  Luckily the rest of America isn't that stupid.  I mean they voted for Bush twice but since then the only problem Americans have is not voting in midterms.  If they'd just do that we could start taking this country back.

But as soon as the 2016 elections are over they'll go right back to telling people that voting doesn't matter in hopes that they keep their secret weapon, and that is the midterm elections.  Rich people and Republicans vote every 2 years.  The people that will elect Hillary won't show up again until 2024.  That is how the rich maintain control of the country.  

If Americans are mad at the direction this country is going, they have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So, oldstyie is suggesting, apparently, that the bls is lying, and there is more unemployment because those nasty dems are lying to us. But has no proof.  And has only a conspiracy theory to suggest.  And has no suggested reason for lower wages.  AND NO CONCEPT OF WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.  Got it.  You know nothing, but to push con talking points, as usual

The problem we are still trying to overcome is obvious.  Except to OS.  It is well know, as the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  From which, thanks to democratic efforts, we have recovered.  Thanks to the Obama Stimulus.  And to prove the fact that we recovered from the recession, you should consider what the CBO has stated.  
But what has not been helped is workers wages.  Having a con troll argue that this is Obama's problem is funny.  Because the lower wages are EXACTLY what republicans SUPPORT.  And exactly why, as Oldstyle  well knows, there have been:
1. Numerous bills sent forward by democrats which republicans have voted against in a block.  There have been no Republican votes.  ever, to allow the president to try to address the problem;  EVER.
2.  Exactly zero Republican economic bills have been sent  forward to address the problem by Republicans, even though the problem was part and parcel of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, *BECAUSE REPUBLICANS LOVE THE FACT THAT WORKERS WAGES ARE NOT GROWING, AND THAT THE LOWER 99% OF THE POPULATION HAVE RECEIVED ONLY 7% OF THE ECONOMIC GAINS SINCE THE GREAT REPUBLICAN RECESSION OF 2009, WHILE THE TOP 1% OF THE POPULATION HAVE RECEIVED 93% OF THE GAINS.  WHICH AGAIN, MAKES CONSERVATIVES VERY, VERY HAPPY.*

So, SOP for con tools like OS to suggest the problem is mysterious, but is a problem of Dems.  Even though they have made efforts to fix the problem.  Even though republicans have made no effort to fix the problem.  And even though republicans have tried in every way to stop progress.  

Stand by.  Personal attacks are incoming.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The  Republicans are much better funded, overall.  There are probably 200 far right nut case conservative web sites pumping out propaganda.  There is an entire NETWORK attacking dems 24/7.  And the repubs have managed to redistrict states to the points that it will take decades to give those states a chance of voting dem.  The republican wealthy have control of a huge network that goes after people with no ability to reason, and love to be told what to believe.  Like Oldstyle.  And many others.  
And you are completely correct that repubs always vote.  In the short term, it is a huge problem.  But what their biggest problem is, is that cons are mostly OLD.  The young and the well educated are heavily liberal.  So, in the long run, they will probably loose.  If we can keep them from continued redistricting, and packing the courts.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## Mcflipper (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Mcflipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



  "From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas.  I remember when he was running against Ross Perot.  He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S.  Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened.  After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass.  But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.


----------



## Mcflipper (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



  If pick pocket democrats came up with a good way to pick pockets, do you really thing that pick pocket republicans are going to expose it:?


----------



## Mcflipper (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



  For all you know, people who have given up looking for work is at a 4 decade high.  Also, what's Trump going to for blue collar workers?  Obviously keep them from having to compete with even poorer and more desperate illegal workers from the violent and corrupt third world countries south of the border.  What is Hillary going to do to help blue collar American workers?  Make the illegal ones legal.  What do you think is going to help poor blue collar American workers more.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ah so what you're saying is that liberals are either too stupid or too lazy to show up for mid-term elections?  Gee, Sealy...that really doesn't say much for you and your fellow progressives...does it?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Packing the courts?  The last party to try THAT were the Democrats under FDR.  Good to see you're still here displaying your breathtaking lack of knowledge, Georgie!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression!  Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America!  The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression!  Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America!  The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

Let's see if OS is finally correct, for a change.
" *few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression.* Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a *misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. *America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

Nope.  Missed again.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Broken record?  Wow...talk about being in denial!  American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?


Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



And another con talking point from Oldstyle.  I asked what the benefit is of the regulations.  No answer.  Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit.  So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about?  Why, by the debunked WSG reports.  

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB:* Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs.* While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that *year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs*:






So, there you go.  Benefits far outweigh costs.  How odd that a con would miss that.  So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"*Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific,*" and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By _The Washington Post_'s Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, _The Washington Post_'s Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting tha*t the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.*" [_The Washington Post_, 1/14/15]

*Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report*
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." *Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself."* Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..  

Right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety!  He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's _Economist_, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie?  You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing!  Stop the presses!  Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing?  You're an idiot.  With each successive post you prove that fact even more.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie?  You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS.  You are such a clown.  The question was never whether the bill was good or bad.  Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made.  The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ".  You seem to be tripping over english, me boy.  You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had  anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929.  Sorry to steal your thunder.  You seemed so excited.  I was so happy for you.  But then, the same old thing.  You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit?  You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing!  Stop the presses!  Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing?  You're an idiot.  With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad.  Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue.  You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand.  And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed.  They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing.  So, no, you are the idiot.  I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were.  Sorry you are incapable of complex thought.  And that two components is too complex for you.  Dipshit. Your an idiot.  With each successive post you prove that fact even more.  

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle.  But you have to give him an A for effort.  And an F for brains.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Mcflipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mcflipper said:
> ...


Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie?  You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS.  You are such a clown.  The question was never whether the bill was good or bad.  Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made.  The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ".  You seem to be tripping over english, me boy.  You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had  anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929.  Sorry to steal your thunder.  You seemed so excited.  I was so happy for you.  But then, the same old thing.  You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit?  You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either![/QUOTE]

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression?  Did you even read it?  You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression?  Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed.  Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?  

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention?  Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.

Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Only the truly clueless would use Public Citizen as the authority on whether or not government regulation was a good or bad thing!  It would be like using the NRA as the authority on whether or not gun control laws are a good or bad thing!  You STILL don't grasp that though...do you?  I'm guessing that's because you had no idea what Public Citizen WAS when you used them?  Typical, Rshermr...just one more topic you know nothing about while trying to pretend that you do!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression?  Did you even read it?  You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression?  Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed.  Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken? 

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention?  Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?[/QUOTE]
Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Mcflipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office?  Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers?  You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected?  How naive are you, Sealy?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.[/QUOTE]

Smoot Hawley was something that made a bad situation worse...igniting global trade wars.  To claim that it didn't affect the Great Depression is laughable!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

What did you people study in college?  Basket weaving?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.[/QUOTE]
Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression?  |  America's Trade Policy


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mcflipper said:
> ...


"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"?  I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale!  One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency!  I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens.  Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression?  |  America's Trade Policy[/QUOTE]
That article proves my point thanks


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

Parties "run" who their members elect at the polls...oh wait...not so much if you're the Democratic Party...then it's who the Democratic leadership DECIDES who should get the nomination!  I was never a Trump supporter but I'd rather have him...selected by the voters...then someone chosen by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That article proves my point thanks[/QUOTE]

Do any of you people have the ability to read an entire article and not cherry pick the parts that you like as you ignore what you don't?  You're as bad as Rshermr!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy?  Honestly?  Is she the best you've got?  That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

I'm not "confident"!  If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do none of you people have the ability to read an entire article and not cherry pick the parts that you like as you ignore what you don't?  You're as bad as Rshermr![/QUOTE]
It's you guys who cherry pick. The depression was already under way and it made Americans buy American goods and services. I see how it had some short term pain but it didn't cause the great depression.

And assuming you are right, does trump agree with you? Because he wants to make trade fair again. That means tariffs. Just like every other country does despite the corporations wishes.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Nope I like her. I know she'll triangulate with the Republicans more than Bernie or Obama and that's good and bad but the only thing I don't miss was the GOP constantly playing politics for all 4 years because as soon as the 2016 election is over they start running for the 2018 midterms. They don't govern.

And too many Americans only vote every 4 years. We can't take this country back because only 30% vote ever 2 years.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


8 years of hillary.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 27, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy!  Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about?  Using political power to enrich themselves.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Poor Oldstyle.  The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose.  But each time, he was crushed.  Poor sad little mind.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 27, 2016)

[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.


----------



## Markle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Not for all regulations, all the extraneous, pointless outrageously expensive and intrusive regulations.  Those are one of the major reason Brexit passed and one of the reasons Donald Trump is doing so well.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You say that as though wages haven't been going up after falling due to Bush's Great Recession.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Let's get rid of those regulations! One at a time.

But no, trump didn't win the GOP nomination because of regulations because Republicans are all against regulations.

And trumps not doing well.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You do know Trump is running on the platform of adding more tariiffs, right?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

[/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose!  I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School!  After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation.  Barack Obama's "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies...ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]

What lies?  About being under sniper fire?  That was weird but she said she made a mistake.  Move on.

Now what other lies?  And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories.  What has she got caught lying about?  

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump?  How convenient.  

*But she may very well be a panderer.*

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wage growth has been essentially flat for twenty years, Faun.  What's amusing is that you refer to this as Bush's recession when he's been back in Crawford, Texas cutting brush for the past eight years while Barack Obama sat in the Oval Office.  It's only become a "Great Recession" because Obama hasn't had a clue how to deal with the economy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And all these assholes calling Hillary a liar.  Ask Kasich Cruz or Rubio if they want to do away with Social Security.  What will they say, the truth?  Fuck no!  But we all know they do want to do away with it.  So why don't they just be honest about it?

The report found that Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security and are willing to pay more to preserve and even improve benefits. 

With more than 59 million people receiving Social Security benefits, Americans recognize that Social Security is a critical program. Large majorities of Americans say they don’t mind paying Social Security taxes because of the security and stability the benefits provide to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers. These findings hold true across party lines (those agreeing include 87% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans). Americans are also willing to pay for Social Security because they value it for themselves (73%) and their families (73%).

That's why Republicans have to lie because their ideas are very unpopular.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.
> 
> Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
> So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.



Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]

What lies?  About being under sniper fire?  That was weird but she said she made a mistake.  Move on.

Now what other lies?  And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories.  What has she got caught lying about? 

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump?  How convenient. 

*But she may very well be a panderer.*

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.[/QUOTE]

What lies?  Seriously, Sealy?  I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at!  They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Who knows what you were saying because your history here only goes back to 2012 when you were bitching about Benghazi and immigrants coming into the country.

There is no way to expect a fair and balanced opinion from you.  You're clearly brainwashed and set in your ways.  But that's cool.  We don't need you to get Hillary elected.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.
> ...



What lies?  About being under sniper fire?  That was weird but she said she made a mistake.  Move on.

Now what other lies?  And I'm not talking about conspiracy theories.  What has she got caught lying about?

Hillary Clinton is not a liar.

You want to judge her harsher than you judge all Republicans including Trump?  How convenient.

*But she may very well be a panderer.*

Birds fly. Fish swim. And politicians tell people what they want to hear. But that doesn’t make them liars.

More than 7 million people have watched a YouTube video entitled, “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.”

As the video begins, a popup appears, promising that the video is not intended to be in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy and that a similar video for the presumptive Republican nominee would be coming soon:

There’s just one problem with the video: much of what it shows isn’t actually Hillary Clinton lying; it’s just typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a a diverse, heterogenous democratic society.[/QUOTE]

What lies?  Seriously, Sealy?  I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at!  They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar![/QUOTE]
Such as?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What lies?  Seriously, Sealy?  I could spend days listing the lies that she's told and been caught at!  They are so numerous it's laughable that anyone would make the claim that Hillary is not a liar![/QUOTE]
Such as?[/QUOTE]

Lets compare lying Don to Truthful Hillary
*Clinton's statements by ruling*
Click on the ruling to see all of Clinton's statements for that ruling.


True50 (23%)(50)
Mostly True61 (28%)(61)
Half True46 (21%)(46)
Mostly False32 (15%)(32)
False24 (11%)(24)
Pants on Fire3 (1%)(3)
*Trump's statements by ruling*
Click on the ruling to see all of Trump's statements for that ruling.


True4 (2%)(4)
Mostly True12 (7%)(12)
Half True24 (14%)(24)
Mostly False27 (16%)(27)
False69 (41%)(69)
Pants on Fire34 (20%)(34)


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Trump has only 4 statements that are completely true.  lol


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Real data typically remains relatively flat. That's what happens when you factor in inflation. While there are some nominal hills/valleys during strong/weak economies, real data doesn't move much.

And it's been Bush's Great Recession since it started in 2007.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression?  Did you even read it?  You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression?  Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed.  Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention?  Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?[/QUOTE]
Actually, as I am sure you read, it states clearly that sh had little to nothing to do with the start. Of the Great Republican DePression.  That was the question. The question was not  whether
Pression


Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose!  you lie again, because you said he would loose, time after time.I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School!  After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation.  Barack Obama's Right, dipshit.  You attacked the sitting president in every possible way 24/7/365 with empty accusations and lies.  Because you are a conservative troll, with no ability to discuss things using logic. "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies..Again, lying using standard con talking points.  You do not admit that republicans mad many, many changes to the bill, than all voted against it.  It must be cool to be able to believe what you want to believe, without any rational thought.  For most it would be hell, for you it is heaven..ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!    
So, how many posts is this now that have NO economic argument.  Just dogma, and lies.  There were many democratic bills brought to congress to address the lingering unemployment.  All by Democrats.  And all were voted down by Republicans.  Every single one.  Then, as a con troll, you blame the President for the length of the recession.  But you know, and I know, that the ongoing recession was exactly what you and what the Republican congress wanted.   And you, as I, know that with Republicans doing nothing except voting down bills, there was NO chance any president, even if he was the second coming of Christ, could do about the effects of the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Because congress controlled the process, completely.  And because congress wanted the recession to continue for as long as possible.  AS DID YOU.  Because, you see, you do not care about the middle class, at all.  *BECAUSE YOU ARE A CON TROLL, AND LIKE ALL CON TROLLS, YOU CARE NOT AT ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS.  BECAUSE YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN.  ANDA COMPLETE JOKE.*
What is really, really funny is that a person who can not discuss economic theory accuses others of not understanding economic theory.  All you ever, ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.  And make personal attacks.  
For instance, you have no theory of what needs to be done about the recession aftermath, or what should have been done at the time of the worst of the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Nothing.  Just Conservative Nut Case Talking Points.  Which makes you irrelivent.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you REALLY think they care about money?  They may care about power, legacy & fame and they might like helping people but I don't think Hillary or Trump need money.  Do you?  

To guys like Trump and the Koch brothers it's a game.  And they truly believe trickle down is the way things should work.  Do you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose!  I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School!  After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation.  Barack Obama's "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies...ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!
So, there is Oldstyle who usually spends his time trying to modify republican history, now trying to modify his own history.  You were sure and you stated over and over, in two elections, how happy you were to see that Obama would loose.  And now, as a proven liar, you simply continue to lie.
It is really funny to see a person who has never accomplished anything in his entire life criticizing a person who came from a background with nothing to become the President of the United States.  And, as a Bat Shit Crazy Conservative Troll, you have attacked him 24/7/365.  With no economic arguments, just plain bat shit crazy conservative talking points.
The Great Republican Recession of 2008 was really, really important.  Obama passed a bill that was really difficult to stop the economy from plunging into a depression.  And on the very eve of the beginning of his term of President of the United States, Republican congressional leaders went into a secret meeting and agreed to block anything he tried to do.  Unconditionally.  And signed a pledge to never raise taxes.  Unconditionally.  And have done as they said they would.  And have blocked every bill brought forward to help with the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  And you, Oldstyle, have blindly supported their every move.  Though what they did, and what you supported, badly hurt the middle class of your own nation.  And  you did not care, because you are a mindless Conservative Troll, uninterested and incapable of rational thought, or of rational economic argument.  *YOU ARE, AS A RESULT, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.  CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE A CONFIRMED MINDLESS TROLL.
BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ARE CERTAINLY CAPABLE OF PLENTY OF LIES, AND PLENTY OF UNFOUNDED PERSONAL ATTACKS.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
ANOTHER LIE, OLDSTYLE?  WHAT A SURPRISE.   I never, in my life, expected or claimed that any politician does not lie to some degree.  What I do, however, is agree with Factcheck.org, which concluded that the person who tells the most lies is TRUMP.  He is, indeed, the king of liars.  But you would not notice, being a brain dead con troll.
And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie.  Because, as you know, I never, ever lie.  Never.  Just you making personal attacks with no proof.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Actually, as I am sure you read, it states clearly that sh had little to nothing to do with the start. Of the Great Republican DePression.  That was the question. The question was not  whether
Pression


Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose!  you lie again, because you said he would loose, time after time.I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"...someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School!  After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation.  Barack Obama's Right, dipshit.  You attacked the sitting president in every possible way 24/7/365 with empty accusations and lies.  Because you are a conservative troll, with no ability to discuss things using logic. "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies..Again, lying using standard con talking points.  You do not admit that republicans mad many, many changes to the bill, than all voted against it.  It must be cool to be able to believe what you want to believe, without any rational thought.  For most it would be hell, for you it is heaven..ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!   
So, how many posts is this now that have NO economic argument.  Just dogma, and lies.  There were many democratic bills brought to congress to address the lingering unemployment.  All by Democrats.  And all were voted down by Republicans.  Every single one.  Then, as a con troll, you blame the President for the length of the recession.  But you know, and I know, that the ongoing recession was exactly what you and what the Republican congress wanted.   And you, as I, know that with Republicans doing nothing except voting down bills, there was NO chance any president, even if he was the second coming of Christ, could do about the effects of the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Because congress controlled the process, completely.  And because congress wanted the recession to continue for as long as possible.  AS DID YOU.  Because, you see, you do not care about the middle class, at all.  *BECAUSE YOU ARE A CON TROLL, AND LIKE ALL CON TROLLS, YOU CARE NOT AT ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS.  BECAUSE YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN.  ANDA COMPLETE JOKE.*
What is really, really funny is that a person who can not discuss economic theory accuses others of not understanding economic theory.  All you ever, ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.  And make personal attacks.  
For instance, you have no theory of what needs to be done about the recession aftermath, or what should have been done at the time of the worst of the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Nothing.  Just Conservative Nut Case Talking Points.  Which makes you irrelivent.[/QUOTE]
They don't realize they lose all credibility when the call him Barry


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

She'll have cashed in enough in the first four that she won't need another term, Sealy!  Haven't you figured out that's what the Clinton's were always about?  Using political power to enrich themselves.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
Poor Oldstyle.  The last two elections have shown him telling all that would listen that Obama would loose.  But each time, he was crushed.  Poor sad little mind.[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Actually I told all that Obama "should" lose...not that he would lose!  I believe I referred to him as an "empty suit"    E*MPTY SUIT?  YOU MEAN LIKE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING.  LETS SEE WHAT OBAMA ACCOMPLISHED WITH A LIFE THAT STARTED WITH NOTHING, ME BOY:  *.
"Childhood & Early Life

He was born as Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961, *in Honolulu,* Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr. and his wife, Stanley Ann Dunham. His mother was a white American, of mostly English ancestry while his father was a black Kenyan. His parents separated when Barack was just an infant.


His mother was still a student when she gave birth to Barack Obama and Obama lived with his maternal grandparents for a few years while his mother completed her education.


Barack Obama graduated from high school in 1979 and moved to Los Angeles to attend *Occidental College. In 1981*, he transferred to *Columbia College, Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialty in international relations.* He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1983.


From June 1985 to May 1988, he worked as a community organizer for low-income residents in the Roseland and the Altgeld Gardens communities.


He entered *Harvard Law School in the fall of 1988 and graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1991*. As a student, he served as the *president of the Harvard Law Review,* and his *election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review* gained national media attention.
Career

He took up a part-time teaching position at the *University of Chicago Law School in 1992 as a lecturer, eventually becoming a Senior Lecturer in 1996.*


He joined the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland to practice as a civil rights lawyer. He served as an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then as counsel from 1996 to 2004.


He ventured into politics and successfully ran as a Democrat for a seat in the Illinois State Senate in 1996. He sponsored a law that increased tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. He was reelected in 1998 and then again in 2002.


He decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and won in an unexpected landslide in the primary election in March. He delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention following which he became very popular. He was sworn in as a senator on January 3, 2005


As the Senator, he cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act and introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. He also sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act and an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act to add safeguards for personality-disorder military discharges.


An ambitious man and a successful political figure in the U.S., Barack Obama decided to run for the presidency and announced his candidacy for President of United States, in 2007. He was chosen as Democratic Party’s presidential candidate


He defeated Republican presidential nominee John McCain in the United States presidential election on November 4, 2008. Obama received 365 electoral votes as compared to 173 electoral votes received by McCain. His running mate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, became vice president.


Barack Obama was sworn in as the president on January 20, 2009. He assumed the position at a time when the American economy was in a chaos, in the midst of a severe global recession.


He set to work immediately and started implementing financial reforms to bring down the national debt while also focusing on the education and health care system in the country. His top most priority was to stabilize the American economy which had taken a beating during the global recession.


*In order to help the economy recover from the recession, he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion economic stimulus package that included increased federal spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives.*


He stressed on the importance of innovation economics to make the United States more competitive globally in his 2011 State of the Union Address. The same year, he signed the Budget Control Act in an effort to control government spending and prevent the government from defaulting on its financial obligations.


Obama became the president at a politically turbulent time and handled a number of military and security issues during his presidency. He authorized a raid on what was believed to be the location of Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, in Pakistan. The operation, conducted by United States Navy SEALs on 1 May 2011 resulted in the death of bin Laden and the seizure of papers, computer drives and disks from the compound where he was hiding.


In his first term as the president, he supported same-sex marriages and fought for a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. He also made college education more affordable for millions of students. All these moves, along with the pivotal role he played in helping the American economy recover from the recession and in controlling terrorism made him an extremely respected and popular president.


Barack Obama faced Republican opponent Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. He won the election and was sworn in for a second term on 20 January, 2013. In his second term, he has called for full equality for LGBT Americans and has sought to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba.
Major Works

In 2009 he signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to promote economic growth in the midst of the major global recession. Within months there was a surge in the number of jobs being created and unemployment claims began to subside. *Over the period of one year, a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs were created.*


Obama d*oubled renewable power generation during his first term.* In 2009, he issued orders to all federal agencies to cut down on their environmental impacts by 2020. A 30 percent reduction in fleet gasoline use, and 26 percent boost in water efficiency are some of the goals envisioned to achieve lower environmental impacts over the next few years.


As the president, his major focus was on revitalizing the American economy after the recession and he signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) in order to re-regulate the financial sector after its decline during the recession.


He authorized the operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, to go ahead with the r*aid on Osama bin Laden*'s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in May 2011. The operation resulted in the death of the infamous terrorist who had managed to evade capture so far.


He is also well known for his stance on same-sex marriages and LGBT rights. He called for full equality for gays during his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013—this was the first time that a president mentioned gay rights or the word gay in an inaugural address. He supports same sex couples adopting children.
Awards & Achievements

He is the recipient of two Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards. He won the awards for the abridged audiobook versions of ‘Dreams from My Father’ (2006) and for ‘The Audacity of Hope’ (2008).


In 2009, the* Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Barack Obama "f*or his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".


The *‘Time’ magazine named Obama as its Person of the Year twice, in 2008 and in 2012."*
.Read more at Barack Obama Biography.
SO, EMPTY SUIT???  NOT QUITE, MY BOY.  IF YOU WANT TO SEE A TRUE EVPTY SUIT LOOK IN YOUR MIRROR,

someone who was nothing more than vague promises and catchy slogans who had really never accomplished anything exceptional since graduation from Harvard Law School!  After nearly eight years in office I stand by that evaluation.  Barack Obama's "legacy" is ObamaCare, a piece of legislation so flawed that it could only be passed with lies...ISIS, the JV team...and The Great Recession, that stretched on far longer than need be because Barry knew as much economic theory as you do!  T*HE RECESSION WAS A BIG DEAL, AND THREATENED TO BECOME A TRUE DEPRESSION AS HE WAS AS HE WAS INAUGURATED IN JANUARY OF 2008.  PER THE CBO AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, THE RECESSION WAS STOPPED, AND A DEPRESSION AVERTED, BY THE ARRA.  WHICH, BY THE WAY, WAS A BILL VOTED AGAINST BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN.  AND, THOSE SAME REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN BROUGHT EXACTLY ZERO, AS IN 0, BILLS FORWARD TO ALLEVIATE THE VERY RECESSION THAT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR.  *

So, there is Oldstyle who usually spends his time trying to modify republican history, now trying to modify his own history.  You were sure and you stated over and over, in two elections, how happy you were to see that Obama would loose.  And now, as a proven liar, you simply continue to lie.   It is really funny to see a person who has never accomplished anything in his entire life criticizing a person who came from a background with nothing to become the President of the United States.  And, as a Bat Shit Crazy Conservative Troll, you have attacked him 24/7/365.  With no economic arguments, just plain bat shit crazy conservative talking points.
And on the very eve of the beginning of his term of President of the United States, Republican congressional leaders went into a secret meeting and agreed to block anything he tried to do.  Unconditionally.  And signed a pledge to never raise taxes.  Unconditionally.  And have done as they said they would.  And have blocked every bill brought forward to help with the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  And you, Oldstyle, have blindly supported their every move.  Though what they did, and what you supported, badly hurt the middle class of your own nation.  And  you did not care, because you are a mindless Conservative Troll, uninterested and incapable of rational thought, or of rational economic argument.  *YOU ARE, AS A RESULT, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.  CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE A CONFIRMED MINDLESS TROLL.*
*BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ARE CERTAINLY CAPABLE OF PLENTY OF LIES, AND PLENTY OF UNFOUNDED PERSONAL ATTACKS.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.
> 
> Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
> So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.



Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
ANOTHER LIE, OLDSTYLE?  WHAT A SURPRISE.   I never, in my life, expected or claimed that any politician does not lie to some degree.  What I do, however, is agree with Factcheck.org, which concluded that the person who tells the most lies is TRUMP.  He is, indeed, the king of liars.  But you would not notice, being a brain dead con troll.
And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie.  Because, as you know, I never, ever lie.  Never.  Just you making personal attacks with no proof.[/QUOTE]

You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie!  You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics.  You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!  You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!  You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

So your "authority" on Barack Obama's accomplishments is a website from India?  Typical, Rshermr...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Show me where I stated over and over in two elections how happy I would be to see that Obama would lose!  What  I stated over and over again is that I didn't feel he was qualified to be President and that the platform he was running on was vague and unspecific.  What I stated over and over again was that ObamaCare was flawed legislation and that we were lied to about what it was and what it would cost.  What I stated over and over again was that the Obama Stimulus spent huge amounts of money and created so few new jobs that the Obama Administration was forced to invent "Jobs Created or Saved" to hide how bad it was.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


They don't realize they lose all credibility when the call him Barry[/QUOTE]

You two claim that I said Obama would lose?  Show me where that took place!  I consistently pointed out why I thought he SHOULD lose but unlike you, I'm a realist who grasped that it's hard to win an election when the main stream media is totally in the tank for your opponent.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.
> ...


ANOTHER LIE, OLDSTYLE?  WHAT A SURPRISE.   I never, in my life, expected or claimed that any politician does not lie to some degree.  What I do, however, is agree with Factcheck.org, which concluded that the person who tells the most lies is TRUMP.  He is, indeed, the king of liars.  But you would not notice, being a brain dead con troll.
And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie.  Because, as you know, I never, ever lie.  Never.  Just you making personal attacks with no proof.[/QUOTE]

You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie!  You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics.  You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!  You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!  You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try![/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar
* SHOW US WHERE I EVER SAID THAT HILLARY HAS NOT LIED.  BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE LYING.
*
Kind of like you, little buddy
*YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN A LIE BY ME, BECAUSE I NEVER LIE.
*
..like a college graduate with a degree in economics.
*ANOTHER ACCUSATION WITH NO PROOF.  I KEEP GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO MAKE MONEY IF I CAN NOT PRODUCE A COLLEGE DIPLOMA THAT I SAID I HAVE, BUT YOU NEVER TAKE IT UP.  ARE YOU SIMPLY GUTLESS, AS I BELIEVE?
*
Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications! 
*PLEASE SHOW PROOF THAT IT IS A FABRICATION.
*
You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!
*ONE CONDITION USUALLY DOES NOT MAKE ONE MR CONDITIONS.  EXCEPT IF YOU AGREE TO A CONDITION THAT YOU CAN NOT MAKE.  AND I SAID I PUT YOU ON IGNORE, AND I DID.  YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT I DID NOT, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU CAN NOT.
*
"Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"
*I DID NOT SAY THE ABOVE.  WHAT I SAID WAS SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS THAT BEFORE I RETIRED I HAD A SECRETARY THAT ALWAYS EDITED MY LETTERS.  WHICH WAS TRUE.  DID YOU HAVE PROOF THAT I DID NOT?  DO YOU WANT TO PUT SOME MONEY ON ME NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE?  OR ARE YOU A COWARD AGAIN?
*
Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try
*PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT CLINTON IS THE MOST PROLIFIC LIAR, AS I DID WITH TRUMP.
AND I, AS YOU WELL KNOW, NEVER EVER LIE.  WHICH IS WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME MAKING STUPID ATTEMPTS AT PROVING THAT I DO LIE.  BECAUSE, ME BOY, I DO NOT.  
*


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You two claim that I said Obama would lose?  Show me where that took place!  I consistently pointed out why I thought he SHOULD lose but unlike you, I'm a realist who grasped that it's hard to win an election when the main stream media is totally in the tank for your opponent.[/QUOTE]
Who cares.  The problem is that you want him to lose.  I don't know what you do for a living you feel that you lifestyle is protected by the GOP but most of us are negatively impacted by Reaganomics, trickle down, Bushanomics and Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan economics.  Stop trying to push it on us.

And as for social issues, you are all gun nuts and anti choice freaks.  Racists, xenaphobes, pro pollution and to top it all off you are Christians who don't like to heal the sick or feed the poor.  You lose Presidential elections because most Americans don't agree with you.  You win midterms because most Americans are so frustrated and they don't think it matters so they don't show up.  But of the 30% of us who do vote in midterms, more than half are usually rich old white Republicans.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You two claim that I said Obama would lose?  Show me where that took place!  I consistently pointed out why I thought he SHOULD lose but unlike you, I'm a realist who grasped that it's hard to win an election when the main stream media is totally in the tank for your opponent.[/QUOTE]

NO NEED TO GO BACK 4 TO 8 YEARS.  NOT EVEN SURE YOU CAN.  BUT IF YOU COULD, YOU SHOULD DO SO.  BY THE WAY, OLDSTYLE, WHEN I ACCUSED YOU OF LYING AND COULD GO BACK AND PROVE YOU DID, YOU EVEN THEN CLAIMED YOU WERE NOT LYING.  THAT IS YOUR MO.  I BELIEVE THE LIMIT IS JUST OVER 3 YEARS, BUT NOT SURE.
AND IT IS FUNNY THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR THE "MAINSTREAM MEDIA".  STANDARD FUNNY BAT SHIT CRAZY CON TALKING POINT. BUT YOU LOVE THE BAT SHIT CRAZY CON SOURCES.  FOX, ETC.   *YOU ARE, AGAIN, IRRELEVANT.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So your "authority" on Barack Obama's accomplishments is a website from India?  Typical, Rshermr...




So your "authority" on Barack Obama's accomplishments is a website from India?
*DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS?

DID YOU THINK THAT THEY ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS, ME BOY?

ARE YOU JUST BEING A CON TROLL AGAIN?

ARE THERE ACCOMPLISHMENTS LISTED THAT ARE UNTRUE THAT YOU CAN NAME?

ARE THERE TOO FEW ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

DID YOU FEEL THAT A WEBSITE FROM THE US WOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO LIST HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

CAN YOU PROVE THAT SOMETHING IS UNTRUE IN THE LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS?*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie!  You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics.  You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!  You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!  You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try![/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar
* SHOW US WHERE I EVER SAID THAT HILLARY HAS NOT LIED.  BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE LYING.
*
Kind of like you, little buddy
*YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN A LIE BY ME, BECAUSE I NEVER LIE.
*
..like a college graduate with a degree in economics.
*ANOTHER ACCUSATION WITH NO PROOF.  I KEEP GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO MAKE MONEY IF I CAN NOT PRODUCE A COLLEGE DIPLOMA THAT I SAID I HAVE, BUT YOU NEVER TAKE IT UP.  ARE YOU SIMPLY GUTLESS, AS I BELIEVE?
*
Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!
*PLEASE SHOW PROOF THAT IT IS A FABRICATION.
*
You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!
*ONE CONDITION USUALLY DOES NOT MAKE ONE MR CONDITIONS.  EXCEPT IF YOU AGREE TO A CONDITION THAT YOU CAN NOT MAKE.  AND I SAID I PUT YOU ON IGNORE, AND I DID.  YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT I DID NOT, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU CAN NOT.
*
"Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"
*I DID NOT SAY THE ABOVE.  WHAT I SAID WAS SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS THAT BEFORE I RETIRED I HAD A SECRETARY THAT ALWAYS EDITED MY LETTERS.  WHICH WAS TRUE.  DID YOU HAVE PROOF THAT I DID NOT?  DO YOU WANT TO PUT SOME MONEY ON ME NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE?  OR ARE YOU A COWARD AGAIN?
*
Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try
*PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT CLINTON IS THE MOST PROLIFIC LIAR, AS I DID WITH TRUMP.
AND I, AS YOU WELL KNOW, NEVER EVER LIE.  WHICH IS WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME MAKING STUPID ATTEMPTS AT PROVING THAT I DO LIE.  BECAUSE, ME BOY, I DO NOT.  *
[/QUOTE]

For some reason you seem to think that posting you aren't a liar *IN CAPS *makes it more believable!  You do it every time you get caught telling lies and it's as pathetic NOW as it was the first time you did it!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So your "authority" on Barack Obama's accomplishments is a website from India?  Typical, Rshermr...
> ...



*"Over the period of one year, a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs were created."

Let's start with that one.  Show me where Barack Obama created 3.7 new private sector jobs his first year in office!*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


    [/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar
* SHOW US WHERE I EVER SAID THAT HILLARY HAS NOT LIED.  BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE LYING.
*
Kind of like you, little buddy
*YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN A LIE BY ME, BECAUSE I NEVER LIE.
*
..like a college graduate with a degree in economics.
*ANOTHER ACCUSATION WITH NO PROOF.  I KEEP GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO MAKE MONEY IF I CAN NOT PRODUCE A COLLEGE DIPLOMA THAT I SAID I HAVE, BUT YOU NEVER TAKE IT UP.  ARE YOU SIMPLY GUTLESS, AS I BELIEVE?
*
Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!
*PLEASE SHOW PROOF THAT IT IS A FABRICATION.
*
You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!
*ONE CONDITION USUALLY DOES NOT MAKE ONE MR CONDITIONS.  EXCEPT IF YOU AGREE TO A CONDITION THAT YOU CAN NOT MAKE.  AND I SAID I PUT YOU ON IGNORE, AND I DID.  YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT I DID NOT, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU CAN NOT.
*
"Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"
*I DID NOT SAY THE ABOVE.  WHAT I SAID WAS SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS THAT BEFORE I RETIRED I HAD A SECRETARY THAT ALWAYS EDITED MY LETTERS.  WHICH WAS TRUE.  DID YOU HAVE PROOF THAT I DID NOT?  DO YOU WANT TO PUT SOME MONEY ON ME NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE?  OR ARE YOU A COWARD AGAIN?
*
Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try
*PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT CLINTON IS THE MOST PROLIFIC LIAR, AS I DID WITH TRUMP.
AND I, AS YOU WELL KNOW, NEVER EVER LIE.  WHICH IS WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME MAKING STUPID ATTEMPTS AT PROVING THAT I DO LIE.  BECAUSE, ME BOY, I DO NOT.  *
[/QUOTE]

For some reason you seem to think that posting you aren't a liar *IN CAPS *makes it more believable!  You do it every time you get caught telling lies and it's as pathetic NOW as it was the first time you did it!

I am sure you know I do not lie.  I put it in caps so you actually see that you are lying about me again.  Because it is an unusual trait that you have.  Most people do not lie like you do, over and over and over, with no proof.  

So, is that it.  The rest of what you said was just, as we thought, conservative talking points and lies?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



NO NEED TO GO BACK 4 TO 8 YEARS.  NOT EVEN SURE YOU CAN.  BUT IF YOU COULD, YOU SHOULD DO SO.  BY THE WAY, OLDSTYLE, WHEN I ACCUSED YOU OF LYING AND COULD GO BACK AND PROVE YOU DID, YOU EVEN THEN CLAIMED YOU WERE NOT LYING.  THAT IS YOUR MO.  I BELIEVE THE LIMIT IS JUST OVER 3 YEARS, BUT NOT SURE.
AND IT IS FUNNY THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR THE "MAINSTREAM MEDIA".  STANDARD FUNNY BAT SHIT CRAZY CON TALKING POINT. BUT YOU LOVE THE BAT SHIT CRAZY CON SOURCES.  FOX, ETC.   *YOU ARE, AGAIN, IRRELEVANT.*[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now you're saying you have no proof...after saying that you did?  I thought you didn't lie?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Let's start with that one.  Show me where Barack Obama created 3.7 new private sector jobs his first year in office!
*It is part of the biography.  The source is well respected.  If they were incorrect, pleas show that they were wrong.  Because now, it is simply the experts, and you.  And my money is on the experts.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar
* SHOW US WHERE I EVER SAID THAT HILLARY HAS NOT LIED.  BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE LYING.
*
Kind of like you, little buddy
*YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN A LIE BY ME, BECAUSE I NEVER LIE.
*
..like a college graduate with a degree in economics.
*ANOTHER ACCUSATION WITH NO PROOF.  I KEEP GIVING YOU THE CHANCE TO MAKE MONEY IF I CAN NOT PRODUCE A COLLEGE DIPLOMA THAT I SAID I HAVE, BUT YOU NEVER TAKE IT UP.  ARE YOU SIMPLY GUTLESS, AS I BELIEVE?
*
Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!
*PLEASE SHOW PROOF THAT IT IS A FABRICATION.
*
You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!
*ONE CONDITION USUALLY DOES NOT MAKE ONE MR CONDITIONS.  EXCEPT IF YOU AGREE TO A CONDITION THAT YOU CAN NOT MAKE.  AND I SAID I PUT YOU ON IGNORE, AND I DID.  YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT I DID NOT, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU CAN NOT.
*
"Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"
*I DID NOT SAY THE ABOVE.  WHAT I SAID WAS SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS THAT BEFORE I RETIRED I HAD A SECRETARY THAT ALWAYS EDITED MY LETTERS.  WHICH WAS TRUE.  DID YOU HAVE PROOF THAT I DID NOT?  DO YOU WANT TO PUT SOME MONEY ON ME NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE?  OR ARE YOU A COWARD AGAIN?
*
Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try
*PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT CLINTON IS THE MOST PROLIFIC LIAR, AS I DID WITH TRUMP.
AND I, AS YOU WELL KNOW, NEVER EVER LIE.  WHICH IS WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME MAKING STUPID ATTEMPTS AT PROVING THAT I DO LIE.  BECAUSE, ME BOY, I DO NOT.  *
[/QUOTE]

For some reason you seem to think that posting you aren't a liar *IN CAPS *makes it more believable!  You do it every time you get caught telling lies and it's as pathetic NOW as it was the first time you did it!

I am sure you know I do not lie.  I put it in caps so you actually see that you are lying about me again.  Because it is an unusual trait that you have.  Most people do not lie like you do, over and over and over, with no proof.  

So, is that it.  The rest of what you said was just, as we thought, conservative talking points and lies?[/QUOTE]

LOL...you want me to prove that A-B=Jobs Saved is a fabrication?  Prove that it isn't!  Tell us all what A equals!  Tell us all what B equals!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oh, so now you're saying you have no proof...after saying that you did?  I thought you didn't lie?[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now you're saying you have no proof...after saying that you did?  I thought you didn't lie?
*Please show me where I said I had proof.  I remember saying I remembered, which I do.  

Soooo, now the issue has changed from whether or not you said that obama would loose, to that i lied about you saying it.  Really, Oldstyle, you are twisting and turning in the wind, and avoiding answering questions.  You lack integrity.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Term* *Private Sector
Jobs Added (000s)*
Carter 9,041
Reagan 1 5,360
Reagan 2 9,357
GHW Bush 1,510
Clinton 1 10,884
Clinton 2 10,073
GW Bush 1 -844
GW Bush 2 381
Obama 1 2,018
Obama 2 6,9261
132 months into 2nd term: 10,389 pace.

Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Since Obama only created a little over 2 million private sector jobs in his entire first term...would you care to explain how your "experts" came up with 3.7 million for his first year?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Oh, so now you're saying you have no proof...after saying that you did?  I thought you didn't lie?
*Please show me where I said I had proof.  I remember saying I remembered, which I do.  *[/QUOTE]

Oh, so your "memory" is now what we're accepting as proof?  Now THAT is funny!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Or saved.  You know we could show you proof but just like Paul Ryan won't accept those facts neither will you.  So if the leader of the GOP can deny facts so can you.

*Business has created jobs every month since Obamacare became law, Obama said in State of the Union*

*True*

*Barack Obama says U.S. economy is creating jobs at fastest pace since 1999

True

That means Bush was the loser in between two great presidents.  We should have voted for Al Gore.  Oh yea we did.  Jeb gave Florida to Georgie.
*


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I remember complaining that Bush's added jobs were all low pay service jobs or in tourism.  The dollar went so low foreigners were coming here to buy cheap shit.  You want fries with that Economy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

All True statements involving Barack Obama | PolitiFact

All of Obama's true statements.  He is a great president.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*Yes, happy to.  We were loosing over 600,000 jobs per month when Obama was inagurated as a result of the great republican recession of 2008.  The number was an estimate of both jobs created and saved.  Bad wording on their part, but the same thing.  Jobs that would not exist without the efforts of Obama and his creation of the ARRA.  *


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So you're admitting that Rshermr's India web site's figures for private sector job creation in Obama's first term weren't even CLOSE?  "NOW" you're going to throw in "jobs saved" in order to make things look better?  You two get more pathetic with each passing day!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



None

Half true

*Obama says stimulus is responsible for 2 million jobs saved or created*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So explain how your "expert" site came up with the figure 3.7 million jobs created in the private sector in Barry's first year, Georgie!  You claimed they were credible...I showed you that they were anything but!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Did you forget "jobs saved" was part of the schtick?  No wonder you vote GOP every 2 years.  Very short memory.  It was "created and/or saved" jobs.  You want to change the words to make a liar out of him.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oh, so your "memory" is now what we're accepting as proof?  Now THAT is funny![/QUOTE]
Wow.  Good deal.  You finally noticed what every one else has known for years.  Posts on this board are 98% remembering and beliefs, 2% proven fact.  On the con side of things, there is about 99% lies and talking points, as in what you post.  In my case, I can prove most things.  But in this case, it is too long ago,  However, two of us remember the same thing.  How about that.  Next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So you admit that your site's number is a total fabrication?  I thought they were "experts", Georgie?  How could experts be so wrong?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Show me where it says "jobs saved" in that site's claims?  They claim he created 3.7 million new jobs in the private sector that year.  The truth is, Barry had a net job loss in the private sector that first year...a rather LARGE net job loss!  So obviously that web site is useless.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Wow.  Good deal.  You finally noticed what every one else has known for years.  Posts on this board are 98% remembering and beliefs, 2% proven fact.  On the con side of things, there is about 99% lies and talking points, as in what you post.  In my case, I can prove most things.  But in this case, it is too long ago,  However, two of us remember the same thing.  How about that.  Next.[/QUOTE]

Caught telling another lie...and it's on to the "Next"?  I notice you didn't put THAT post in caps, Georgie!  LOL


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*You are again trying to change the subject.  The issue was, you said Obama is or was an empty suit.  You picked one issue out of a list of a hundred or so and made an attempt to make the whole article invalid.  Here is the problem:*
You showed, me boy, nothing.  But in your little mind, I suppose it makes sense to you.
Saying that the source is Indian was in itself stupid.  Here is the address, again:
Famous People - Famous People in History, Famous People List & Biography
If it were an indian source the web address would normally end in .in.  Not .com.  But most importantly, the site is a well respected source of information, respected by all but nut cases.  The source, like all sources, takes it's info from various places, and vets it. They are not an economic source.  And the single point you are trying to disprove makes no difference.  Obama created and saved many, many jobs.  

Your main problem is that you can not, or perhaps will not, understand that from the point of view of the unemployed, it makes no difference whether they were fired from a job, or did not get a new job created by government efforts.  Same thing to thinking people.  You are unemployed, or you are employed.  Obvious difference.
Thus, if you are employed because you found a newly created job, or if you are employed because your job was not eliminated, you could care less.  Unless, like Oldstyle, you are a con troll.  So, there you go.  Probably beyond your ability or will to understand.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Still waiting to hear what the A and B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved", Georgie!  You know...the total fabrication you came up with rather than admit you were wrong?  Fabrication = lie.  Rshermr = liar.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So you're claiming that your web site "vetted" the figure they quoted?  How exactly when it's obvious that number is wildly inaccurate?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Caught telling another lie...and it's on to the "Next"?  I notice you didn't put THAT post in caps, Georgie!  LOL[/QUOTE]
See, that is your problem, and your mo.  You say something is untrue, and that therefor someone was lying.  Lying needs proof.  You have none.  Because I did not lie.  And, as you know, I never ever lie.

Simply more personal attacks and lies and attempts to catch me in a lie, which you have again failed at.  Not even a good try.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*See my explanation above.  Are you unable to understand?

Please prove that the number is wildly inaccurate.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


See, that is your problem, and your mo.  You say something is untrue, and that therefor someone was lying.  Lying needs proof.  You have none.  Because I did not lie.  And, as you know, I never ever lie.

Simply more personal attacks and lies and attempts to catch me in a lie, which you have again failed at.  Not even a good try.[/QUOTE]

If you never lie...then you should be able to tell me what the A and B in your jobs saved formula stand for, Georgie!  Still waiting...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*Poor Oldstyle is limited to taking one claim in a list of over 50 accomplishments and trying to prove it false, which he can not do.  Pathetic. But the fact that he said Obama is an empty suit is really, really funny, coming from an EMPTY SUIT!!  POOR GUY HAS APPARENTLY NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.
*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



WHY DON'T YOU TRY THAT NEW SEARCH ENGINE, CALLED GOOGLE.  AND STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If you never lie...then you should be able to tell me what the A and B in your jobs saved formula stand for, Georgie!  Still waiting...[/QUOTE]

So, you insult me.  You call me a liar.  You attack me personally multiple times.  You then expect me to help you understand something.  You have to be kidding.  Did you think I owe you something, me boy.  If so, you are WRO


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Why don't you provide the A and B for your formula, "Mr I Never Lie!"?

Because you know the whole thing was never anything BUT a lie!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So, you insult me.  You call me a liar.  You attack me personally multiple times.  You then expect me to help you understand something.  You have to be kidding.  Did you think I owe you something, me boy.  If so, you are WRO[/QUOTE]

If calling you a liar over your A-B=Jobs Saved formula is a personal attack, Georgie...then the obvious antidote to that is proving me wrong by telling us all what A and B stand for!  You won't do that though...will you?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Well maybe India was talking about the total number of global jobs Obama saved.  Think about the impact of Brexit.  The GW Bush Great Recession of 2007 was much worse than Brexit.  If the global economy is doing better, thank Obama.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I actually DID use it...and the result of that search showed how wrong your India web site was.  

Obama had a net loss in private sector jobs his first year in office.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If you never lie...then you should be able to tell me what the A and B in your jobs saved formula stand for, Georgie!  Still waiting...[/QUOTE]
Here are the problems:
1.  I owe you no answer.
2.  I do not like people who attack me with no reason, like you.
3.  I do not like people who lie about me, like you.
4.  I do not like you, at all.
5.  Even after that,  you have NO integrity, and I really dislike people with no integrity.

So, based on those points of truth, I will not give you the answer you so badly want.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



LOL...now we're including "global" jobs saved in Barry's accomplishments?  You need to quit while you're behind, Sealy...you're embarrassing yourself now!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Here are the problems:
1.  I owe you no answer.
2.  I do not like people who attack me with no reason, like you.
3.  I do not like people who lie about me, like you.
4.  I do not like you, at all.
5.  Even after that,  you have NO integrity, and I really dislike people with no integrity.

So, based on those points of truth, I will not give you the answer you so badly want.[/QUOTE]

Translation...I've been caught lying again...so I'm taking my ball and going home!  You've given me the answer, Georgie!  You're a bullshit artist and when you get called on it you whine about personal attacks and refuse to answer questions you have no answers to.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I am shocked.  You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO.  A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE.  LOOK AND LEARN.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



IF YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR, YOU WILL SEE A PERSON WHO HAS EMBARRASSED HIMSELF.  OVER AND OVER AND OVER.  FACT IS, YOU DO NOT GET IT WHEN YOU ARE THE BUTT OF A JOKE.  
AND CALLING ANY PRESIDENT BY YOUR PET NAME ALSO PROVES YOU HAVE NO CLASS, NO INTEGRITY.  CONGRATULATIONS.  TWO FOR ONE.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



There's stupid...and then there is Georgie stupid!  Only you would answer a request for the net gain in private sector job growth for Obama's first year with an article that SPECIFICALLY IGNORES THE FIRST YEAR OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY!!!

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?  That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs.  They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Bush put the planet in a global recession.  Do you not understand that?  That's what bad leaders of the free world do.  Presidents like Obama pull the global economy out of the recession caused by republicans.  I can't believe you can't see this.  

I can't believe you are ignoring how important the USA is to the global economy.  But that shouldn't surprise me.  Remember you guys tried to shut down the government?  Didn't Trump talk about the USA going bankrupt and renegotiating our debt to China?  The GOP is the bankrupt party and the only ones who come out of bankruptcy stronger are rich people.  Trump turned 3 bankruptcies into billions of dollars, at the expense of the rest of us.  

How do you get rich?  By screwing other people apparently.  

But it is true our importance is slipping.  

U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines Nearly 50%

China's more important now.  Thanks Bush.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
ANOTHER LIE, OLDSTYLE?  WHAT A SURPRISE.   I never, in my life, expected or claimed that any politician does not lie to some degree.  What I do, however, is agree with Factcheck.org, which concluded that the person who tells the most lies is TRUMP.  He is, indeed, the king of liars.  But you would not notice, being a brain dead con troll.
And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie.  Because, as you know, I never, ever lie.  Never.  Just you making personal attacks with no proof.[/QUOTE]

You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie!  You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics.  You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!  You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!  You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try![/QUOTE]


Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]
NO, THAT IS OLDSTYLE STUPID.  WHICH IS THE SAME AS BUTT STUPID.  It makes no difference whether you see job gains in year one or year two, they are job gains that are probably the result of what happened a year again.  And I did not suggest that the source I provided was about year 1, it was a source proving that Obama's record has been exceptional.  Which is what it did prove.

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?  That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs.  They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good.  Must be 3.7 Million.  You see, me boy, I do not care.  Since you care so much, go find out for yourself.  And stop bothering me with your idiocy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Bush put the planet in a global recession.  Do you not understand that?  That's what bad leaders of the free world do.  Presidents like Obama pull the global economy out of the recession caused by republicans.  I can't believe you can't see this.

I can't believe you are ignoring how important the USA is to the global economy.  But that shouldn't surprise me.  Remember you guys tried to shut down the government?  Didn't Trump talk about the USA going bankrupt and renegotiating our debt to China?  The GOP is the bankrupt party and the only ones who come out of bankruptcy stronger are rich people.  Trump turned 3 bankruptcies into billions of dollars, at the expense of the rest of us.

How do you get rich?  By screwing other people apparently.

But it is true our importance is slipping.

U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines Nearly 50%

China's more important now.  Thanks Bush

Funny thing, and really sad, is that the dipshit is much more interested in proving that Obama was wrong in some way, rather than admitting that he was given a really bad situation.  And discussing it rationally.  Oldstyle is a true con troll, only pushing con talking points and making personal attacks.  He cares not at all about the middle class, only that the wealthy get more so.  That is what con trolls care about.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If Republicans didn't play these games they'd never win elections.  Think about how the fuck did Al Gore lose?  How?  Because people got sick of the GOP bashing the Clinton's and Gore so they just decided after 8 years to try something new.  I remember people saying, "how much harm can Bush 2 possibly do?" Because at the time the economy was rolling.  

I think 2000, more so than any other election in my life, people voted based on wedge issues.  And things were so good a lot of people didn't even bother to show up.  They didn't think it mattered.  So all the bible thumpers and all the neo cons and all the republicans who HATED the Clinton's showed up and it was close enough they could steal Florida and give the election to Bush.  And we know now the answer to "how much could he possibly screw things up".  The answer is a lot.  Who knew he'd send all the jobs overseas, start 2 wars while giving tax breaks to the rich, let all those illegals in, etc.  

And the truth is probably that we were slipping into a recession in 2000 but that's not what caused the 2008 recession.  The 2000 recession could have and should have been solved in a couple years.  The 2008 recession wasn't because of the 2000 recession.  The 2008 recession was caused by Bushanomics.  And it cost the global economy a lot of jobs.  So  yes, Obama saved jobs that weren't even here in America when he fixed Bush's mess.

Fact:  Of the seven largest economies in the world by GDP, only China avoided a recession in 2008.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie.  Because, as you know, I never, ever lie.  Never.  Just you making personal attacks with no proof.[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]

You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie!  You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics.  You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!  You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!  You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!


So, Oldstyle says:

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try!


Nobody?  Is that true, Oldstyle.  Lets see.  There is this bat shit crazy conservative web site I am sure you are familiar with, called the Daily Wire.  Crazy bullshit, but they did one thing well.  They kept track of Trump's lies for a while:

"Donald Trump has repeatedly labeled his political opponents liars. He dubbed Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Lyin' Ted when it became clear that Cruz was a serious rival for his nomination; he called Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) an "even bigger liar" than Cruz. He dubbed Dr. Ben Carson a "pathological liar" and said former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's lies were almost as bad as Cruz's. Trump has termed virtually every mildly adversarial media member a liar, too.

But there's only one truly massive liar in this race: Donald Trump. *When Politico attempted to measure how many lies Trump told over the course of 4.6 hours of speeches, they found that he lied, on average, once every five minutes. When Huffington Post catalogued his lies over the course of just one town hall event, they came up with 71 lies.* 
Lyin' Donald: 101 Of Trump's Greatest Lies

Looks like you loose.  The champ liar is Trump, just as Factcheck has said.


Which made it relatively easy to come up with this not-even-close-to-complete list of 101 lies from Donald Trump.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yup.  And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on.  The result was what dems always have known.  It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.  

Tends to make cons look bad, though.  I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

[/QUOTE]

If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor!  If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink!  The country is screwed either way.

Yes, well, so you would say.  But you have no proof.  Just a lot of republicans who have claimed she lies.  But then, as you should well know, you never believe liars.  And they are, me boy, all liars.
So, I never fully believe liars.  Factcheck keeps count of the number of untrue statements by person.  It was the president of the NRA.  But now it is Trump.  By a mile.[/QUOTE]

Only you would claim the Hillary Clinton isn't a liar, Georgie!  At this point it's not even debatable because she's been caught telling lies so often.  Kind of like you, little buddy![/QUOTE]
ANOTHER LIE, OLDSTYLE?  WHAT A SURPRISE.   I never, in my life, expected or claimed that any politician does not lie to some degree.  What I do, however, is agree with Factcheck.org, which concluded that the person who tells the most lies is TRUMP.  He is, indeed, the king of liars.  But you would not notice, being a brain dead con troll.
And,as you know, you have never proven that I lie.  Because, as you know, I never, ever lie.  Never.  Just you making personal attacks with no proof.[/QUOTE]

You prove that you're a liar whenever you post here, Georgie!  You claim to be things that you obviously are not...like a college graduate with a degree in economics.  You're "Mr A-B=Jobs Saved"...just one more of your fabrications!  You're "Mr Conditions"!  You're "Mr I Have You On Ignore"!  You're "Mr My Secretary Edits My Writing"!

Nobody comes close to the history of lies that Hillary Clinton has provided, Rshermr but you surely do try![/QUOTE]


Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]
NO, THAT IS OLDSTYLE STUPID.  WHICH IS THE SAME AS BUTT STUPID.  It makes no difference whether you see job gains in year one or year two, they are job gains that are probably the result of what happened a year again.  And I did not suggest that the source I provided was about year 1, it was a source proving that Obama's record has been exceptional.  Which is what it did prove.

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?  That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs.  They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good.  Must be 3.7 Million.  You see, me boy, I do not care.  Since you care so much, go find out for yourself.  And stop bothering me with your idiocy. [/QUOTE]

Now you don't care?  Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are?  I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Gee, how DID Al Gore lose!  Oh that's right...the people of Tennessee...the ones that should know him best since he's a native son of the State voted for the OTHER guy!  If Gore had simply won his home State he would have been President of the United States.  

Can't believe you're doubling down on giving Obama credit for saving jobs all over the world, Sealy!  How would you quantify that number by the way?  Would you use Rshermr's "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!  Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!  Reagan was a net tax cutter...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?  That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs.  They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
Good.  Must be 3.7 Million.  You see, me boy, I do not care.  Since you care so much, go find out for yourself.  And stop bothering me with your idiocy. [/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]

Now you don't care?  Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that.  You have been proven to be a nut case.  calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are.  Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know.  Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  And you could care less.  Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years.  And your republicans offered absolutely no help.  No efforts at all.  No bills.  All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward.  And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward. 
Get the picture, dipshit.  We were almost in a depression.  And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy.  You must be so proud of them.  But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism.  And that would, of course, include you.  Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved.  What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility.  And, you can not disprove that number.  You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers.  But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number.  Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit.  Do you see how stupid you look?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one.  This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!  ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny.  You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan.  Now, here is a problem.  You are again lying.  Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
*Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president.  You are lying again, me boy.*

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
*Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?*

Reagan was a net tax cutter
*Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that?  The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.*

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
*When did you think I tried to paint him as the above?   Looks like you are having problems with reality again. 


The facts are simple, me boy.  Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981.  The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses.  By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929.  The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl.  So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY.  Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER.  AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.  
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up).  Plain and simple.  But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.  
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began.  The first three years were in the toilet.  

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth.  Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed.  He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked.  Smart moves.  
*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?  That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs.  They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
> Good.  Must be 3.7 Million.  You see, me boy, I do not care.  Since you care so much, go find out for yourself.  And stop bothering me with your idiocy.


    [/QUOTE]

Now you don't care?  Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that.  You have been proven to be a nut case.  calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are.  Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know.  Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  And you could care less.  Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years.  And your republicans offered absolutely no help.  No efforts at all.  No bills.  All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward.  And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward. 
Get the picture, dipshit.  We were almost in a depression.  And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy.  You must be so proud of them.  But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism.  And that would, of course, include you.  Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved.  What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility.  And, you can not disprove that number.  You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers.  But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number.  Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit.  Do you see how stupid you look?[/QUOTE]

3.7 million jobs created in the Private Sector during Barack Obama's first year in office is "not at all out of the range of possibility"?  Really, Georgie!  Let's do some simple math...shall we!

If the total number of jobs created in the Private Sector during the first four years of Barack Obama's Presidency was a little over 2 million (as the graph I provided shows) and you now claim that he created 3.7 million in just year one...then how many millions of jobs would he have had to LOSE in the Private Sector during years 2,3 & 4 to make your 3.7 number "possible"?  That's 3.7 plus what negative number equals 2 million?  He would have had to lose upwards of 1.7 million jobs to make those numbers work!  So is that what you're claiming?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY.  Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER.  AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend"  President?  Were those your words that I quoted?  If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped.  He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 28, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I ask once again...what was the net gain in private sector jobs in Barack Obama's first year in office?  That was the time period that your "experts" said produced 3.7 million private sector jobs.  They're your experts, Rshermr...it's up to you to back up their claim!
> > Good.  Must be 3.7 Million.  You see, me boy, I do not care.  Since you care so much, go find out for yourself.  And stop bothering me with your idiocy.



Now you don't care?  Did you stop caring about the same time that your "experts" were shown to be almost as clueless about how many private sector jobs Barack Obama created in his first year as you are I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of revealing what a buffoon you really are, Georgie!

You know better than that.  You have been proven to be a nut case.  calling a president an empty suit, and being shown about forty major accomplishments leaves you looking like a punk. Which you are.  Can you possibly be more delusional?
Here is what I know.  Under republican politicians, president down, this country was loosing over 500,000 jobs per month.  And you could care less.  Those jobs all came back, per the experts on the subject, over a couple of years.  And your republicans offered absolutely no help.  No efforts at all.  No bills.  All they did was vote against every bill that was brought forward.  And held a meeting of high level republican officials where they set up a plan to vote down every bill Obama brought forward. 
Get the picture, dipshit.  We were almost in a depression.  And they simply went for totally political goals, to end a presidents tenure at 4 years, by continuing to kill the economy.  You must be so proud of them.  But for most of us, they were ass holes. And so is anyone supporting that obstructionism.  And that would, of course, include you.  Ass hole.
So, since you are such an obvious ass hole, why would anyone be surprise that you are making a big deal about one claim of one source that suggests an amount of jobs created or saved.  What has been proved has been that though he was given the second worst economic position of all time, that he has created more jobs than any but three other Presidents, and the number 3.7 million is not at all out of the range of possibility.  And, you can not disprove that number.  You could look at 20 different sources, and see 20 different numbers.  But being a con tool, you want to make a big deal out of the source using that particular number.  Because you are an ass hole.
So you, an empty suit who has accomplished nothing of import in your little life, call a sitting president an empty suit.  Do you see how stupid you look?[/QUOTE]

3.7 million jobs created in the Private Sector during Barack Obama's first year in office is "not at all out of the range of possibility"?  Really, Georgie!  Let's do some simple math...shall we!

If the total number of jobs created in the Private Sector during the first four years of Barack Obama's Presidency was a little over 2 million (as the graph I provided shows) and you now claim that he created 3.7 million in just year one...then how many millions of jobs would he have had to LOSE in the Private Sector during years 2,3 & 4 to make your 3.7 number "possible"?  That's 3.7 plus what negative number equals 2 million?  He would have had to lose upwards of 1.7 million jobs to make those numbers work!  So is that what you're claiming?[
This is apparently way to difficult for you to understand.  Your math is nonsense.
1.   It was, again, created and saved.  Since we were losing something like 600,000 jobs per month, which turned around to nothing.  Job losses in 2008 were 2.6 Million.
Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009
But at the same time, there were jobs created.  And their were jobs saved.  The Net for the first several months was jobs lost.
2.  Jobs created and saved did not ever happen instantly.   It is not like washing dishes, me boy.  It takes time for results from any move to take effect.
But, I would assume that the number is the total of new jobs created, and jobs that were saved.
So, why are you so crazy worried about a number about economics that came from a web source that deals in the overall record of famous people.  
So, perhaps you would like to tell me, in a article that has over 40 accomplishments of Obama, why you are so stuck on one.  I know, of course, but it makes no difference.  Sorry, you loose.  The source is very well respected.  
UNLIKE YOU.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 28, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



3.7 million jobs created in the Private Sector during Barack Obama's first year in office is "not at all out of the range of possibility"?  Really, Georgie!  Let's do some simple math...shall we!

If the total number of jobs created in the Private Sector during the first four years of Barack Obama's Presidency was a little over 2 million (as the graph I provided shows) and you now claim that he created 3.7 million in just year one...then how many millions of jobs would he have had to LOSE in the Private Sector during years 2,3 & 4 to make your 3.7 number "possible"?  That's 3.7 plus what negative number equals 2 million?  He would have had to lose upwards of 1.7 million jobs to make those numbers work!  So is that what you're claiming?[
This is apparently way to difficult for you to understand.  Your math is nonsense.
1.   It was, again, created and saved.  Since we were losing something like 600,000 jobs per month, which turned around to nothing.  Job losses in 2008 were 2.6 Million.
Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009
But at the same time, there were jobs created.  And their were jobs saved.  The Net for the first several months was jobs lost.
2.  Jobs created and saved did not ever happen instantly.   It is not like washing dishes, me boy.  It takes time for results from any move to take effect.
But, I would assume that the number is the total of new jobs created, and jobs that were saved.
So, why are you so crazy worried about a number about economics that came from a web source that deals in the overall record of famous people.  
So, perhaps you would like to tell me, in a article that has over 40 accomplishments of Obama, why you are so stuck on one.  I know, of course, but it makes no difference.  Sorry, you loose.  The source is very well respected.  
UNLIKE YOU.[/QUOTE]

Oh, now we're back to "jobs saved"?   Where, pray tell in your "well respected" source did "jobs saved" ever get mentioned?  I read it several times...I seem to have missed that reference!

As for what I'm "stuck on"?  You demanded that I show you something false in your web site's claims.  I showed you something that is a total fabrication.  Sorry, but you source is a joke!  They don't verify what they print.


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

27 giant profitable companies paid no taxes


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

Top Iraq contractor skirts US taxes offshore - The Boston Globe


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

I draw your attention to the TPP trade deal


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

oblama...dont give a fuck about jobs. Neither did bill...nafta


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

none of um do


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

..unless your  an illegal alien or an H1B visa recipient.


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

Lmfao! Why is everyone suprised? We let in illegals by the millions while letting in the h1b visas by the millions while sending our jobs out of Our Country and giving the wealthy and corporations everything they want!! Lol....are you surprised at water flowing down hill or trees casting shadows?


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

oblama=the TPP trade agreement.


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

north american trade agreement...nafta...and now....the trans pacific partnership by?...oblama...who has worked closely
 with the corporations to screw our country and its people, even more.


----------



## Windship (Jun 29, 2016)

but you with blinders on go ahead and believe he looooooves the working class....do you hear the laughter? Pitiful...


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY.  Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER.  AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend"  President?  Were those your words that I quoted?  If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped.  He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.*
Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend"  President?
*No.  But that is what a con tool like you would have called a democratic president if he tripled the national debt, and spent more than all the presidents before him combined.  
Reagan did raise taxes after his major tax reduction over a year before caused a recession.  As I said in my post that you are lying about now, he raised taxes enough to wipe out 70% of his prior tax reductions.  So, in net, he is, as I said, a net tax reducer.  Not that anyone cares, except you.
What was important was that he was facing a major recession, recognized it, and used spending as stimulus to eradicate the problem.  He did not, however, utilize Supply Side measures, or in other words, tax reductions as a method to fight the problem.  He reduced no more taxes until the recession was well over.  Which, me boy, is something that both republicans and democrats do when the economy is strong.
*
Were those your words that I quoted?  If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!
*Yes, I am sure it is confusing to you.  I am simply stating what he did.  The facts.  No lies at all.  No effort to make Reagan look like what I want him to look like.  I actually prefer the truth.*
*But, as a rational person, I like truth and do not like being wrong.  If I made a mistake, let me know and provide proof.*

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped.  He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

The problem you have, me boy, is that you are a conservative tool.  You think that anything that Obama did or does is BAD.  And anything that Reagan does or did is BAD.  But you could care less about truth.  At all.  But here is the truth:
1.  He was a tax cutter.  But those tax cuts were of no value when the economy was bad, in the first years.  The tax cuts caused him to cut spending in non military area, which cost jobs, and caused a recession. 
2.  Regan was a net spend president.  He cut some spending, but increased spending in other areas much more than he cut it in others.  The net result was to triple the national debt.  Even in the early years, after he cut taxes greatly, his spending on the military was so great that it overrode his cuts in non military areas.
3.  After cutting taxes and cutting non military spending, the net effect was to increase unemployment.  Within a year of the cuts, the ue rate was the second highest in the record of out economy in the past 100 years.  That, again, is simply the truth.  By November of 2008, the ue rate was 10.8%.  I can prove that, and have for you, many, many times, if you want to act ignorant of the fact again.
4.  By mid 1982, it was obvious to Reagan that it was necessary that he raise revenue to stop the increase in the national debt and to allow spending to stimulate an economy with an extremely high ue rate.  And he did raise taxes over 10 times, and he did spend heavily.
5.  His spending, primarily on the military, was heavy throughout his term, and the net was to spend more than all previous presidents combined. 
6.  Part of the national debt increase was, as always, reduced revenue.  That resulted from reduced tax rates themselves, but more from a very high unemployment rate.   The unemployed, you see, do not pay taxes, so as always when the ue rate is high, the national debt increased.

So, no, reagan's tax cuts of 1981 definately did not stimulate anything.  At all. 
And when the economy went in the toilet in 1982, reagan did not reduce taxes to get out of his mess, he simply spent and spent.  And he did raise taxes to pay for some of his spending.  Though most of his spending was covered by borrowing and increasing the debt.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie?  Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula..."Mr I NEVER LIE!!!!"


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, Oldstyle says:
Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie? 
*No.  As I said.  So, why you want to lie all the time is beyond me.  Now, did you think that what he did was tax and spend?  Because, as I said I did not.  Or do you just like lying that much?*

Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?
*
I just gave you actual economic history.  Sorry that you do not like it.  Dipshit.
A person of substance would show where I have been wrong.  And if you would like to try, I will show you the actual numbers, and you will loose.  Up to you.
*
Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!
*Debate indicates you have facts to debate with.  Intellect requires you to have a brain.  You are lacking in both categories.  Debate with you is like debating a con troll.  For obvious reasons.*

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula.
*We?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket.  Every one else, me boy, long ago learned you did not keep your part of the bargain, and are just lying again.  No one else cares.  And you lost long ago.  And attempting to change the subject to one that you lost long ago shows your lack of integrity, again.*

*So, you just offered NOTHING.  Just stupid, provably false, personal attacks.  *

*I am so sorry that you do not like the actual history of the bad years of your presidential hero's history.  But the good thing, me boy, is that I did not call him bad names or lie about him.  Like you do about democrats.  Because I have integrity.  And you do not.*

*Since you want to question my statements, here is the problem you have.  It is that the facts are against you:*
"an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency. "

"And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the *debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. *Then there's *the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. * *He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget.*"

"Meanwhile, *following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. *That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And *so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false.*"

"("*Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care*," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and *signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today.*""
All of the above quotes are from:
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

So, there is some truth.  Different from the drivel you have been reading in the bat shit crazy con web sites, and listening to on Fox.  But sometimes, the truth hurts.


----------



## Markle (Jun 29, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Why do you leave this out?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 29, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You know what's really pathetic, Rshermr?  You've had your ass handed to you so badly in this string...that you've given up even trying to convince anyone that Barack Obama has been good at creating jobs and run back to your "go to" liberal talking points about a President who hasn't been in office for over twenty years.

I guess that's what you DO though...when you've been caught lying about A-B=Jobs Saved and want to save face...right?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]
You know what's really pathetic, Rshermr?  You've had your ass handed to you so badly in this string...that you've given up even trying to convince anyone that Barack Obama has been good at creating jobs and run back to your "go to" liberal talking points about a President who hasn't been in office for over twenty years.
I guess that's what you DO though...when you've been caught lying about A-B=Jobs Saved and want to save face...right?

OS, coming back with personal attacks, says:

You know what's really pathetic, Rshermr?
*Yes, you are, Oldstyle.  Only personal attacks, absolutely no economic argument.  That is indeed pathetic.*

You've had your ass handed to you so badly in this string..
*Hardly, me boy.  The fact that you have no defense against the truth I post is the opposite of having one's ass handed to them.  But it does show that you are either totally dishonest, or delusional.
*
that you've given up even trying to convince anyone that Barack Obama has been good at creating jobs and
*You have said over and over and over that Obama has not created jobs.  And have been unable to provide a single link to an expert source agreeing with that untrue statement.  I, on the other hand, have simply stated what the expert impartial sources all say.  Which is that his team has created and saved millions and millions of jobs. And I provided links to those sources.   Lying has again not worked for you.  You loose, again, me boy.  Badly.
*
run back to your "go to" liberal talking points
*I am unaware of and would never use liberal talking points.  If I had done so, you should link to them and prove that those "liberal talking points" exist. 
You see, oldstyle, there are many con talking points, they are at conservativetalkingpoints.com, and you use them often.  
What I use, based on my integrity, is the truth backed by expert sources which I link to.  What you use, based on your lack of integrity, is con talking points backed up by no sources and no links.  
*
about a President who hasn't been in office for over twenty years.
*Unlike you, OS, I do not believe that any economic history should be hidden.  It is all open to analysis, and should be.  The sources that I have used include his friends and those in his administration.  And they agree that what happened should not be hidden by small minded con trolls like yourself.
*
I guess that's what you DO though...when you've been caught lying about A-B=Jobs Saved and want to save face...right?
*Being caught lying is a bad thing.  It is, however, simple to do.  This board saves our posts for months.  If I owe you an answer on that simple equation, it will be in those posts and you could prove your statement.  The problem is, you are the one lying.  Because I did not promise you a description of the equation.  Ever.  And you know it.  And that is why you simply make untrue statements and lie and lie and lie.  Because, me boy, you have NO INTEGRITY.  
And, as you actually know, I never, ever lie.  *

There is and should be no president, no administration, in the history of our country, that is off limits to analysis.  It is how you learn about how policies worked under various economic conditions.  What you choose is fiction.  And no analysis of economic policies should ever be based on falacies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Still no A or B, Georgie?  Sucks when you get caught lying...doesn't it!
I'm curious...you say that you don't owe an explanation of what A and B equal because you didn't promise to do so?  Then you blather on about integrity?  Do you not understand that when you provide a "formula" that you have assured us is legitimate...that your promise that it's legitimate is what obligates you to name A and B?  When you don't...THAT is the epitome of a lack of integrity!

Of course I understand why you CAN'T name A and B!  It's obvious that your formula is as made up as the figures the Obama White House came up with for "Jobs Saved".  You can't admit you lied though...can you?  Not after your scores of declarations that you NEVER LIE!  If you were to do that you're admitting that your full of shit in general.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

So what's it going to be this time?  Caps?  Red font?  Bold type?  More declarations that you NEVER lie?  Or you going to pretend to put me ignore again because of "personal attacks"?

Same old...same old, Rshermr!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And Oldstyle, the consummate liar says:
> Still no A or B, Georgie?  Sucks when you get caught lying...doesn't it!



*So, you say I owe you a response to your question of what a or b.  But we all know you are asking for elements of a formula that I offered you on the following condition:
you must provide proof of a bill that republicans brought forward to address the damages of The Great Republican Recession of 2008.  And, OS, you agreed to provide that condition, but did not do so.  *
So, you failed.*  You failed to provide the answer you promised, which was a requirement that you agreed to.*  You simply make the same untrue claim over and over and over, which is that I owe you an answer.  You loose, oldstyle.  You failed to meet your condition many weeks ago, but still try to say there was no condition.  And I am sure you will do so again.  Because, me boy, you have no integrity.  None at all.

Your post that I am now responding to is, however, illustrative.  It fully illustrates what you are all about.  Which is that you simply want to win points by lying.  Which you do again and again.  And that you have no ability to respond to thread topics.  And that you are incapable of making economic arguments.

And again, I never ever lie.  Which is why I do not have to worry about you proving that I did so.  Unlike you, oldstyle.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here?  You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!
> 
> Why do you even bother coming here?  You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.



*Nice try, Dipshit.  The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all.  As I have proven conclusively.  But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say.  That you do not is because you can not.  BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN.  And because you have NO INTEGRITY.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!
> ...



"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle. 
*If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. *
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one. 
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - _B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."
_
That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie!  Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything!  Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr.  You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Also note that I provided not one but TWO GOP bills that would have decreased unemployment but you decided that they didn't count.  You obviously did so because you don't have a formula to determine "Jobs Saved" but are too embarrassed to admit that you lied.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Then you tried to float that joke of a formula...like THAT was going to get you off the hook!  

But that's what liars like you DO, Georgie...you tell one lie and then you have to tell another in an attempt to cover up the first...and on and on...

Now you're so invested in your lies that you can't simply admit that you were talking out of your ass in the first place!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

So get back to me when you're ready to tell us all what A and B equal in the formula that you provided with no requirements means! 

That's what someone with "integrity" would do.  Which of course is why you'll never do it!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14628528, member: 31215"
> ...



"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle. 
*If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. *
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one. 
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - _B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."
_
That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie!  Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything!  Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr.  You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist![/QUOTE]
*Wow.  A swing and a miss.  You first asked for the condition on May 4 of this year in this thread, and it was Post 696!!!

Then on post 700, SAME DAY, I said: "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."

So NO, oldstyle, it had nothing to do with post 1776 which was many weeks later.  Again, proving you are a lying con troll.*
I provided you an equation, in jest.  Because that is what you were bugging me about in post after post for week after week .  And you take that joke, and pretend that it was an attempt to answer your question.  Dipshit.  But you continued to ask for the actual formula time after time after time even after that point.  *You have continued this completely dishonest thread of pretending that I owe you an answer.  Total dishonesty on your part.  And that you did not agree to the condition.  Total dishonesty on your part.  As I again proved above.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


*Wow.  A swing and a miss.  You first asked for the condition on May 4 of this year in this thread, and it was Post 696!!!

Then on post 700, SAME DAY, I said: "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."

So NO, oldstyle, it had nothing to do with post 1776 which was many weeks later.  Again, proving you are a lying con troll.*
I provided you an equation, in jest.  Because that is what you were bugging me about in post after post for week after week .  And you take that joke, and pretend that it was an attempt to answer your question.  Dipshit.  But you continued to ask for the actual formula time after time after time even after that point.  *You have continued this completely dishonest thread of pretending that I owe you an answer.  Total dishonesty on your part.  And that you did not agree to the condition.  Total dishonesty on your part.  As I again proved above.*[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now the formula was a "jest"?  Is that Georgie-speak for fabrication?  Something you made up?  So now weeks after posting your pathetic formula and repeatedly declaring that it was legitimate...you're here to tell us that it was really a "jest"?

Yeah, it's total dishonestly all right...total dishonesty on your part!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

While I was going back through this string looking for your lie about the formula I discovered your lie about putting me on ignore. 

"You are incapable of conversation, or debate, me boy. Totally. And your insults are getting old. As of now, in deference to others who may want to actually engage in discussion about the subject of this thread, you are now officially on ignore. Knock yourself out with your drivel, me boy."  
That would be post #840...one more example of you lying when you claimed that you never pretended to put me on ignore!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oh, so now the formula was a "jest"?  Is that Georgie-speak for fabrication?  Something you made up?  So now weeks after posting your pathetic formula and repeatedly declaring that it was legitimate...you're here to tell us that it was really a "jest"?

Yeah, it's total dishonestly all right...total dishonesty on your part![/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Oh, so now the formula was a "jest"?  Is that Georgie-speak for fabrication?  Something you made up?  So now weeks after posting your pathetic formula and repeatedly declaring that it was legitimate...you're here to tell us that it was really a "jest"?  Well, you are apparently trying to get someone to believe that you are really stupid.  That is possible.

Yeah, it's total dishonestly all right...total dishonesty on your part.

So, are you simply trying to prove that you are a stupid con troll.  Because that is a good way to do it.
You had been asking for the formula over and over and over.  Lying your ass off, saying you had it coming.  Then I say:

Oh, hell. Here is one. Not here is the formula.  Not here is the formula you wanted.  Are you really that stupid.  I am tired of your endless begging.  Did you think that I was simply getting you off of your game playing?  Nah, that would be to obvious.
A - _B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

And then you kept asking for the formula.  Proving you knew that the formula I gave you was a joke.  Dipshit.

You are a true fucking lying troll.
_


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> While I was going back through this string looking for your lie about the formula I discovered your lie about putting me on ignore.
> 
> "You are incapable of conversation, or debate, me boy. Totally. And your insults are getting old. As of now, in deference to others who may want to actually engage in discussion about the subject of this thread, you are now officially on ignore. Knock yourself out with your drivel, me boy."
> That would be post #840...one more example of you lying when you claimed that you never pretended to put me on ignore!



Are you so stupid as to think you can be put on ignore, AND  not later taken off?  I do not believe even you are that ignorant.  
I did put you on ignore for a period, and got tired of your personal insults to me through other people.  And ( now pay attention) took you off ignore.  Dipshit.  Again, you have failed to prove anything, me poor stupid con troll.  Because I never, ever lie.  And I know that makes you nuts.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I kept asking for the formula because I knew it was a lie.  So does everyone else at this point.  It's what you DO, Georgie!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > While I was going back through this string looking for your lie about the formula I discovered your lie about putting me on ignore.
> ...





"Friedman lost nearly all credibility when his theories were tested by Ronald Reagan, and the great tax cut which created the second worst ue rate in history, Then further by the stimulus of W, which failed to do anything at all. Not sure where you were, me boy. All really well known parts of economic history. 
And see yet why you will be the only person I put on ignore?  Post 841



This is why I put OS on ignore. He is indeed a con tool. He has the amounts wrong, and what was going on wrong, just about everything wrong. You can not help him understand anything. What he wants to do is call the obama stimulus a failure, which is what he has been told is the case. But he has huge problems because unemployment has gone to near zero.  Post 948

I did not put you on ignore, I decided instead not to pay any attention to you. Look it up. That, me boy, is the definition of ignore. But you could not stop lying about me, and so I just thought I would correct some of your lies. Sorry that bothers you so much. Most people, those with integrity, would stop lying.
So, me boy, did you have anything to say about the subject of this thread, or are you planning on just continuing your personal attacks and lies???"   Post  1097

You can't keep track of your lies here, Georgie!  One post you're claiming you're going to put me on ignore.  Others you're claiming you've already done so.  Then others you claim that you never did!  All you do is lie...one lie after another.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



WOW.  NOW THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT POST.  YOU JUST PROVED THAT I PUT YOU ON IGNORE, AND THAT I ALSO TOOK YOU OFF OF IGNORE, AND THAT I ALSO JUST SIMPLY IGNORED YOU.  THANKS FOR THAT IMPORTANT POST.  I AM SURE EVERYONE IS REALLY IMPRESSED.  DIPSHIT.

DO YOU EVER POST ANYTHING OF ANY IMPORT THAT IS ALSO TRUE?


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



SO THAT IS GREAT.  I AM HAPPY YOU BELIEVE IT IS UNTRUE.  MAYBE YOU WILL POST SOMETHING ELSE,  NAH.  YOU WILL JUST KEEP LYING AND MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS, AND SAYING THINGS THAT NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE CARES ABOUT.  BUT WHAT IS FUNNY IS THAT YOU THINK ANYONE IS PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO YOU.  
BUT THE REASON YOU CAN NOT EVER PROVE I LIE, ME BOY, IS BECAUSE I NEVER, EVER LIE.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Your own posts prove that you're a liar, Rshermr!  You tell so many lies in fact that you can't keep them straight.

Posting in capitals won't change that.  It simply underscores it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

But what's really underscored by all of your lying is that you've once again failed miserably in a string having to do with economics.  Why?  Because you know almost nothing about the subject despite your rather pathetic attempts to pretend that you do.  It's why you promise economic formulas that don't exist and then have to lie about them to try to extricate yourself from the lies you've already told.

You ARE the George Costanza of the US Message Board!


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, I have a proven liar, who wants badly to prove that I have lied.  But who can not do so.  Because I never, ever lie.  But he does waste space, saying over and over and over that I lie, with no proof.  Then suggests he has proof, but does not.  
Why not stop the personal attacks long enough to actually attempt to post an economic argument?  Nah. Not your style.  You love personal attacks and lying way too much.


----------



## Rshermr (Jun 30, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> But what's really underscored by all of your lying is that you've once again failed miserably in a string having to do with economics.  Why?  Because you know almost nothing about the subject despite your rather pathetic attempts to pretend that you do.  It's why you promise economic formulas that don't exist and then have to lie about them to try to extricate yourself from the lies you've already told.
> 
> You ARE the George Costanza of the US Message Board!



Oldstyle, your normal personal attacks are way stupid.  The fact you can not prove I have ever lied, and continue to lie when I have categorically proven you lie is crazy.  But you do so scores of times.  Over and over with the same lies. 
So, saying that I or anyone lies is pretty hollow, me boy.  People usually do not lie.  It is a trait that you yourself have, and that few others do. Consider these lies you have tried:
1. So, you lied what, 50 plus times, when you claimed that I did not know what the Chicago School of economics was when you mentioned it to me in a post.  But, when I brought up your post, copied and pasted it to show what the truth was, it proved that you were lying not once, but at least 50 times. Because the post I copied and pasted for you to see plainly said nothing about the Chicago school.  But by now, you have made that same claim at least 50 times.
There was never a mention of the Chicago School until you started making the lie about it.
2.  You lied today when you said I claimed to have a secretary who proofed my typing.  I brought forward the post and proved I said that I had previously had a secretary that did check my writing.  Which was true,  And offered to prove it to you, offering you a bet.  You ran from that, because you had no proof and knew you would have lost. 
3.  You have said many, many times that I have lied when I said I have a college degree in economics.  Again, I offered you a bet that would have made you a nice check if I could not produce a diploma.  You again ran from the bet, knowing you would loose.  But you continue to make the same claim. 
4.  You claimed that I said I worked with executives at BP as an employee there.  I proved that I said no such thing. By the time I took the time to disprove you lie in this instance, you had claimed that I had lied on several occasions.  Again, I proved you lied and that I never made the claim you were trying to say I had.

Most of those few cases you stated time after time after time.  Each time you knew better, but it did not stop you.  But the number of times you have intentionally lied about me is over 100 times.  That is not just dishonest, it proves you to be SICK.

So, you see, you lie a lot.  It is expected of you at this time.  And you have made such claims knowing you were lying,  after they were proven untrue to you.  You are, me boy, not just a liar, but a serial liar.  You have a major problem with lying.  Or, maybe you just have no class, no integrity, no honesty.  What is your problem, Oldstyle?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 30, 2016)

What no Caps, Georgie?   Already embarrassed out of taking that tack?

Come on, give us another speech about how you never lie!

Then you can try explaining why you said you HAD put me on ignore and then days later said that you'd NEVER put me on ignore?

Then you can explain how "A-B=Jobs Saved" went from being one of several formulas you stated existed to determine "Jobs Saved"...to being a jest?  The only jest is that you attempted to pass it off as anything serious in the first place!

Gee, Rshermr...for a guy who supposedly NEVER lies...you sure do get caught telling lies a lot!  Just saying...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 2, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What no Caps, Georgie?   Already embarrassed out of taking that tack?
> 
> Come on, give us another speech about how you never lie!
> 
> ...



Speech???  Apparently you are too stupid to understand anything.
I never lie.  No speech at all, me poor ignorant con troll.  Just the truth.  

But it is funny watching you twist and turn trying to find some proof that I have ever lied.  Failure after failure on your part.  Because I do not lie.  Even if I wanted to lie, which I do not, you would never be important enough to make me lie.  

The jest, me boy, was obvious.  Though I did forget that cons have no sense of humor.  As I have proven, and will not bother again, the formula you asked for had a condition that you said you would meet, but then could not meet.  You loose again, me boy.  You are soooo sad.

Still waiting, by the way, for the bill republicans brought forward.  I assume you have learned there was none.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 2, 2016)

"This is why I put OS on ignore. He is indeed a con tool. He has the amounts wrong, and what was going on wrong, just about everything wrong. You can not help him understand anything. What he wants to do is call the obama stimulus a failure, which is what he has been told is the case. But he has huge problems because unemployment has gone to near zero." Post 948

"I did not put you on ignore, I decided instead not to pay any attention to you. Look it up. That, me boy, is the definition of ignore. But you could not stop lying about me, and so I just thought I would correct some of your lies. Sorry that bothers you so much. Most people, those with integrity, would stop lying.
So, me boy, did you have anything to say about the subject of this thread, or are you planning on just continuing your personal attacks and lies???" Post 1097

That's you lying, Georgie.  One post you claim that you've put me on ignore (which you've done because you have no answer to my request for what A or B mean in your A-B=Jobs Saved "formula") and then a week later you claim that you didn't put me on ignore!  So either you lied in the first post...or you lied in the second.  So spare us the "I never lie" bullshit because you were caught red handed.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 2, 2016)

As for your "jest"?  Is that what you call it when you lie and say that you have something that you don't have?  You claimed to have the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved".  It didn't become a "jest" until weeks later when you finally figured out two things...A) that there was no such formula!...and B) that I wasn't going to let you get away with the lie that you told about having it.  Only THEN did you come back with the rather pathetic excuse that you weren't serious and that what you claimed was a "jest" all along!

The truth, Georgie...is that your whole life is a "jest".  You're the biggest poser on this board...a real life George Costanza.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As for your "jest"?  Is that what you call it when you lie and say that you have something that you don't have?  You claimed to have the formula that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved".  It didn't become a "jest" until weeks later when you finally figured out two things...A) that there was no such formula!...and B) that I wasn't going to let you get away with the lie that you told about having it.  Only THEN did you come back with the rather pathetic excuse that you weren't serious and that what you claimed was a "jest" all along!
> 
> The truth, Georgie...is that your whole life is a "jest".  You're the biggest poser on this board...a real life George Costanza.


    [/QUOTE]
So, let me try to understand this drivel you are posting:

Is that what you call it when you lie and say that you have something that you don't have?
No, that was a poke at you because you would not give up asking for it, without providing your required condition.  
But more importantly, the formula that was what you wanted you continued to ask for, for several months. So, you say you thought you had the actual formula, but kept asking for that same actual formula for months.  That, me boy, tells one all you need to know.  Which is that you are lying again.  Which is normal for you, me poor ignorant con troll.

The rest is just your normal drivel, with no effort to post economic argument.  All you are capable of, as you have proven, is personal attack.  
And no one is paying any attention to your posts any longer.  

27674


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2016)

Of course I'm not going to stop asking for the formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Saved"!  Not because I actually want to see it...because I already KNEW it didn't exist!  There is no such formula!  There never was.  The Obama economists made up those numbers.  They just plain INVENTED them!

You're the one who said you had the formula.  I kept asking for it because I knew right from the start that you were lying.
Anyone who HAS paid attention to this string now knows that you are a liar!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2016)

What's pathetic are your attempts to wiggle out of the lies that you have told by claiming that they were a "jest"!  When you lie to someone repeatedly only to be found out weeks later...telling them that you didn't really mean what you were saying and that it was all a joke is about as weak as it gets.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Of course I'm not going to stop asking for the formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Saved"!  Not because I actually want to see it...because I already KNEW it didn't exist!  There is no such formula!  There never was.  The Obama economists made up those numbers.  They just plain INVENTED them!
> 
> You're the one who said you had the formula.  I kept asking for it because I knew right from the start that you were lying.
> Anyone who HAS paid attention to this string now knows that you are a liar!



Good.  So now you admit you were looking for the actual formula, and not the a-b formula I gave you to stop your whining and lying.  Thanks for your admission.  
So, you also admit that you were playing a game, in your mind.  Not believing there was an actual formula, which I had conditionally promised you, you just kept asking anyway.  Got it.
And you just kept ignoring the fact that you refused, and were apparently unable, to provide the condition I requited.  Got it.  
So, you just admitted what all have known.  You are a dishonest game playing lying conservative con troll. Which everyone who paid any attention to you, if there were any at all, which I doubt.  

And, as you well know, I never ever lie.  What is funny is a liar saying that I lie.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2016)

You never lie?  You just admitted that you gave me something that you KNEW wasn't the actual formula...your "A-B=Jobs Saved" was a bald faced lie!

Holding your feet to the fire to make you admit that you lied isn't me "playing a game"...it's simply me demanding the truth.  You lied all along, Georgie.  You lied because you promised something you couldn't deliver and weren't man enough to admit it!  My asking for something that I know doesn't exist isn't dishonest...it's what needs to be done with pathological liars like yourself.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2016)

After all your bluster...after all your accusations that others have lied or used personal attacks against you...the fact remains that you STILL can't come up with the economic formula that the Obama White House economists used to determine their "Jobs Saved" numbers...and the reason for that is that such a formula has never existed!  If you had even an iota of integrity you'd admit that and move on but you can't do that...can you, Georgie?  No, you'll stubbornly insist that you never lie...when it's obvious that not only DO you lie...but you do it a lot and rather badly!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You never lie?  You just admitted that you gave me something that you KNEW wasn't the actual formula...your "A-B=Jobs Saved" was a bald faced lie!
> 
> Holding your feet to the fire to make you admit that you lied isn't me "playing a game"...it's simply me demanding the truth.  You lied all along, Georgie.  You lied because you promised something you couldn't deliver and weren't man enough to admit it!  My asking for something that I know doesn't exist isn't dishonest...it's what needs to be done with pathological liars like yourself.


[/QUOTE]
Right. Asking for something you said you already had.  I did not promise anything I could not deliver.  That was no problem.  The person who promised what they could not deliver was you.  You could not name a bill that Republicans had sponsored to help with the problems of their own Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Because they, like YOU, could care less about the middle class, and all those unemployed by the Great Republican Recession.  Because you are a lying piece of shit.  Who only cares about himself.
And, to prove you are a game player, you could not admit that there was no such bill.  And that you had lied about that.  Really sad, me poor ignorant con tool.
You lied then like:
1.  You lied when you said that you know I do not have a degree in econ.
2.  You lied when you said over and over that I did not have a secretary that proofed my writing.
3.  You lied at least 50 times when you said that you said "Chicago School" and I did not know what you meant.  

Want more?  How about when you said I claimed to have been an executive at BP.  
You are a proven serial liar, who just like now, does not stop lying.  You lie, over and over, and you lie to cover your lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 3, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> After all your bluster...after all your accusations that others have lied or used personal attacks against you...the fact remains that you STILL can't come up with the economic formula that the Obama White House economists used to determine their "Jobs Saved" numbers...and the reason for that is that such a formula has never existed!  If you had even an iota of integrity you'd admit that and move on but you can't do that...can you, Georgie?  No, you'll stubbornly insist that you never lie...when it's obvious that not only DO you lie...but you do it a lot and rather badly!



Since you have no integrity, since you have proven you have no integrity, it does not surprise me to see you again lying.  So that you could learn a little about integrity, and honor, and truth, and honesty, I can give you nothing at all until you learn to show such qualities.  And that would require that you to keep the promise you made when you agreed to the condition I required BEFORE providing you with the formula you so badly want.  You know that i did require a condition of you. You have denied it, and I have proven that you lied when you did deny it.  And yet the beat goes on.  There are very few people who can be as dishonest as you.  And they are all, to my knowledge, psychopaths.  Is that you, Oldstyle?  Is that why it does not bother you to lie over and over and over.
I have no problem providing you with the Formula that you so badly want.  Not the a-b formula that you have known since I gave it to you was a joke.  But the real formula.  But you must meet the condition you said that you would.  But since you will not and can not, you will see no formula.  You will just go on playing your little dishonest game, because that is you.  A dishonest lying con troll.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > After all your bluster...after all your accusations that others have lied or used personal attacks against you...the fact remains that you STILL can't come up with the economic formula that the Obama White House economists used to determine their "Jobs Saved" numbers...and the reason for that is that such a formula has never existed!  If you had even an iota of integrity you'd admit that and move on but you can't do that...can you, Georgie?  No, you'll stubbornly insist that you never lie...when it's obvious that not only DO you lie...but you do it a lot and rather badly!
> ...



Dude...seriously?  You're STILL pretending that there is a formula?  You have issues...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 3, 2016)

It's so obvious that you've been lying about this whole thing it's laughable to watch you bluster about your "conditions"!  

The only reason you came up with the whole condition thing is to give you an excuse not to provide the formula.  I really don't know who you think you're fooling at this point.  Are you trying to convince yourself that you're not full of shit?  Because you'll never convince me of that...I've seen you tell too many whoppers, Georgie!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Just want you to keep your commitment to provide the bills names or numbers used by republicans over the years of slow growth of the employment picture caused by the great republican recession of 2008.  As you stated that you would.  But which you have failed to provide.  And which you can not admit that they did not try. You know, me lying con troll, any effort at all to provide relief from their own recession.  
Or alternatively to admit that you lied, and that there was o such effort by republicans, and that they just did not care.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> It's so obvious that you've been lying about this whole thing it's laughable to watch you bluster about your "conditions"!
> 
> The only reason you came up with the whole condition thing is to give you an excuse not to provide the formula.  I really don't know who you think you're fooling at this point.  Are you trying to convince yourself that you're not full of shit?  Because you'll never convince me of that...I've seen you tell too many whoppers, Georgie!



Hardly.  You actually dabbled in economic history when you stated that Republicans did indeed care and did indeed bring bills forward to address their great unemployment problems caused by their Great Republican Recession of 2008,  And I was so interested in seeing the bill you said you knew about and that I had missed.  But it turns out you were simply being what you are, which is a con troll.  And that you were lying.  And that there was no such bill.  And that neither you, nor the republican congressmen cared a wit about the people out of jobs and suffering from their efforts to make the rich richer.  
And then, you lied and pretended that I did not require a condition to see the Formula that you so cared about.  And you simply had no integrity, no honor at all.   And wanted to see it and pretend you did not agree to a condition.  Which I again proved you had agreed to.  And I tried to teach you what integrity is, and what honor is, and you simply did not care.  Because, me boy, you are a con troll.  And you do not intend to admit that there was no bill, and that you did not care, as the republican congressmen did not care.
It must be awful to have no integrity or honor, me boy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

"This is why I put OS on ignore. He is indeed a con tool. He has the amounts wrong, and what was going on wrong, just about everything wrong. You can not help him understand anything. What he wants to do is call the obama stimulus a failure, which is what he has been told is the case. But he has huge problems because unemployment has gone to near zero." Post 948

"I did not put you on ignore, I decided instead not to pay any attention to you. Look it up. That, me boy, is the definition of ignore. But you could not stop lying about me, and so I just thought I would correct some of your lies. Sorry that bothers you so much. Most people, those with integrity, would stop lying.
So, me boy, did you have anything to say about the subject of this thread, or are you planning on just continuing your personal attacks and lies???" Post 1097


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

Liar...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

"I have no problem providing you with the Formula that you so badly want. Not the a-b formula that you have known since I gave it to you was a joke. But the real formula. But you must meet the condition you said that you would. But since you will not and can not, you will see no formula."

Every time you attempt to post something intelligent about economics it's a "joke", Rshermr!  This is just one more pathetic example.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "I have no problem providing you with the Formula that you so badly want. Not the a-b formula that you have known since I gave it to you was a joke. But the real formula. But you must meet the condition you said that you would. But since you will not and can not, you will see no formula."
> 
> Every time you attempt to post something intelligent about economics it's a "joke", Rshermr!  This is just one more pathetic example.


You just made three more posts attacking me, and making some sort of statements that you think are somehow important.  And that no one else in this world cares about. 
Now, me boy, did you have a point at all.  And did you think you made a post about economics?

Or, are you simply trying to prove that you are a joke.  Cause we have that down.  
So, you say:
Every time you attempt to post something intelligent about economics it's a "joke", Rshermr!  This is just one more pathetic example.
All you do is attack me, over and over.  There has been no attempt to post anything about economic that I can remember, for a month by you.  Period.  And then, to make you look really, really irrational, you attack me for responding to your drivel.  But maybe you are correct for once.  No one is paying any attention to you, dipshit. For the past 5 days, there have been 44 posts.  Most are yours, a few are mine.  *NO ONE ELSE HAS POSTED ANYTHING, IN THE PAST 44 POSTS.  BECAUSE, ME BOY, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR SUBJECT MATTER.  SO, THERE YOU ARE.  IF THAT IS NOT IRRELEVANT, NOTHING IS.  * It is just you posting drivel, again.  You have, me boy, become completely irrelevant.  And by responding to you, so do I.  So, maybe this is the proper response to you, me poor ignorant con troll: Fuck off.
YOU ARE, ME BOY, A WASTE OF SPACE.  YOU ARE TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BUT LIES AND BULLSHIT, AND CON TALKING POINTS.  ACTUAL RATIONAL ARGUMENTS TAKES BRAINS, AND YOU HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU ARE LACKING IN THAT DEPARTMENT.  BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT POST ANYTHING BUT DRIVEL MIXED WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 4, 2016)

HAS ANYONE NOTICED THAT THE UE RATE HAS DROPPED SINCE THIS THREAD BEGAN?
"The *unemployment rate* declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, "
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

So, no economist believes that full employment means 0% unemployment.  Rather, it is generally close to 3%.  And the best unemployment rate may be somewhat higher than that.  So, if we are now at 4.7%, we are close to Optimal Unemployment.   During Reagan's 8 years, the ue rate never got better than 5.1%.  Clinton had rates down to 3.9%.  So, perhaps 3% is a tough measure.
So, it is now true that our current problem is not the ue rate, but the rate of pay.  Average pay rates, in other words. Which have not raised to where they should have by now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> HAS ANYONE NOTICED THAT THE UE RATE HAS DROPPED SINCE THIS THREAD BEGAN?
> "The *unemployment rate* declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, "
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
> 
> ...



 We have an anti business  libsocialist in the White House. Does socialism make people richer or poorer?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 4, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > HAS ANYONE NOTICED THAT THE UE RATE HAS DROPPED SINCE THIS THREAD BEGAN?
> ...







According to ed, Obama was a socialist and bad for business.   But the truth is, S&P up 157% and Business Profits up 182% with Employment up 8million jobs, and the ue rate down from 10% to 4.7% today.  Looks like we better find another guy Ed calls a socialist.  
Because the last republican administration created the worst recession since the Great Republican Depression of 1929.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "I have no problem providing you with the Formula that you so badly want. Not the a-b formula that you have known since I gave it to you was a joke. But the real formula. But you must meet the condition you said that you would. But since you will not and can not, you will see no formula."
> ...



Back to posting in Caps?  Sorry, Georgie but Caps don't make you less of a liar...they just make you a LOUDER liar!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 4, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I never ever lie.  As you know.  So, another post attacking me but totally without content.  Just drivel, attacks, lies, and acting like a con troll as usual.
If you knew anything about economics, you could actually contribute.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Did you want to take a crack at explaining which Obama economic policy it was that led to the turn-around in the stock market?  While your statistics look wonderful for Barry, Rshermr...the truth is...the American economy rebounded DESPITE his policies!  If he'd gotten Cap & Trade as he'd wanted...if he'd been able to stop fracking like he wanted...our economy would be in much worse shape than it is right now.  He should give thanks to the GOP for taking over the House in 2010 and stopping him and his progressive minions from doing some serious harm to the recovery.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



"This is why I put OS on ignore. He is indeed a con tool. He has the amounts wrong, and what was going on wrong, just about everything wrong. You can not help him understand anything. What he wants to do is call the obama stimulus a failure, which is what he has been told is the case. But he has huge problems because unemployment has gone to near zero." Post 948

"I did not put you on ignore, I decided instead not to pay any attention to you. Look it up. That, me boy, is the definition of ignore. But you could not stop lying about me, and so I just thought I would correct some of your lies. Sorry that bothers you so much. Most people, those with integrity, would stop lying.
So, me boy, did you have anything to say about the subject of this thread, or are you planning on just continuing your personal attacks and lies???" Post 1097

Yeah, you never lie...except of course where you lie and get caught doing so red handed!  Why do you even bother claiming that at this point, Georgie?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 4, 2016)

As for what I know about economics?  What's amusing is that I knew what an economic school of thought is and I was a history major...you supposedly taught economics at the college level yet you didn't have a clue what that expression referred to.  It was the first time that I realized what a bullshit artist you are.

If you REALLY want to contribute to this economic discussion the starting point would be for you to share with us all what the formula was that the Obama Administration's economists used to determine "Jobs Saved".  You know...walk the walk instead of talk the talk?

Or you can continue to hide your lie behind "conditions".


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Ah, got it.  So only you, a con troll, knows what the truth is, eh. Is that what you did, me boy, take a "crack at it".  Being a food services worker, you think we should take your drivel as expert?  Because you are what, other than delusional?   So it was the republicans who did nothing except vote against everything Obama brought forward who were to credit for his successful economy.  Because you believe the con talking points?
So votes a conservative con troll who spends every free moment attacking democrats, 24/7/365.  A con troll who only posts conservative talking points, but does not use links to proe his points, because he is ashamed of the bat shit crazy con web sites he uses.  

What did he do?  Should we take the suggestions of a con troll who pushes con talking points, or should we take the happy talk of politicians, or the negative talk of politicians?  Or, perhaps, should we take the words of experts who study the facts?  Complete with actual links?
How about the latter, actual facts which trolls hate:

*"1. Ended the 2008 Recession*
In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. Therecession ended six months later when GDP growth turned positive. In just seven months, ARRA pumped $241.9 billion to the economy, stirring growth to a robust 3.9% by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, nearly all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent.

*2. Received 2009 Nobel Peace Prize*
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in March 2010. The Committee lauded ".._his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." _ He promised to withdraw U.S. ground troops from Iraq and take steps to arrest climate change. Most important, he promised to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. (Source: "Inspires Hope for a Better Future," Nobel Peace Prize 2009)

The Committee used the award to support for Obama's vision of peace rather his accomplishments. Since then, Obama withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. He announced carbon reduction regulations in 2014 and signed a global climate accord in 2015. He has reduced the U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile by 10 percent. His team negotiated a deal with Iran  to control its ability to build nuclear weapons.

*3. Reformed Health Care*
On March 23, 2010, Obamacare revolutionized healthcare. Six months later, concerns over the program's cost helped Republicans win control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections. Why did healthcare need to be reformed? Rising costs threatened to outstrip Medicare's ability to pay for it, and contributed to 50% of all bankruptcies. The quality of care was one of the worst in the world. For more on the story behind Obama's Plan to Reform Healthcare.

By 2014, the economy benefited from having 95% of the population on health insurance.That should reduce the number of emergency visits to the hospital and lower costs. Bankruptcies should decline since medical costs are the number one cause. For more, see see Obamacare Pros and Cons.

*4. Regulated the Big Banks*
In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act improved regulation of eight areas that led to the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency improved regulation of credit cards and mortgages. The Financial Stability Oversight Council regulated hedge funds and banks that became too big to fail. The "Volcker Rule" banned banks from being too involved with hedge funds. Dodd-Frank clarified which agencies regulated which banks, stopping banks from cherry-picking their regulator.

*6. Eliminated bin Laden Threat and Ended Iraq and Afghanistan Wars*
On May 1, 2011, Navy Seals attacked the al Quaeda leader's compound in Pakistan and eliminated Osama bin Laden. Later that year, Obama ended the Iraq War. However, renewed threats from ISIS meant renewed military presence. For more, see Will It Ever End? How the Sunni-Shiite Split Affects the U.S. Economy.

In 2014, Obama wound down the War in Afghanistan. He increased defense spending to new record levels, partly by improving care and benefits for veterans. Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have reduced the more than $800 billion in annual military spending. That's the largest discretionary budget item. It's one of the leading causes of  the budget deficit and debt levels. Instead, it remained higher than during the Bush Administration. For more, see War on Terror Costs.

*7. International Climate Agreement*
Obama led global efforts to reach the International Climate Agreement. It was negotiated in Paris on December 12, 2015. Countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions and increase carbon trading. Members agreed to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial temperatures. Developed countries will contribute $100 billion a year to assist emerging markets. Many of them bear the brunt of damage from typhoons, rising sea levels, and droughts. At least 55 of the 196 countries participating must now ratify the agreement before it can go into effect. (Source: "Climate Agreement Best Chance We Have to Save the Planet," CNN, December 14, 2015)"
What Has Obama Done? 11 Major Accomplishments

So, there are a few, complete with a link.  It is not as cool as you believe the re
publican meeting on his inauguration eve was.  You know, the one where republicans pledged to do all necessary to keep Obama from being a two term president, and to block every single piece of legislation he brought forward to help in mitigating the effects of the great republican recession of 2008.  And it was not as cool as the republican determination to never bring forward a single bill to help  Which all con trolls, like Oldstyle, blindly followed and supported. 

Got an economic argument?  Or do you just go forward posting bat shit crazy con talking points?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I ask what economic policies of Barack Obama's led to the stock market rebound and you give me his Nobel Peace Prize?  God but you're clueless!

You're blathering about "bat shit crazy" talking points while doing NOTHING but using them to excuse Obama's total lack of an economic plan to fix the economy.  Our health care system was one of the worst in the world?  What idiots put together that list of "Major Accomplishments"?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

Did you want to take a crack at explaining which Obama economic policy it was that led to the turn-around in the stock market?  While your statistics look wonderful for Barry, Rshermr...the truth is...the American economy rebounded DESPITE his policies!  If he'd gotten Cap & Trade as he'd wanted...if he'd been able to stop fracking like he wanted...our economy would be in much worse shape than it is right now.  He should give thanks to the GOP for taking over the House in 2010 and stopping him and his progressive minions from doing some serious harm to the recovery.

The statistics, of course, are not mine.  Those statistics are from FactCheck.org.  A Project of the *Annenberg Public Policy Center.  *A project very often attacked by con trolls, because it traffics in truth with evidence, and never, ever talking points.  And was originated by Walter Annenberg, a close personal friend of Ronald Reagan.  And when last registered year ago, was registered as a REPUBLICAN.
But lets look at your attack on Cap and Trade.  Which is consistent with Con talking points.  Here is the actual conservative talking point:
*"FreedomWorks' August Recess Action Kit States:*
Waxman-Markey would cost American jobs. An analysis conducted in 2007 of the kind of policy approach contained in Waxman-Markey estimated as many as 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs would be lost. [FreedomWorks, 8/5/09]"
The above quote from FreedomWorks was by Dick Armey, then Chairman of FreedomWorks.  In a document called *FreedomWorks August Recess Action Kit. *On August 5, 2009.  The claim has been rebutted many times, but to cons, it is "fact".  And Dick Armey has never been known as a source for truth.

So, looking at impartial sources, we have:

2008
A Changed Prognosis for Climate Change Policyby Michael A. LeviNovember 20, 2008
The Debate over Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Tradeby Toni JohnsonUpdated: November 3, 2011
President Obama has pledged to combat climate change and has asked Congress to pass legislation to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns over economic costs have stymied attempts at federal policy in the past, and during the economic crisis it may prove even harder. The debate over U.S. climate policy comes amid lingering doubts by a majority of the U.S. public (_TIME_) about whether climate change should be a priority. And new studies questioning the effects of climate change -- such as a recent study that estimates the West Antarctic ice sheet will melt in thousands and not hundred of years (_Nature_) -- help reinforce those doubts. Despite possible hurdles, the president's first budget assumes that a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases will be up and running by 2012 and will begin generating revenues for the U.S. Treasury. CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now.

*Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies*
Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. *Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers.* It would, however, do two good things:
First, it would reduce current uncertainty about the shape of future greenhouse gas regulations. Uncertainty is a deterrent to investment. Passing cap-and-trade legislation soon would thus (at least marginally) help unlock spending.
Second, it would remove pressure to implement far clumsier regulations under the Clean Air Act, which was not designed for tackling the sort of broadly distributed and extraordinarily varied emissions sources that drive climate change. Using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions would likely be far more expensive than using a cap-and-trade system; anything that makes the first path less likely, then, would be an economic plus."

Cons almost completely disagree with scientists on the issue of global climate change.  And they all agree with the con talking points coming from energy corporations.  But there is no truth to the idea, put forward by Oldstyle, that Cap and Trade would have had a negative impact on the economy.  It was simply a policy opposed by energy corporations, for their own benefit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

TARP had more to do with stabilizing the recession than the Obama Stimulus did.  That was Bush's baby.  The Obama Stimulus managed to spend nearly a trillion dollars and create so few new jobs that you progressives had to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Saved" to hide how bad it was...a number that was totally made up.  A number that you don't have the faintest idea how they arrived at!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
I ask what economic policies of Barack Obama's led to the stock market rebound and you give me his Nobel Peace Prize?  God but you're clueless!

You're blathering about "bat shit crazy" talking points while doing NOTHING but using them to excuse Obama's total lack of an economic plan to fix the economy.  Our health care system was one of the worst in the world?  What idiots put together that list of "Major Accomplishments"?

So, the *experts *say the Nobel Prize, which as a con troll you hate with all of your fibre, had a positive  impact on the economy.  And you, as a food services employee and self determined economics expert, pick one of seven points and attack them all.  And you attack me, for posting a link to the source, which is impartial, by the way, and you have absolutely nothing to say of constructive use.  Typical.  If you actually followed the link, you would find who put it together.  And really, calling them idiots while having no idea who the are is typical of a mindless con troll.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

"CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now."

Six experts?  You only quote one!  That one states the following: "Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. *Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers."

Your own expert grasps that passing Cap & Trade legislation in the midst of a recession would be "unwise"...and only suggests that it might be something that could be done years down the road at which time he assumes that the economy would have recovered sufficiently to absorb the hit that such legislation would impose.  Then he makes the BRILLIANT statement that a delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers?  No shit, Sherlock...a delayed cap would impose a delayed cost on U.S. consumers.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

So what did the other five "experts" you chose NOT to quote say about the cost of Cap & Trade legislation to U.S. consumers, Georgie?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TARP had more to do with stabilizing the recession than the Obama Stimulus did.  That was Bush's baby.  The Obama Stimulus managed to spend nearly a trillion dollars and create so few new jobs that you progressives had to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Saved" to hide how bad it was...a number that was totally made up.  A number that you don't have the faintest idea how they arrived at!


You continue to attack 24'7/365.  Complete with no link to prove anything you ever say.  Just con talking points, which to rational people have no value of any kind.  
The ARRA actually did the following;
AMOUNTED TO $787B.  NOT CLOSE TO A TRILLION IN SPENDING, 
So, not a trillion as Oldstyle said, but a total of under $800K.  But how was that broken down, and how much was actual spending?
About $500B was in spending and about $288B were tax decreases, and not spending.  And it created and saved many millions of jobs.  And no, jobs saved is not a new stat.  It is a stat that makes a lot of sense to thinking people who take notice of the fact that we were loosing over 600,000 jobs per month when Obama took office.  But it is an interesting and nonsensical con talking point for con trolls.

So, truth is the ARRA had spending of HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS.  Not close to a trillion dollars.  And under $300K in tax savings, which were in the ARRA because Republicans demanded that they be.  
None

"*Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work.* Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words “failed” and “stimulus,” and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, *they dusted off their old playbook again.*

“The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” wrote Speaker John Boehner. “Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ ”

*The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html
*
That last article was Feb of 2014.  And the economy has only gotten better since.  And con trolls like Oldstyle continue to spread the lies.  And republican politicians have voted down every effort to increase stimulus spending, while sending forward exactly 0 (ZERO) of their own bills.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So what did the other five "experts" you chose NOT to quote say about the cost of Cap & Trade legislation to U.S. consumers, Georgie?


Let me try to educate you, me boy.  Generally, it is a good idea not to post a long article in a web board, because it is too bulky.  If, on the other hand, if you want people to be able to find out for themselves what the full article stated, you provide a link to the article.  Which I did.  
If, on the other hand, you want to hide some portion of the article you are using, you do not provide a link.  Which is dishonest.  Which is why I provide a link.  *And is why you never provide a link to any article.  Ever.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now."
> 
> Six experts?  You only quote one!  That one states the following: "Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. *Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers."
> 
> Your own expert grasps that passing Cap & Trade legislation in the midst of a recession would be "unwise"...and only suggests that it might be something that could be done years down the road at which time he assumes that the economy would have recovered sufficiently to absorb the hit that such legislation would impose.  Then he makes the BRILLIANT statement that a delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers?  No shit, Sherlock...a delayed cap would impose a delayed cost on U.S. consumers.*


Thanks for your expert opinion, me poor ignorant food services expert.  But that is not what the source said, if you actually spent some time reading it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > TARP had more to do with stabilizing the recession than the Obama Stimulus did.  That was Bush's baby.  The Obama Stimulus managed to spend nearly a trillion dollars and create so few new jobs that you progressives had to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Saved" to hide how bad it was...a number that was totally made up.  A number that you don't have the faintest idea how they arrived at!
> ...



Once again, Georgie...how did you progressives arrive at that figure of 1.6 million jobs "created or saved"?  If it's a number that you pulled out of your ass then it means NOTHING!  You would think that you...being the economist that you claim to be...would be more than happy to share with us all the formula that was employed to arrive at that 1.6 million jobs created or saved!  Yet week after week...you can't come up with it!

Which makes you the biggest fraud on this board...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

[/QUOTE]

Did you want to take a crack at explaining which Obama economic policy it was that led to the turn-around in the stock market?  While your statistics look wonderful for Barry, Rshermr...the truth is...the American economy rebounded DESPITE his policies!  If he'd gotten Cap & Trade as he'd wanted...if he'd been able to stop fracking like he wanted...our economy would be in much worse shape than it is right now.  He should give thanks to the GOP for taking over the House in 2010 and stopping him and his progressive minions from doing some serious harm to the recovery.

The statistics, of course, are not mine.  Those statistics are from FactCheck.org.  A Project of the *Annenberg Public Policy Center.  *A project very often attacked by con trolls, because it traffics in truth with evidence, and never, ever talking points.  And was originated by Walter Annenberg, a close personal friend of Ronald Reagan.  And when last registered year ago, was registered as a REPUBLICAN.
But lets look at your attack on Cap and Trade.  Which is consistent with Con talking points.  Here is the actual conservative talking point:
*"FreedomWorks' August Recess Action Kit States:*
Waxman-Markey would cost American jobs. An analysis conducted in 2007 of the kind of policy approach contained in Waxman-Markey estimated as many as 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs would be lost. [FreedomWorks, 8/5/09]"
The above quote from FreedomWorks was by Dick Armey, then Chairman of FreedomWorks.  In a document called *FreedomWorks August Recess Action Kit. *On August 5, 2009.  The claim has been rebutted many times, but to cons, it is "fact".  And Dick Armey has never been known as a source for truth.

So, looking at impartial sources, we have:

2008
A Changed Prognosis for Climate Change Policyby Michael A. LeviNovember 20, 2008
The Debate over Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Tradeby Toni JohnsonUpdated: November 3, 2011
President Obama has pledged to combat climate change and has asked Congress to pass legislation to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns over economic costs have stymied attempts at federal policy in the past, and during the economic crisis it may prove even harder. The debate over U.S. climate policy comes amid lingering doubts by a majority of the U.S. public (_TIME_) about whether climate change should be a priority. And new studies questioning the effects of climate change -- such as a recent study that estimates the West Antarctic ice sheet will melt in thousands and not hundred of years (_Nature_) -- help reinforce those doubts. Despite possible hurdles, the president's first budget assumes that a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases will be up and running by 2012 and will begin generating revenues for the U.S. Treasury. CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now.

*Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies*
Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. *Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers.* It would, however, do two good things:
First, it would reduce current uncertainty about the shape of future greenhouse gas regulations. Uncertainty is a deterrent to investment. Passing cap-and-trade legislation soon would thus (at least marginally) help unlock spending.
Second, it would remove pressure to implement far clumsier regulations under the Clean Air Act, which was not designed for tackling the sort of broadly distributed and extraordinarily varied emissions sources that drive climate change. Using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions would likely be far more expensive than using a cap-and-trade system; anything that makes the first path less likely, then, would be an economic plus."
Here is another expert opinion from the same article:
*Mark Tercek, President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy*
*Contrary to what may be a developing strain of conventional wisdom, strong policies to reduce climate emissions, such as a market-based cap on U.S. greenhouse emissions (also known as "cap and trade"), can provide a form of stimulus to the U.S. economy.* As during the Great Depression and other recessions, the U.S. economy is suffering from a shortfall in aggregate demand -- the collective willingness of American consumers and businesses to buy goods and services. Just one example: New car sales have fallen from roughly 17 million vehicles per year just a few years ago to just over half that number today. This phenomenon ripples throughout the economy and builds on itself. What is needed is a strong shock to the system--just the sort of shock that the president's recovery package was intended to administer.
That shock may be short-lived, however, unless there is a strong sustained basis for continued investment. As the 1930s came to a close, it was World War II that finally provided that function, with the war effort driving up demand for goods and services. Today, by driving private investment in zero- and low-carbon technologies and boots-on-the-ground conservation efforts to reduce net carbon emissions, a national market-based cap on carbon that tightens over time can act as a long-term driver for demand.
*A cap-and-trade system will not only lower emissions and fight climate change, but also will stimulate the economy.* In the short run, it will spur investment and create jobs; in the long run, it will accelerate the deployment of a new productive generation of capital stock.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/cap-trades-economic-impact/p18738

Politifact fact checked your claim, oldstyle, made by a republican presidential candidate, and found it to be untrue.  
Rubio said, "I can tell you with certainty (cap and trade) would have a devastating impact on our economy."
Politifact says:
Existing cap-and-trade programs have not proven to be "devastating" in their economic impact. While estimates for proposed programs vary, most experts and analysts have found modest potential  impact on the economy; some even show a positive impact.

Based on the evidence, Rubio can’t be certain about the potential impact of cap and trade. We rate his claim *False.*
.

Cons almost completely disagree with scientists on the issue of global climate change.  And they all agree with the con talking points coming from energy corporations.  But there is no truth to the idea, put forward by Oldstyle, that Cap and Trade would have had a negative impact on the economy.  It was simply a policy opposed by energy corporations, for their own benefit.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So what did the other five "experts" you chose NOT to quote say about the cost of Cap & Trade legislation to U.S. consumers, Georgie?
> ...



What link that you provided here took someone who was interested to the opinions of the other five experts?  I clicked on everything and got no such opinions.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Ah, now you've provided it!  And now I see why you didn't want to provide the testimony of the other expert witnesses!  Such as this one...

*Sergey V. Mityakov, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Clemson University*
Restricting carbon emissions by cap and trade is probably not a good idea even in a booming economy. Many studies assessing the costs of mitigation of climate change (either through some cap-and-trade system or by means of a carbon tax) indicate that the losses in consumer welfare are likely to be enormous. At the same time the costs of climate change itself are not very well estimated to justify swift mitigation efforts; different studies produce different recommendations. Thus, there is no clear consensus among the scholars whether and when such a scheme should be implemented in the first place.
In the case of a recession, additional negative shock to the economy in a form of cap-and-trade system seems like even a worse idea. If cap and trade were created now, it would lead to higher energy prices for American consumers and businesses, as energy producers would be forced to switch from cheaper and "dirty" fuels such as coal to "cleaner" and more expensive sources of energy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Or this one...

*William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute*
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.



The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

So basically your "experts" come down to environmentalists who don't think extra energy cost passed along to American consumers is a bad thing and therefore love the idea of Cap & Trade...and others who point out that the added costs would be substantial and would have hurt economic growth.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Bottom line...you progressives couldn't even get enough of your fellow Democrats to vote for Cap & Trade even when you controlled the House and Senate.  Why?  Because they understood that passing such legislation would hurt job growth and that the millions of Americans who were out of work would blame THEM for the loss of further jobs!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

I got a good chuckle out of your post comment on Politifact labeling Marco Rubio's claim that Obama's proposed Cap & Trade policy would be "devastating" as false.  What did they base that opinion on?  They based it on how EXISTING Cap & Trade legislation had affected the economy and extrapolated that there wouldn't be a devastating effect on the economy from any proposed Cap & Trade legislation!  That thought process would be the same as saying raising subway tolls by 25 cents didn't affect riders so therefore raising tolls by 5 dollars shouldn't affect them either!  One more example of why Politifact has become a joke.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

[/QUOTE]

Or this one...

*William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute*
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is far from impartial.  Here is the wording from Sourcewatch:
*Competitive Enterprise Institute*
*The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial. *
Not a source that anyone interested in facts would use, An extremely well known bat shit crazy conservative source.   But one that a con troll would use.






The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.
What is the source for this quote?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 5, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Or this one...
> 
> *William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute*
> A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
> ...



So, you believe Politifact is a joke.  But then, con trolls like yourself always hate fact check organizations that are impartial.  So, got any proof that Politifact is a joke, me boy?  Because they are not considered anything but impartial by those that actually think instead of simply post dogma.  As opposed to you, who only posts con dogma?
The politifact expose is the same as all of their work, which is solid journalism.  Well respected.  Not like you, oldstyle, who simply attacks and makes stupid statements about anything that does not fit with your bat shit crazy con talking point statements.
Here is the the most well respected  fact check organizations take on cap and trade:
We got a similar view from John Reilly at the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has run a number of independent projections on the effect of cap-and-trade programs on the economy. *He said MIT’s modeling shows that the House bill would cause a "small net reduction in total employment – but quite small."*
*An important caveat: None of these economic projections attempt to assess the effects of climate change on jobs or the economy. But CBO says it expects there will be major economic consequences should Congress do nothing to control carbon emissions.*
Cap-and-trade: “Green Jobs” or Job Killer?

So there you go, me boy.  I know you hate truth.  But truth is, the effect of cap and trade if done with thought would be quite small, but the effect of doing what you suggest would have "major economic consequences". 

And that is what I have seen when looking at the many sources out there that are now studying the situation.  Small economic effects.  Nothing like the major consequences that you and the bat shit crazy con web sites suggest. And ongoing great improvements compared to the do nothing ideas of cons.   Perhaps I should get a reading from a bat shit liberal web site.  But then, I would not, because I have integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 5, 2016)

Or this one...

*William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute*
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is far from impartial.  Here is the wording from Sourcewatch:
*Competitive Enterprise Institute*
*The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial. *
Not a source that anyone interested in facts would use, An extremely well known bat shit crazy conservative source.   But one that a con troll would use.






The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.
What is the source for this quote?[/QUOTE]

For God's sake...it's from YOUR article, you buffoon!  William Yeatman is one of the 5 "experts" that you cited!  Well, actually you DIDN'T cite his testimony...you only cited the experts that agreed with your viewpoint and tried to hide those that didn't.  It's a sleazy move...the kind of thing a liar does.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Or this one...
> 
> *William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute*
> A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
> ...



For God's sake...it's from YOUR article, you buffoon!  William Yeatman is one of the 5 "experts" that you cited!  Well, actually you DIDN'T cite his testimony...you only cited the experts that agreed with your viewpoint and tried to hide those that didn't.  It's a sleazy move...the kind of thing a liar does.[/QUOTE]

So the food services worker and con troll, Oldstyle, says:
For God's sake...it's from YOUR article, you buffoon!
Not my artical, me boy.  I did not write it.  It was from a group of articles from both sides of the subject.  But under no circumstances would I use bat shit crazy con or liberal web articles as expert sources.  Because, ou see my poor ignorant con troll, I do not use partial sources.  And the competitive enterprise institute is a bat shit crazy con source.  I already showed you source watch's rating ofthe CEI.  Which should not be necessary.  Everyone in the rational world knows what CEI is.  But only a con troll like yourself would use that particular source, and disregard the rest.  Dipshit.  So, you see, I would have no idea what William Yeatman, a known con troll like yourself, would have to say.  And I never read the drivel of partial sources.  Because I prefer impartial sources and truth. Dipshit.

William Yeatman is one of the 5 "experts" that you cited!  Well, actually you DIDN'T cite his testimony...you only cited the experts that agreed with your viewpoint and tried to hide those that didn't.  It's a sleazy move.

There were 5 articles, not testimony, dipshit.  Testimony requires that the person making the statement be under oath.  Dipshit.  The effort was to show both sides, not what was the truth.  It was left to you to try to determine what to believe.  And only a con troll would pick what you chose, showing the fact that you care not at all about truth.  Dipshit.

I sited a pari of the 5 articlesr, both from impartial sources.  You picked the one really, really partial bat shit crazy source.  What a surprise.  What I did was far from sleazy.  What you did, in using that partial source, was indeed sleazy.  And totally dishonest.  And meant to be dishonest.
Relative to hiding testimony, that is such a stupid comment that even you should know better.  *If I wanted to hide a source, I would not provide a link directly to the sources in the article. *Obviously.  Which, again, shows you to be a liar.  Because, me boy, you used the very link I provided to look at the piece I was using.  dipshit.  
Do you ever stop lying and using personal attacks?  Any proof at all of your allegations, from actual impartial sources?  Do you even know what an impartial source is?

Again thanks for proving what I continue to say:  You are indeed a lying con troll.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"?  You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't.  What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

And it's "cite" not "site" you illiterate poser!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

And testimony does not require that someone be under oath.  It can simply mean an open acknowledgment of something.  People give testimony in church and they are not under oath.  Don't even try and correct my word usage, Georgie!  That's a battle that you're ill prepared to fight...especially if you don't have your "secretary" here to help you!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?
> 
> You claim that you don't use "partial sources"?  You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't.  What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!
> 
> ...


  ![/QUOTE]

Oldstyle. You are the joke.  Here.  Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to* educate *you again.  So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games.  I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand. 

I provided you a source with 5 articles from  5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers.  I provided you a *LINK *to the article.  So nothing, me boy, was hidden. *Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything.* At all.  All were available to you.  *The reason you are confused is obvious.  You do not provide sources for your statements.  And therefor you never provide links.  So, sorry you are so confused.  And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand.  Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying.*  As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said.  Hope this helps.  If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And testimony does not require that someone be under oath.  It can simply mean an open acknowledgment of something.  People give testimony in church and they are not under oath.  Don't even try and correct my word usage, Georgie!  That's a battle that you're ill prepared to fight...especially if you don't have your "secretary" here to help you!



No problem to fight that battle.  Here:
tes·ti·mo·ny
ˈtestəˌmōnē/
_noun  _
*a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.*

synonyms: *evidence, sworn statement, attestation, affidavit; 

OR:
     Testimony

 something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth


: proof or evidence that something exists or is true
Definition of TESTIMONY


What evidence is not is a written article with no sworn statements or evidence of truth.  What you were talking about was the opinion of various authors, all with no way of proving what they were saying.  Also known as expert opinion.  But not testimony.

Your welcome you illiterate poser.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And testimony does not require that someone be under oath.  It can simply mean an open acknowledgment of something.  People give testimony in church and they are not under oath.  Don't even try and correct my word usage, Georgie!  That's a battle that you're ill prepared to fight...especially if you don't have your "secretary" here to help you!
> ...



I thought you just declared that you don't use "partial sources", Georgie?  Then you turn around in practically your next post and use one definition of testimony while excluding the others?  It's stuff like this that makes you the joke that you are on this site!  One more example of how you're practically allergic to the truth!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?
> ...



Oldstyle. You are the joke.  Here.  Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to* educate *you again.  So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games.  I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand. 

I provided you a source with 5 articles from  5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers.  I provided you a *LINK *to the article.  So nothing, me boy, was hidden. *Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything.* At all.  All were available to you.  *The reason you are confused is obvious.  You do not provide sources for your statements.  And therefor you never provide links.  So, sorry you are so confused.  And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand.  Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying.*  As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said.  Hope this helps.  If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.  [/QUOTE]

No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others.  You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it.  Why did I call you on the others?  Because I know what a sleaze you are.  I know that you love to cherry pick your information.  So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims.  So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others.  You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it.  Why did I call you on the others?  Because I know what a sleaze you are.  I know that you love to cherry pick your information.  So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims.  So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy![/QUOTE]

Damn.  You are really ignorant.  You still do not know what a link is.  Or so you say..  Coule it be, me boy, tat you are simply a liar?  Of course it could be.  
I did not provide anything, dipshit.  I provided a link to all and posted one or two of the impartial source statements.  You followed the link I provided, and that  you say did not exist, and looked at the entire article.  And said I tried to  hide them from you.  Which I did not.  Because a link proves just the opposite to anyone with a brain.
So, lying and personal attacks.  Did you have any rational and impartial sources that suggest that cap and trade is a large problem?]
Or do you only have a nut case partial source.  dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Damn.  You are really ignorant.  You still do not know what a link is.  Or so you say..  Coule it be, me boy, tat you are simply a liar?  Of course it could be.  
I did not provide anything, dipshit.  I provided a link to all and posted one or two of the impartial source statements.  You followed the link I provided, and that  you say did not exist, and looked at the entire article.  And said I tried to  hide them from you.  Which I did not.  Because a link proves just the opposite to anyone with a brain.
So, lying and personal attacks.  Did you have any rational and impartial sources that suggest that cap and trade is a large problem?]
Or do you only have a nut case partial source.  dipshit.[/QUOTE]

You posted the two articles that supported your claims while you failed to provide a link to the others that did not until I called you on it.  Only then was I able to see what it was that you were attempting to hide.  That's not posting impartial sources, you buffoon...that's the very definition of "cherry picking"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source?  Wow, you are a piece of work!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You posted the two articles that supported your claims while you failed to provide a link to the others that did not until I called you on it.  Only then was I able to see what it was that you were attempting to hide.  That's not posting impartial sources, you buffoon...that's the very definition of "cherry picking"![/QUOTE]
the link was provided for all five pieces, which were in a single article.  Quit lying, if you are capable.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


the link was provided for all five pieces, which were in a single article.  Quit lying, if you are capable.[/QUOTE]

The link for the opposing views to the ones you cherry picked was only provided after I pointed out that you hadn't provided all of the 5 "experts".  I know how you operate, Georgie!  I knew you were hiding something before I saw the other articles.  You're the poster child for sleaze on this board.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie?  Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth.  Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong.  You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source?  Wow, you are a piece of work!



thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources.  and, as I sa


Oldstyle said:


> Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie?  Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth.  Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong.  You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!


Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can  you, dipshit.  Just one more example of how you lie.  
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source.  Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use.  As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do.  Because you are a con troll.  And a complete liar.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 6, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source?  Wow, you are a piece of work!
> ...



So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy?  The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible.  That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it.  You didn't do that...did you, Georgie!  Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 6, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No cherry picking, me poor ignorant con troll.  I would never, ever provide a bat shit crazy liberal source.  Because I have integrity.  Now, I know you are feigning confusion, and I know that you are stupid, and that you are a con troll.  But anyone, anywhere, knows that you do not use a source like the competitive enterprise institute, because it  just proves that you care nothing about truth, and nothing about integrity.  Because you prove that you are going to take the completely partial information of a source that no honest person would ever use.  Which if you wanted to prove anything, simply proves that what you are saying does not pass the giggle test.

But then, you follow the link that I provided and say I provided you no link.  Perhaps you would like to explain why anyone would pay any attention to you at all.  You are simply a lying shit.  Just a low life.  Have you noticed that very few even look at this thread?  Because of the drivel and lies that you post, and the games you play.  

So, do you not care at all about climate change?  

Do you have any idea of  what the costs will be of not stopping climate change?  

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be? 

I think you have nothing except con talking points,


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Funny.  A con troll who is a food services employee, and who has had two classes in economics, and never, ever makes an economic argument suggests that I know nothing about economics.  Wow.  I am so concerned about that, me boy.  A clown like you who only posts con talking points, lies, and drivel, is criticizing my knowledge of economics.  Yeah, I really worry a lot about that.  Do you really believe anyone takes you seriously?
Any time, in the far distant past, when you tried to make an economic argument, it was based on lies.  And was a complete joke.
So, the current issue is climate change cost, which you can not argue because you can not find an impartial source to use.  You have NO idea of what the costs of carbon controls are.  Nor do you have any idea of what doing nothing and allowing climate change would cost.  Let me educate you again, me boy.  Here is an impartial source that made the effort to try to quantify the costs.  

*Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option*
Arguments that climate adaptation is cheaper are like fruit salad – lemons, bananas, and comparing apples to oranges






 Preventing global warming is the cheapest option. 


Dana Nuccitelli

Tuesday 22 April 2014 10.16 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 23 April 201420.15 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting#comments
The IPCC has now released all three of the reports that comprise its 2014 Fifth Assessment of climate science. The first report tackled the physical changes in the global climate, while the second addressed climate impacts and adaptation, and the third looked at climate change mitigation. Ironically, after the second report was published, many media outlets argued that the IPCC was shifting its focus from global warming prevention to adaptation, seemingly unaware that its report on mitigation was scheduled to be published just a few weeks later.

Other media outlets have incorrectly argued that the IPCC reports conclude it's cheaper to adapt than avoid climate change. This error stems from the fact that the second report says about the costs of climate damages,

"the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income ... Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range ... Losses accelerate with greater warming, but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above."

The third report then said about the costs of avoiding global warming,

*"mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation ... [that] correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year."*

The challenge is that these two numbers aren't directly comparable. One deals with annual global economic losses, while the other is expressed as a slightly slowed global consumption growth.

*Sorting Out the Numbers with Chris Hope*
To sort these numbers out, I spoke with Cambridge climate economist Chris Hope, who told me that if the goal is to figure out the economically optimal amount of global warming mitigation, the IPCC reports "_don't take us far down this road._" To do this comparison properly, the benefits of reduced climate damages and the costs of reduced greenhouse gas emissions need to be compared in terms of "net present value." That's the sort of estimate Integrated Assessment Models like Hope's PAGE were set up to make.

According to Hope's model, the economically optimal peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 500 ppm, with a peak global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial temperatures (about 2°C warmer than present). In his book _The Climate Casino_, Yale economist William Nordhaus notes that he has arrived at a similar conclusion in his modeling research.

To limit global warming to that level would require major efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but as the IPCC report on mitigation noted, that would only slow the global economic growth rate from about 2.3% per year to about 2.24% per year. According to these economic models, this slowed economic growth rate would be more than offset by the savings from avoiding climate damages above 3°C global warming.

Although the IPCC didn't make this comparison, these economic modeling results are consistent with its reports. As shown in the quote above, the second report was only able to estimate the costs of climate damages for an additional 2°C of global warming, and noted that beyond that point, the costs accelerate to a point where they become very difficult to estimate. Nordhaus has similarly noted,

"In reality, estimates of damage functions are virtually non-existent for temperature increases above 3°C."

*Australian and Turkish Fruit Salad*
Author and analyst Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center has been the most prominent voice in incorrectly claiming the IPCC concluded that climate adaptation would be cheaper than mitigation. For example, he was interviewed in Rupert Murdoch's _The Australian_, and authored a piece in the Turkish _Today's Zaman_.

Both pieces are lemons for the same reasons. Lomborg argued,

"If we don't do anything, the damages caused by climate change will cost less than 2 per cent of GDP in about 2070. Yet the cost of doing something will likely be higher than 6 per cent of GDP, according to the IPCC report"

This compares the annual global economic losses figure for 2°C additional warming in the second report with the slowed global consumption growth figures to limit the warming to another 1°C in the third report. The problem is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. The former tells us the cost of climate damages in a scenario where we also take significant steps to slow global warming. *It's not the cost of adaptation if we continue with business as usual, which would result in another 4°C warming by 2100 and incalculable damage costs.*

Without the modeling tools used by economists like Hope and Nordhaus, these figures can't properly be put into an apples to apples comparison. Both the costs of mitigating and the costs of adapting to climate damages must be taken into account. I discussed this point with Lomborg and he agreed,

"I agree that the right way to look at the climate issue is to run integrated models and finding where the costs and the benefits are equal (so we don't underinvest in climate but don't over-invest either) ... However, the UN Climate Panel actively decided in 1998 to *not* do cost-benefit of climate."

So Lomborg and Hope agree that the IPCC reports don't allow for a simple comparison between the costs of global warming prevention and adaptation. Lomborg used the two figures discussed above to make the only comparison possible from the reports, but this is an incorrect comparison, and inconsistent with the results from economic models.

Lomborg also cherry picked the year 2070 to make his economic comparison between the costs of adaptation and mitigation. Why 2070? By that point, in a business-as-usual scenario the planet probably won't have warmed much more than 2°C compared to current temperatures. The problem with this cherry pick is that the world won't end in 2070; in fact, most of today's children will still be alive in 2070. If we continue on that business-as-usual path, global warming will continue to accelerate after 2070, past the point where economists can't even accurately estimate its accelerating costs. That's bananas.





 IPCC AR5 projected global average surface temperature changes in a business as usual scenario (RCP8.5; red) and low emissions scenario (RCP2.6; blue).
Another problem in this argument is that as shown in the second quote above, the IPCC estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are "_not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation_." For example, the cleaner air and water, and associated health benefits that come with transitioning away from dirty high-carbon energy sources save money that the IPCC doesn't take into account. So the costs of avoiding global warming would in reality likely be even less than the estimated 0.06% per year slowing in the rate at which the global economy continues to grow.

Meanwhile, the IPCC noted that the costs of climate damages for just another 2°C warming "_are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller_" than its estimates. And if we don't take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we'll blow past 2°C warming into uncharted economic damage territory.

*Avoiding Global Warming is Cheaper than Adapting*
The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming. On the other hand, taking those steps can have a negligible impact on global economic growth. The IPCC report also makes the point that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. In determining that mitigating global warming is affordable, the IPCC used the following scenarios.

"Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs"

It's important to understand that our choices aren't to either reduce carbon emissions or to do nothing. *Our options are to either reduce carbon emissions or to continue with business-as-usual emissions that will cause accelerating climate change and damage costs beyond what we can accurately estimate. From an economic perspective, and from a risk management perspective, this should be a no-brainer. As economist Paul Krugman put it,*

*"So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?"*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Stopping climate change?  Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change?  We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now!  That's idiotic even for a progressive!

For some strange reason you liberals think imposing higher energy costs HERE (and only the truly clueless won't admit that energy costs have to go up with a Cap & Trade system!) will lessen climate change worldwide!  Anyone who understands the global economy knows only too well that what will happen will be a tidal wave of industry leavign the US and going to countries that have no such system...like China...who will continue to spew out even more pollution because of the additional industry.   Now if you could figure out some way to compartmentalize countries like China and India from the rest of the world so their pollution won't spill over to affect us you might make things better but that's not going to happen.  So what will you have done?  You'll have shifted industry from a country where in comparison to other places, we don't pollute...to countries that are serial polluters!  So not only will you burden Americans with higher energy costs...you'll drive jobs out of the country...and as the icing on the cake...you'll not reduce worldwide pollution one bit and might even increase it!

Common sense is the enemy of the average Progressive.  They pass laws because they think it will fix things but invariably at the end of the day you buffoons create more problems then you solve.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Dana Nucitelli is an "impartial source"?  Really, Georgie?  Find me something he's written that isn't fervently anti fossil fuel and pro climate change!  He's about as partial as they come!  Every time you announce that you're about to provide an unbiased source...you invariably then immediately provide a source that's totally biased.  It's like you can't help yourself.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Stopping climate change?  Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change?  We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now!  That's idiotic even for a progressive!
Wrong question me boy.  Do you have any idea of the cost of doing nothing as you suggest? You are such a simpleton when you morph into your con troll persona.  First you call a sitting president with high approval ratings insulting names, proving that you have no class or integrity at all.  Then, you suggest that Obama went out and negotiated an agreement with one nation.  Which is a complete lie.  There were a large number of nations involved, and a large number of people negotiating the deal.  And, me boy, it was based on what a large number of climate scientists believed needed to be done.  
It was not, me boy, based on what a simpleton con troll with no knowledge of the subject thought should be done.  It was not what some con troll like yourself who pulled out con talking points thought should be done.  That is beyond stupid, but probably a good represenstation of your simple view of the subject. 

For some strange reason you liberals think imposing higher energy costs HERE (and only the truly clueless won't admit that energy costs have to go up with a Cap & Trade system!) will lessen climate change worldwide!  That would be, me boy, completely untrue. What actual rational minds believe is exactly what the great majority of climate scientists believe.  Which is we have a huge problem that only the con trolls, republican politicians paid by energy companies, and the energy companies themselves tell you to believe.  And, we are smart enough to not believe con talking points or the energy companies or any politicians.  We tend to believe the science.  As does anyone who studies the subject.
Anyone who understands the global economy knows only too well that what will happen will be a tidal wave of industry leavign the US and going to countries that have no such system...like China...who will continue to spew out even more pollution because of the additional industry. Actually, me boy, those who have no idea of the economics of the issue are those who make no effort to understand the cost of doing nothing.  Which, by every estimate based on the science, will be hugely more than the cost of cap and trade or other carbon decrease efforts that exist.  Making what you say again a simplistic bit of nonsense. And, by the way, there is no chance that waves of anything are leaving the US.  That is simplistic con dogma, trying to scare the weak minded.   Now if you could figure out some way to compartmentalize countries like China and India from the rest of the world so their pollution won't spill over to affect us you might make things better but that's not going to happen.  So what will you have done?  You'll have shifted industry from a country where in comparison to other places, we don't pollute...to countries that are serial polluters!  So not only will you burden Americans with higher energy costs...you'll drive jobs out of the country...and as the icing on the cake...you'll not reduce worldwide pollution one bit and might even increase it!
So, thanks so much for your analysis.  The analysis, by the way, from a food services worker with no scientific or economic sources of any kind.  And thanks for that paragraph of conservative talking points coming from your totally simple and incapable mind.  I know you are told to believe what the con talking points say.  And it is quite obvious that you do not have the intellectual curiosity to study the subject.  Because, as a con troll, it is simpler to simply believe what you are told to believe.  Which is why you offer no proof of anything.  No links.  Just con drivel.  Just being a tool for the conservative cause, mind numbing as you are.

Common sense is the enemy of the average Progressive.  They pass laws because they think it will fix things but invariably at the end of the day you buffoons create more problems then you solve.
So, you are incapable of showing common sense.  Perhaps that is the best you can do.  As a simpleton food services employee with no economic background and no curiosity about the science at hand, you somehow believe that your drivel makes some sort of sense.  Here is the problem, Oldstyle.  It is you, or thousands of climate scientists.  You and the energy companies not wanting to give up a dollar of profit.  You and a group of clowns who are of the belief that the cost of fighting climate change is anything like the cost that will be incurred by our children and future generations if we do what you suggest, which is NOTHING.  Because you do not believe the majority of nations of the world, and do not believe our own military, or our scientists and science, because you are a con troll.
So, I asked and you ignored the following:  Lets try again.

So, do you not care at all about climate change? 

Do you have any idea of  what the costs will be of not stopping climate change? 

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be?

I think you have nothing except con talking points.  And will just continue on with your conservative drivel proving yourself to be a total waste of space.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Wow, all of THAT...and you didn't address a single point I made other than to call them conservative talking points?

Typical, Rshermr...

U.S. and China reach historic climate change agreement - CNN.com


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Now I know this is difficult for you.  As a con tool, you simply believe what you are told to believe.  But actual impartial sources follow the science.  That does not make them biased in any way.  Because, you see, they base their conclusions on things like facts, studies, journalism, truth, expert sources.  Not like you who simply believe con talking points.  You see, to the thinking world, con talking points are stupid, like those who believe them.
What Dana said is what every impartial source says.  Which is the cost of doing what con trolls suggest is much, much higher than the cost of efforts to slow and stop global climate change.  Way too difficult for you to even try to understand.  Better and simpler to just believe what you are told to believe, and say what you are told to say.  Because you are a simple minded con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]

]Wow, all of THAT...and you didn't address a single point I made other than to call them conservative talking points?

Typical, Rshermr...


That's it?   You can not answer the simple questions.  And I did indeed address your "points".  But then, your points were just simple minded talking points.  No source.  No link.  Just the simple talking points regurgitated as normal for you.
So, got it.  You are incapable of discussing the subject, and just want to post talking points.  And answering a few questions is beyond you.
Next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Barry reaches an agreement with the world's largest polluter where they agree to cap their pollution levels by 2030 while we cut ours by 1/3 NOW...but you don't grasp why that deal sucks for the US?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are?  That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

That deal sucks even if the Chinese keep their word and we have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that will happen!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Barry reaches an agreement with the world's largest polluter where they agree to cap their pollution levels by 2030 while we cut ours by 1/3 NOW...but you don't grasp why that deal sucks for the US?



Again, insulting a sitting president in an effort to prove you have neither class nor integrity.  And a couple of unsupported claims.  *You are, me boy, irrelevant.  As a food services worker, you have no import at all.  *


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

[/QUOTE]

]Wow, all of THAT...and you didn't address a single point I made other than to call them conservative talking points?

Typical, Rshermr...


That's it?   You can not answer the simple questions.  And I did indeed address your "points".  But then, your points were just simple minded talking points.  No source.  No link.  Just the simple talking points regurgitated as normal for you.
So, got it.  You are incapable of discussing the subject, and just want to post talking points.  And answering a few questions is beyond you.
Next.[/QUOTE]

Calling what someone says a talking point doesn't "address" what they've said!  It's a dodge.  Kindly explain why letting the world's largest polluter continue to increase their pollution levels until 2030 was in any way a good deal for the planet?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are?  That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!


Stupid, stupid post.  You are again full of crap.  The answer is out there, me boy.  And it is really simple.  So, are you going to answer my questions?  
Since you are mentally challenged and may have forgotten, here are the questions for the *THIRD *time:

So, do you not care at all about climate change? 

Do you have any idea of what the costs will be of not stopping climate change? 

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be? 

I think you have nothing except con talking points,

And, for your sake, I made the font color red so you could actually see it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Of course I "care" about climate change!  If you cared about it you wouldn't support a deal that allows the Chinese to continue increasing their pollution levels for the next fifteen years before they capped them!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

]Wow, all of THAT...and you didn't address a single point I made other than to call them conservative talking points?

Typical, Rshermr...


That's it?   You can not answer the simple questions.  And I did indeed address your "points".  But then, your points were just simple minded talking points.  No source.  No link.  Just the simple talking points regurgitated as normal for you.
So, got it.  You are incapable of discussing the subject, and just want to post talking points.  And answering a few questions is beyond you.
Next.[/QUOTE]

Calling what someone says a talking point doesn't "address" what they've said!  It's a dodge.  Kindly explain why letting the world's largest polluter continue to increase their pollution levels until 2030 was in any way a good deal for the planet?[/QUOTE]
Ah, but it does.  It shows that no thought went into the statements you made.  It shows that you did no investigation of the subject.  You provided no source, no link.  You want me to believe that the unsupported statement of a food services employee is worth considering?  Really, me boy, get a grip.  Where is your source, your link.  Then I could actually take you somewhat seriously.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

The answer is out there and it's really simple?  Sigh...I assume THAT answer is right next to your economic formula for determining "jobs saved"?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Of course I "care" about climate change!  If you cared about it you wouldn't support a deal that allows the Chinese to continue increasing their pollution levels for the next fifteen years before they capped them!
> Again, no source, no link, just the vacuous words of a food services employee.  Simplistic and of no value of any kind.  Just wasting people's time.  Because you are a con troll.  And yes, you are simply posting con talking points.  Did you think because you can post talking points you were making a point?  dipshit.
> 
> So, why are you a dipshit?  Because you are simply wasting people's time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Googling, cutting and pasting is what doesn't require thought, Georgie!  This might shock you but people with intellect and knowledge make arguments without relying on the internet.  I know that's something that you're incapable of...trust me I've seen your attempts to do so!...but I can have an intelligent conversation about economic topics without getting a "link".


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

[/QUOTE]  [/QUOTE]The answer is out there and it's really simple?  Sigh...I assume THAT answer is right next to your economic formula for determining "jobs saved"?
Thanks for telling all that looking for the actual science, the actual truth, is of no interest to you.  The really funny thing is, you can not see how stupid you look.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Of course when you're PRETENDING to have a degree in economics you're really kind of forced to cut and paste someone else...aren't you?  It's not like you could argue anything from your OWN knowledge base because you have none!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

[/QUOTE]The answer is out there and it's really simple?  Sigh...I assume THAT answer is right next to your economic formula for determining "jobs saved"?
Thanks for telling all that looking for the actual science, the actual truth, is of no interest to you.  The really funny thing is, you can not see how stupid you look.[/QUOTE]


Does your "actual science" not tell you that China is the world's largest polluter?  Does your "actual science" somehow tell you that allowing the country that is polluting the most NOW to increase their levels of pollution for another fifteen years before they "cap" them at whatever level they've reached then is not a good deal for the planet?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

I would make the point that setting a "cap" in the year 2030 is actually incentivizing the Chinese to increase pollution levels!  Why wouldn't they?  Burning cheap coal while the US shifts to more expensive types of energy would give them a massive economic advantage.  Obama's "deal" encourages the Chinese to pollute more in the short term.  That's some more of that common sense that you progressives are so sorely lacking!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Googling, cutting and pasting is what doesn't require thought, Georgie!  This might shock you but people with intellect and knowledge make arguments without relying on the internet.  I know that's something that you're incapable of...trust me I've seen your attempts to do so!...but I can have an intelligent conversation about economic topics without getting a "link".
Yes, but that would require you had intellect and knowledge.  Which you do not.  Which means you are simply posting con dogma, as usual.
Thinking that you have the knowledge to make an actual argument is what your problem is.  You are, me boy, completely ignorant of the subject.  
I have studied this subject for years, but not closely.  But I know there is valid information on the web, as well as drivel.  If you try, you can find something other than conservative drivel.  You just do not try.  And your "Points" are, therefor, simply drivel.  Sad.
You need to get this through your little bitty mind, oldstyle.  You are a simple food services employee.  Which makes you no expert at all.  And no one in the world respects the opinion on global climate change of a food services employee.  Nor of a retired IT guy.  Which, as a rational person, is why I read and use sources from experts on the subject.  Is that beyond you?  And why I use links to those sources.  Is that also beyond you?

Again, here are the few simple questions you are avoiding for the *FOURTH *time: 

So, do you not care at all about climate change?   Answered. You say you do.

Do you have any idea of what the costs will be of not stopping climate change?   Apparently you do not.  You simply know it is more than the cost of the dish washing soap you have to buy.

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?
I believe you think that is the case, based on nothing but what you want to believe.
Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be?   Yes, you believe you do, in the form or con talking points you were told to believe.


I think you have nothing except con talking points,

And, for your sake, I made the font color red so you could actually see it.  And provided answers so you did not have to do any work.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Googling, cutting and pasting is what doesn't require thought, Georgie!  This might shock you but people with intellect and knowledge make arguments without relying on the internet.  I know that's something that you're incapable of...trust me I've seen your attempts to do so!...but I can have an intelligent conversation about economic topics without getting a "link".
> Yes, but that would require you had intellect and knowledge.  Which you do not.  Which means you are simply posting con dogma, as usual.
> Thinking that you have the knowledge to make an actual argument is what your problem is.  You are, me boy, completely ignorant of the subject.
> I have studied this subject for years, but not closely.  But I know there is valid information on the web, as well as drivel.  If you try, you can find something other than conservative drivel.  You just do not try.  And your "Points" are, therefor, simply drivel.  Sad.
> ...



So you don't have an answer to my point that the deal with China allows them to keep increasing pollution...other than to blather on about my supposedly being a dishwasher?

You can post in neon orange font, Georgie and that won't change the fact that you can't argue your position!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

I can always tell when you don't know how to respond to something I've posted with an intelligent answer...you start spamming about "bat shit crazy con talking points" and accusing me of being a "food service" employee.  Running multi million dollar food and beverage operations would indeed qualify me as working in the food service industry.  I think it's rather obvious at this point that I'm not a dishwasher, however.  Yet you keep making that claim.  Why is that, Georgie?  Because you think it gets under my skin?  I'm sorry but whenever I hear that from you it generally results in my chuckling at my computer screen because I know that you've painted yourself into yet another corner trying to argue something that you don't have the faintest idea about and are resorting to name calling in order not to admit you have no answers.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie.  You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day!  You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal with China was a good thing.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

So, Oldstyle says:

Does your "actual science" not tell you that China is the world's largest polluter? Yes, that is simple.  Has been since 2006.  And we are number 2.   Does your "actual science" somehow tell you that allowing the country that is polluting the most NOW to increase their levels of pollution for another fifteen years before they "cap" them at whatever level they've reached then is not a good deal for the planet?  That is an untrue statement.   There are many efforts by China that you choose to ignore.  You are again showing you are not at all interested in truth.  The concept that China is waiting until 2030 to do anything is rubbish.  Lies, in other words.

"In 2015, Beijing saw a 16 percent annual fall in the concentration of the most deadly type of air pollutant, according to an analysis by the Paulson Institute and Greenpeace of air quality data from the United States Embassy in Beijing. Though virtually all of those gains were registered during the summer and early fall, they still proved enough to make 2015 the cleanest year since the embassy began publishing data in 2008."
*How China Is (Surprise!) Winning Its War On Air Pollution*
*But the country isn’t in the clear yet.*
*How China Is (Surprise!) Winning Its War On Air Pollution*

*The simplistic concept you are pushing that China is simply going to go on and increase pollution until 2030 is untrue.  A total lie.  A con talking point.  There is a lot going on in China, way more than in the US.  Because they have a major problem, and are actually trying to do something about it.  Because it takes time to stop pollution, and pollution is not stopped immediately as simplistic minds want to believe.*

*The amount of emissions per unit of GDP fell by 6.2% in 2014, it said.
Li said China expects to reduce that further by “more than 3.1%” this year, adding it aims to stop coal consumption growing “in key areas”.
China vows to fight pollution 'with all our might'

There is no waiting on efforts to decrease the pollution, in China.  Saying they are waiting for 2030 to do something is a lie, totally dishonest.  And ignorant.

*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are?  That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!


More talking points by a food services worker.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That deal sucks even if the Chinese keep their word and we have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that will happen!


The opinion of  a food services employee with no source or link.  Waste of time.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That deal sucks even if the Chinese keep their word and we have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that will happen!
> ...


So, do you suggest that the Chinese will do nothing about their pollution problem until 2030?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie.  You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day!  You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
Ah.  That explains why you just ran off 10 or so short nonsensical posts.  Got it.  
Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, I have made about 1/4 as many posts as you have so far this morning.  So, fuck off.
Second, there is no problem finding sources saying that the Global Climate Change meeting came up with a good agreement.  As always, not perfect.  But a good deal.  There are lots of them, just takes a couple minutes if you were interested.  Which you are not.  
So, lets try to educate you again: 
There is no Obama agreement.  Never was.  It is called UNFCCC, or Paris Agreement.  Only con trolls call it the Obama agreement.  Because it was no such thing.  Making that a lie, me boy.  Please read:
"The *Paris Agreement* (French: _L'accord de Paris_) is an agreement within the framework of the *United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) *dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. An agreement on the language of the treaty was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015"

So, you may notice it was 195 countries.  Not the US and China.  Dipshit.
So, you may notice it was not an agreement negotiated by Obama.  Dipshit.
And it was not an agreement whereby China would do nothing till 2030.  Dipshit.
You lie, and lie, and lie.  Posting con dogma that is talking points is dishonest.

there are many sources saying the Paris Agreement was a good, perhaps historic, event.  Here is one of many, many which say exactly that:
*Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success*
With all 196 nations having a say, the UN climate deal, with all its frustrations and drama, has proven that compromise works for the planet
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success

So, there you go.  *The worlds greatest diplomatic success. * Impartial source, agreement that the Paris Agreement was a success.  Source with link.  And there are many, many more that agree.  The only sources I can find that agree with you, Oldstyle, are completely partial conservative nut case sources.  Sources that no rational person would ever use. I know you would like to use them, but then it would further prove you are a lying con troll.

So, while some who want more restrictions on emissions, and conservatives say it will not help, the scientific community generally sees it as a good start, with more needed.  Not, as the conservatives say, that we should simply ignore it.  Because the Paris Agreement does not limit changes, but rather sets a floor on minimal changes.  The idea that we should make China do more is stupid.  We have no way of doing so.  Neither they, or any other country.  But so far, China has been doing more than they have promised.  Because they have a huge problem in their country that they have to solve.  Not because anyone external to china is making them do anything.  Or can do so.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are?  That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!



More talking points by a food services worker.





Oldstyle said:


> So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?



Simple.  A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not.  But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.  
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly.  Efforts to do so will show results in the future.  Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything.  Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything.  The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse.  You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts.  , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children.  And their quality of life.  You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry.  Because, again, you are a con troll.  And cons do not use rational thought.  So you believe lies.  And that is fine with you.  
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do.  We worry about our world.  You worry about staying on the con talking points.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie.  You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day!  You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
> Ah.  That explains why you just ran off 10 or so short nonsensical posts.  Got it.
> Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> First, I have made about 1/4 as many posts as you have so far this morning.  So, fuck off.
> ...



There you go again, Georgie...pretending that you know things,  that you then immediately prove you know NOTHING about!

The deal that Obama signed between China and the US was reached back in November of 2014 and only involved those two countries.  The Paris Agreement was something that was signed more than a year later and THAT was a deal involving 195 countries!

Oh, and by the way...you've made 16 posts today to my 17.  That's 1/4?  You're as bad at math as you are at global warming deals.

And I still haven't heard an explanation from you on how a deal that allows China to continue to increase it's levels of pollution for fifteen years before they agree to cap that level at god knows what amount somehow is a good deal for the planet?  It's a great deal for the Chinese because they get to go right on building their economy on cheap energy while the US agrees to lower it's pollution levels substantially something that will cost US industries billions of dollars in energy costs.  Why would anyone sign a deal that was so totally one sided?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming.  Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie.  You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day!  You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
> ...


That would be, me boy, because you did not read it. I am not going to post it again.  Because I can not believe you are so stupid as to believe what you were saying.  Are you that stupid?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Did the idiot who didn't know the difference between the agreement the US and China signed in 2014 and the Paris Accord signed over a year later just call ME stupid?  LOL  That's some funny shit, Georgie...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming.  Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!
Stupid post.  As usual.  No one talks any more about a short term agreement leading up to the Paris agreement.  Period.  Oh, except you.  Because you are stupid.

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
Jesus, I did not know how important I am to you.  I had more important things to do.  Though I have to admit, in terms of importance, you set a really low bar.
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN.
Hardly.  Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive.  Not again, but always.  But delusion is normal for you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You still can't grasp that the two deals were exclusive of each other...can you, Georgie?  That's the problem with being an idiot and trying to pretend that you know something about a topic by Googling it...sometimes you need a little knowledge to grasp what it is that you're reading...something which you obviously don't have.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

"Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you."

LOL...I don't even know what that gibberish means, Georgie!  When you get rattled you make even less sense than normal...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes, me boy.  I know, and everyone knows, that the two agreements were mutually exclusive.  Jesus, you are stupid.
And yes, being ignorant is a big problem.  As you continue to prove.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Jesus, you are stupid.



actually you are the liberal here!!! If you have anything intelligent to say in defense of liberalism please do or admit with your silence or attempts to change the subject you lack the IQ for it and are here just wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you."
> 
> LOL...I don't even know what that gibberish means, Georgie!  When you get rattled you make even less sense than normal...


Please, your ignorance is getting embarrassing
It is simple.  Even a rational third grader would understand.  What it is saying is that oldstyle (that is you, dipshit) and someone who could outsmart anyone but himself, are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.  Please.  Give it up.  Way to complex for you, ass hole.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus, you are stupid.
> ...


yes, my point exactly.  You are the con.  and cons are stupid.  
Here.  Even you may understand this;
*5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid*
*5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid*
NOW, TO EXPLAIN, these are actual scientific studies.  Not some book written by a biassed author.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus, you are stupid.
> ...


Rshermr didn't know that the Paris Accord and the deal brokered a year earlier between the US and China were two separate things.  I swear...every time he tries to act like he knows something about what's going on in the world around him...he ends up revealing that he's actually totally oblivious.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you."
> ...



Dude, it's gibberish.  Whenever you try and post something that's not cut and paste from someone else...you come across as a blathering idiot!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> .  You are the con.  and cons are stupid.


if you think our Founders were stupid for supporting freedom and limited govt please say why.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



When I made the following comment:
Stopping climate change? Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change? We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now! That's idiotic even for a progressive!

You responded with this:  
"Wrong question me boy. Do you have any idea of the cost of doing nothing as you suggest? You are such a simpleton when you morph into your con troll persona. First you call a sitting president with high approval ratings insulting names, proving that you have no class or integrity at all. Then, you suggest that Obama went out and negotiated an agreement with one nation. Which is a complete lie. There were a large number of nations involved, and a large number of people negotiating the deal. And, me boy, it was based on what a large number of climate scientists believed needed to be done. 

Yeah, everyone knows there were two agreements but YOU, Rshermr!  But now you're claiming that you knew all along?  Explain your above post...

One more example of you trying to lie your way out of another corner you've painted yourself into!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

Oldstyle didn't know that the Paris Accord and the deal brokered a year earlier between the US and China were two separate things. I swear...every time he tries to act like he knows something about what's going on in the world around him...he ends up revealing that he's actually totally oblivious.
But what is really funny is that he actually thinks that the Nov 2014 agreement is still relevant.  That the two did not become one after the Paris agreement.  
And equally funny, Oldstyle apparently thinks that the Nov 2014 agreement was negotiated by Obama, saying that it was Obama's agreement.
And also funny is that he thinks the Nov 2014  agreement was unknown by anyone at all.  Poor guy.  Being a congenital idiot, as he is, proves his ignorance is not his fault.  Just bad luck.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

And the Rshermr "parade of lies" begins once again!  God but you're pathetic...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...




Yeah, everyone knows there was, at the time of my comment, only one agreement on the books.  Except YOU, Oldstyle.  you thought there were still two.  You missed the fact that the Nov 2014 agreement was now part of the Paris agreement.  Everyone knew but you.
Or are you simply lying, oldstyle.  It is hard to know with a liar like you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And the Rshermr "parade of lies" begins once again!  God but you're pathetic...



That, in and of itself, is a lie.  Because I never, ever lie.  Poor oldstyle has a life ambition of getting people to believe I lie.  But he fails each time.  Because I never, ever lie.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And the Rshermr "parade of lies" begins once again!  God but you're pathetic...
> ...



Gee for a guy that "never ever" lies, Georgie...you sure get caught telling a lot of lies!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm curious Georgie...you claim that you knew there were two different agreements...but then you claimed that Obama never negotiated with just China?  Sorry, my big nosed friend but you can't have it both ways!  If you admit that there were two different agreements (something that it's obvious you DIDN'T know before I pointed it out to you!) then it's pretty clear that you told a lie when you claimed Obama didn't negotiate a climate change deal with just China.  So which is it?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Sealy...this is NOT a good economy!  I'm sorry but it isn't.  Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009?  Heck yeah!  And it should be!  We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now.  That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along.  I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years.  He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.



I see...and what does Bush "own" if Obama owns Great Recession?

And further, what is TARP and Stimulus if not "initiatives to grow the economy". Economists tell us ARRA made millions of jobs in recessionary economy and there is good reason to think recession could've been much deeper without bails, but hey it's not like economists have a clue about economics...right?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm curious Georgie...you claim that you knew there were two different agreements...but then you claimed that Obama never negotiated with just China?  Sorry, my big nosed friend but you can't have it both ways!  If you admit that there were two different agreements (something that it's obvious you DIDN'T know before I pointed it out to you!) then it's pretty clear that you told a lie when you claimed Obama didn't negotiate a climate change deal with just China.  So which is it?


  [/QUOTE]
So, have you always been that stupid, or have you been really working at it lately.
Obama never negotiated an agreement with China in any situation.  Not in 2014.  not in the France agreement.  Because it was never his job.  Others negotiated for the US.  All that we know obama did was to sign the agreements.  
Perhaps you would like to explain why you are arguing the point.  My guess is that it is because you are a con, which is synonymous with saying you are stupid.
Jesus, but you are ignorant.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Sealy...this is NOT a good economy!  I'm sorry but it isn't.  Is it better than it was back in 2008 and 2009?  Heck yeah!  And it should be!  We've done nonstop quantitative easing and kept interest rates at nearly zero for eight years now.  That should have had the economy on a fast boil years ago but instead we've got an economy that's just grinding along.  I don't blame Barry for a bad economy...I blame him for a total lack of initiatives to grow the economy and put people back to work for much of the last six years.  He owns "The Great Recession" because he hasn't had a clue when it comes to economics.
> ...



Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008.  Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank.  Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

As for the ARRA?  With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question.  Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula.  They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious Georgie...you claim that you knew there were two different agreements...but then you claimed that Obama never negotiated with just China?  Sorry, my big nosed friend but you can't have it both ways!  If you admit that there were two different agreements (something that it's obvious you DIDN'T know before I pointed it out to you!) then it's pretty clear that you told a lie when you claimed Obama didn't negotiate a climate change deal with just China.  So which is it?


So, have you always been that stupid, or have you been really working at it lately.
Obama never negotiated an agreement with China in any situation.  Not in 2014.  not in the France agreement.  Because it was never his job.  Others negotiated for the US.  All that we know obama did was to sign the agreements.  
Perhaps you would like to explain why you are arguing the point.  My guess is that it is because you are a con, which is synonymous with saying you are stupid.
Jesus, but you are ignorant.[/QUOTE]

Seriously?  That's what you're going with?  That Obama didn't do the deal with China...that it was his "negotiators" that did it?  That's pathetic even for you, Georgie!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008.  Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank.  Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.



How can we remember that which is a fabrication?

Bush administration NEVER recognized real estate bubble and denied problems until it became near comic.

Bush denies U.S. economy in recession

But yes, TARP was initiated under Bush, for which I give him full credit, but was also supported and administered by Obama once he was in office.




Oldstyle said:


> As for the ARRA?  With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.
> 
> I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question.  Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula.  They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.



You don't understand macroeconomic limitations - there is no way to isolate ARRA effects from the rest of the economy.  There is no "ACTUALLY CREATED" known because that's not something that is possible to track once you get into secondary and tertiary effects. Best we have are estimates by economists, estimates that show (unsurprisingly) that 800 billion did not simply vanish into thin air as conservatives laughably claim.

This is what unemployment would look like without ARRA TARP and QE according to some studies.





The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

When


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]
Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008.  Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank.  Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.

As for the ARRA?  With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few net new jobs their programs actually created.

I've asked Rshermr for weeks now to give me the economic formula that was used to determine "Jobs Saved" if it's REALLY a viable number and for weeks he's ducked answering that question.  Why he's doing so is obvious...there is no such formula.  They basically pulled that number out of their posteriors.
As you may have noticed, Oldstyle is a congenital liar. I offered him the equation IF he would provide me with a bill that republicans used to help mitigate the damage from the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  And, oldstyle has failed to do so.  So he did not meet the condition I required and that Oldstyle agreed to.  So, no bill identified, then no formula.  Simply trying to keep things honorable.  But then oldstyle lies and states I did not provide a condition, and he did not agree to one.  Because, oldstyle lies and has no integrity at all.  H states I ducked it.  I can prove i never, ever ducked it.  If os would meet the condition, I would provide him with the Formula.  Problem is, as I knew and he now knows, republicans provided no help of any kind in reducing the problems their recession had caused.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008.  Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank.  Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.
> ...



*Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.*  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

*2001*


*April:* The Administration's *FY02 budget* declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
*2002*


*May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) *calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
*2003*


*February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)* releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. 


*September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow* testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.


*September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)* strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," _The New York Times_, 9/11/03) 


*October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)* refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)


*November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw* explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
*2004*


*February: The President's FY05 Budget* again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)


*February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw* cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," _Financial Times_, 2/24/04)


*April: Rep. Frank* ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," _American Banker_, 4/21/04)


*June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman *spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  *(Samuel Bodman, *House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
*2005*


*April: Then-Secretary Snow* repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)


*July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid* rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," _United Press International_, 7/28/05)
*2007*


*August: President Bush* emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)


*August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd* ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," _The New York Times_, 8/11/07)


*December: President Bush* again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
*2008*


*February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason* reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)


*March: President Bush* calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)


*April: President Bush* urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)


*May: President Bush* issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)


"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)


"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

*June:* As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, *the President* once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)


*July:* Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


*September:* Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as *Senator Dodd* questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," _Bloomberg_, 9/9/08)


----------



## boedicca (Jul 7, 2016)

Once we get to the point where everyone has dropped out of the Labor Force, unemployment claims will be ZERO!

Winning!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed.  Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented.  I call him Georgie after George Costanza.  Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Bush would own the economic downturn in 2007 and 2008.  Let's remember however that George W. Bush warned Congress that we had things going on in the housing markets that had the potential to be devastating to the economy and his concern was pooh poohed by the likes of Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank.  Let's also remember that Bush is the one who set up TARP...arguably the thing that had the most positive influence on stabilizing the economy in 2008 and 2009.
> ...



My point was that so few jobs were created by the ARRA that the Obama Administration came up with  "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place.  As you said yourself it's a number that's impossible to verify...which is why it works for politicians trying to cover their asses.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed.  Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented.  I call him Georgie after George Costanza.  Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed.  Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented.  I call him Georgie after George Costanza.  Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.



Just more of your worthless juvenile "humor", os.  Waste of everyone's time.  Oldstyle works to end threads.  By posting nothing but lies and drivel, and mostly conservative talking points, complete with no links of any kind.  And no, the condition was put with the statement of what it would take to get the formula the first time I offered him the formula.  Just another lie by os.   Funny thing is, it does not bother OS to lie at all. AND, he does not think people notice he lies.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Copy-pasted rightwing bullshit that has little to do with general market failures the lead to Great Recession. (No it wasn't the GSEs that "spread risk to rest of market")

Why else would his administration be talking about how they got "broadsided" by real estate collapse instead of talking about how right they were all along?

Bush administration oversaw vast loosening of banking leveraging regulations, urged GSEs in 2003 to "keep up with private market" in buying up sub-prime-backed securities, pushed "Ownership society" initiatives and advocated exotic mortgages with variable interest rates to consumers.

I'm not going to be blaming recesion on Bush, but a claim that his administration has foreseen the finance and real estate collapse and tried to do something about it, this with six years of Republican majority is a ridiculous right winger fantasy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



What exactly do you take exception with that was "copy-pasted"?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr came up with his "conditions" when he couldn't come up with the formula he swore existed.  Oh, but that was after he gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved" but refused to say what A or B represented.  I call him Georgie after George Costanza.  Rshermr pretends to be have a degree in economics and George Costanza pretends to be an architect.
> ...



I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it?  I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula.  He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here.  Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change?  Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> My point was that so few jobs were created by the ARRA that the Obama Administration came up with  "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place.  As you said yourself it's a number that's impossible to verify...which is why it works for politicians trying to cover their asses.



Just because it's impossible to know for sure doesn't mean we shouldn't go with best estimates available and it doesn't mean administration obscured something.

You say "so few jobs"...well ok, why don't you tell us how many jobs YOU, non-economist, think 800 billion dollar spending created in 2009-2014 period.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it?  I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula.  He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here.  Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change?  Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.



Yea I'm going to go fetch you formulas...right now master..right away.

I gave you the estimates on stimulus effects from economists. You gave me NOTHING except obvious economic misunderstandings and meaningless assertions like "so few jobs". As I see it you have no leg to stand on, no formulas required.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > My point was that so few jobs were created by the ARRA that the Obama Administration came up with  "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place.  As you said yourself it's a number that's impossible to verify...which is why it works for politicians trying to cover their asses.
> ...



As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created.  All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.  The Obama Administration didn't DO that though...did they?  No, they went with how many jobs were created or saved...letting them hide the poor job creation numbers behind a "jobs created or saved " number that they were free to call whatever they felt like because there is no way to verify it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it?  I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula.  He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here.  Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change?  Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.
> ...



I'm not sending you to "fetch" anything, Antontoo!  I wouldn't send someone to fetch something that I know doesn't exist.  Doing so would be like sending someone into a round room and telling them to pee in the corner.  My point...once again...is that the "Jobs created or saved" is something that was totally made up out of thin air to fit whatever political narrative the White House was pushing at the time.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created.  All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.



NO YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. This is what you don't seem to understand.

It's is not a de-merit to ARRA that recession was much deeper than originally anticipated.

What you CAN most reasonably report are estimated effects of Stimulus and other policies estimated by economists.

Here it is again:


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'll put it to Antontoo...do you think a formula exists for determining "Jobs Saved" and if so, why has Rshermr not provided it?  I say it's because he discovered that there is no such formula.  He's lying about his condition thing just like he lies about most things here.  Did you notice that he's decided not to answer my question about the two different agreements on climate change?  Poor little Georgie...he can't help trying to pretend he knows things that he doesn't have a clue about and then he has to try and bluster his way out with lies.
> ...



*2016 Jobs Reports*
*MONTH* * JOBS  (Final  Report)* * JOBS  (Original  Estimate)* *COMMENTS
Jan*  168,000  151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.
*Feb*  233,000  242,000 Retail, health care and construction boosted growth. Mining and manufacturing lost jobs.
*March*  208,000  215,000 Losses in manufacturing and mining nearly offset gains in retail, health care and cons
*April*  123,000  160,000 Gains in health care and banking offset losses in mining, the government and retail.


*2015: 2.744 million jobs created*
*MONTH* * JOBS  (Final    Report)* * JOBS  (Original  Estimate)* *COMMENTS
Jan*  221,000  257,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail and construction.
*Feb*  265,000  295,000 Health care, retail and construction added the most jobs.
*Mar*   84,000  126,000 Temp jobs were the only hopeful sign.
*Apr*  251,000  223,000 Strong growth in health care, construction and temp help.
*May*  273,000  280,000 Health care, retail and hotels/restaurants grew the most.
*Jun*  228,000  223,000 Health care and retail trade added the most jobs.
*Jul*  277,000  215,000 Retail trade and health care were the biggest contributors.
*Aug*  150,000  173,000 Manufacturing lost jobs due to the strong dollar's impact on exports.
*Sep*  149,000  142,000 Mining (the oil industry) and manufacturing lost jobs.
*Oct*  295,000  271,000 Health care, leisure and hospitality, and retail contributed to growth
*Nov*  280,000  211,000 Construction, health care, and retail spurred growth.
*Dec*  271,000  292,000 Health care, construction, and leisure/hospitality added the most jobs.


*2014: 3.015 million jobs created *
*MONTH* *JOBS CREATED (Final)* *JOBS CREATED (Original)* *COMMENTS
Jan* 187,000 133,000 The Dow rose 165 points on the strong job gains.
*Feb* 168,000 175,000 Winter storms limited job creation.
*Mar* 272,000 192,000 Jobs gains exceeded estimates.
*Apr* 310,000 288,000 Job gains were across the board except for information technology.
*May* 213,000 217,000 Health care, leisure and transportation added jobs while IT lost them.
*Jun* 306,000 288,000 Retail, health care, leisure, government and IT added.
*Jul* 232,000 202,000 Lower than expectations but still a solid gain. Increases were in health care, retail, and hotels/restaurants.
*Aug* 218,000 142,000 Health care and construction added the most jobs, while retail, auto manufacturing and IT lost jobs.
*Sep* 286,000 248,000 Retailers added jobs for back-to-school. Leisure (hotels, restaurants, bars) and health care also added.
*Oct* 200,000 214,000 Retailers added workers for Halloween. Leisure and health care also added jobs. Only IT reduced.
*Nov* 331,000 321,000 The biggest gain in nearly 3 years, thanks to retailers that added jobs for Black Friday. Other strong areas were health care, leisure, and IT.
*Dec* 292,000 252,000 
 
*2013: 2.311 million jobs created *
*MONTH* *JOBS CREATED (Final)* *JOBS CREATED (Original)* *COMMENTS
Jan* 190,000 157,000 
*Feb* 311,000 236,000 Growth due to construction and retail trade.
*Mar* 135,000   88,000 Disappointing jobs report blamed on weather and retail layoffs.
*Apr* 192,000 165,000 The strong report sent the Dow above 15,000.
*May* 218,000 175,000 Dow rose 200 points. Housing added jobs.
*Jun* 146,000 195,000 
*Jul* 140,000 162,000 Most growth in low-paying retail and restaurants.
*Aug* 269,000 169,000 Job gains were in low-paying retail and restaurant sectors.
*Sep* 185,000 143,000 Investors cheered because the Fed would keep monetary policy loose.
*Oct* 189,000 204,000 The government shutdown delayed the survey allowing more businesses to report.
*Nov* 291,000 203,000 Across-the-board job growth.
*Dec*   45,000   71,000 Job losses were across the board, mainly from poor holiday sales.
 
*2012: 2.149 million jobs created *
*MONTH* *JOBS ADDED (Final)* *JOBS ADDED (Original)* *COMMENTS
Jan* 338,000 243,000 Most job growth was in business services, hospitality, and manufacturing
*Feb* 257,000 227,000 Business growth made everyone think the economy had finally healed.
*Mar* 239,000 120,000 Poor growth across the board, and retail shed jobs.
*Apr*   75,000 115,000 Two sectors weren't doing well -- construction and government. Housing was hampered by foreclosures, and government was cutting budgets.
*May* 115,000 65,000 Seasonal weakness sent the Dow down 275 points.
*Jun*   87,000 80,000 The Dow dropped 180 points on the poor jobs report. 
*Jul* 143,000 163,000 The Dow gained 217 points on the strong report.
*Aug* 190,000 96,000 
*Sep* 181,000 114,000 Former GE CEO Jack Welch was  suspicious that so many jobs were added right before the Presidential election. It's explained here.
*Oct* 132,000 171,000 The strong jobs report came out a week before the election. Data was collected before Superstorm Sandy hit.
*Nov* 149,000 146,000 The storm devastated New York, but didn't affect national jobs numbers.
*Dec* 243,000 155,000 Uncertainty over the fiscal cliff forced businesses hire less.
 
*2011: 2.087 million jobs created *
*MONTH* *JOBS ADDED (Final)* *JOBS ADDED (Original)* *COMMENTS
Jan*   42,000 36,000 The economy had 984,000 more jobs than the year before.
*Feb* 188,000 192,000 Manufacturing jobs were up 189,000 year-over-year.
*Mar* 225,000 216,000 
*Apr* 346,000 244,000 
*May*   73,000 54,000 The poor jobs report sent the Dow and dollar down, and gold up.
*Jun* 235,000 18,000 The dismal jobs report panicked investors.
*Jul*   70,000 117,000 The Dow dropped 400 points despite job gains.
*Aug* 107,000 0  Astonishingly, absolutely no jobs were created, giving urgency to Obama's jobs speech the following week.
*Sep* 246,000 103,000 The economy added 2 million since the low point in February 2010, but was still down 6.7 million jobs since the high in January 2008.
*Oct* 202,000 80,000 
*Nov* 146,000 120,000 Strong retail sales boosted job growth.
*Dec* 207,000 200,000 The economy added 1.6 million jobs in 2011
 
*2010: 1.066 million jobs created *
*MONTH* *JOBS ADDED (Final)* *JOBS ADDED (Original)* *COMMENTS
Jan*   28,000 18,000  52,000 temporary jobs were added, of which 9,000 were for the Census.There were 4 million fewer jobs than the year before.
*Feb*  -69,000 -50,000 The economy had 3.2 million fewer jobs than February 2009. The Census added 15,000 temporary jobs, boosting the 48,000 temp jobs made available.
*Mar* 163,000 156,000 There were 2.3 million fewer jobs, and 633,000 fewer manufacturing jobs,  than a year earlier.
*Apr*  243,000 290,000 The Census added 63,000 temp jobs, and manufacturing added 44,000 jobs. But there's still 1.3 million fewer jobs than the year before.
*May*  522,000 431,000 The  Census added 411,000 temp jobs.
*Jun* -133,000 -125,000 The Census laid off 225,000 temp workers.
*Jul*   -70,000 -121,000 The Census laid off 143,000, but business hiring was up by 71,000 jobs.
*Aug*   -34,000 -31,000 There were 130.3 million jobs, a gain of 229,000 jobs in the past year and the first y-o-y job GAIN in 26 months.
*Sep*   -52,000 -91,000 There were 130.2 million jobs, 344,000 more than the year earlier.
*Oct*  257,000 150,000 The economy had 829,000 more jobs than the year before.
*Nov*  123,000 39,000 There were 842,000 more jobs than the year before.
*Dec*    88,000 103,000 Businesses added 117,000 jobs, but government laid off 10,000.
 
*2009: 5.070 million jobs lost*
*MONTH* *JOBS ADDED (Final)
JOBS ADDED (Original)

COMMENTS

Jan
*
-791,000

-598,000

The economy lost 2.4 million jobs, including 1 million manufacturing jobs, in the past 12 months.
*Feb
*
-703,000

-651,000

4.1 million jobs, including 1.2 million in manufacturing, were lost Y-O-Y.
*Mar
*
-823,000

-663,000

4.8 million jobs lost Y-O-Y, the most since the 2001 recession.
*April* -686,000 -611,000 There were 5.3 million fewer jobs than a year before.
*May
*
-351,000

-345,000

Manufacturing was hit especially hard, as 1.6 million were lost Y-O-Y.
*June
*
-470,000

-450,000

There were 5.4 million fewer jobs than the year before, including 1.6 million in manufacturing, Health care added 34,000 jobs.
*July
*
-329,000

-247,000

There were 6 million fewer jobs than the prior July, including 1.67 manufacturing jobs.
*Aug
*
-212,000

N.A.

The economy lost 6.2 million jobs YOY, including 1.6 million in manufacturing.
*Sep* -219,000 N.A. The economy was down just 6 million jobs.
*Oct* -200,000 N.A. There were now 5.8 million fewer jobs than last year.
*Nov*     -6,000 N.A. 4.8 million jobs were lost in the past 12 months.
*Dec* -279,000 N.A. 4.2 million jobs were lost in 2009. This trend has been improving since July, when the economy was down 6 million jobs. Also, manufacturing was down 1.3 million jobs in the past 12 months -- better than in June.
 
*2008: 3.569 million jobs lost*
*MONTH* *JOBS ADDED (Final) * *JOBS ADDED (Original)* *COMMENTS
Jan*  15,000   -17,000 .6% growth over last year, but manufacturing lost 2.7% jobs.
*Feb* -87,000   -63,000 .4% growth over last year, while manufacturing lost 3% of its jobs.
*March* -78,000   -80,000 This was the worst monthly job loss since the last recession, and a mere .18% gain in the last year. The last time year-over-year job growth trended down this severely was in 2001, which led to 29 months of job losses.
*April* -210,000   -20,000 There were only .18% more jobs, and 3.38% fewer manufacturing jobs, than in April 2007
*May* -185,000   -49,000 Year-over-year, employment declined .11%. This was the first time there was a decline in year-over-year jobs since 2003, the end of the last recession. There were 3.55% fewer manufacturing jobs.
*June* -165,000   -62,000 Employment was down from the prior year.
*July* -209,000   -51,000 In the last year 150,000 jobs were lost, a .37% decline.
*Aug* -266,000   -84,000 Employment declined .5% during the year.
*Sep* -452,000 -159,000 Employment declined .64% during the year.
*Oct* -473,000 -240,000 There were 1.5 million fewer jobs than last year.
*Nov* -769,000 -533,000 In the last 12 months, 1.9 million jobs were lost -- 604,000 were in manufacturing.
*Dec* -695,000 -524,000 Employment declined by 2.5 million jobs, faster than in the 2001 recession, which never lost more than 2.1 million jobs in any 12-month period.


antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > As you yourself stated earlier...it's impossible to put a hard number on the number of jobs that a stimulus program created.  All you can really do is report how many jobs were created period.
> ...



You keep posting that same graph of "estimates" put forth by proponents of big government stimulus spending, Antontoo...the only line that counts is the bottom one...the top line is an estimate and I think you'll be the first to admit that estimates being thrown around at that point were anything but accurate.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> *2016 Jobs Reports*
> *MONTH* * JOBS  (Final  Report)* * JOBS  (Original  Estimate)* *COMMENTS
> Jan*  168,000  151,000 The fastest growing areas were health care, retail, and construction.



WTF do economic estimates and revisions have to do with stimulus effects?

Answer: NOTHING.

No, 800 billion of spending did not vanish and no 800 billion did not cause loss of jobs and downward revisions by CBO. To say it did is blatant economic ignorance.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Your problem is that I have a rather good memory and I remember what the narrative was BEFORE the stimulus...that if we spent the money we would "cap" unemployment  at 8%!  Then when the stimulus didn't perform at anywhere near that projection...the narrative was changed to what was shown on your "graph"...that if we hadn't spent the money we'd be up over 15%.  Gee, what a great job by Barry and his minions to keep it just below 10%!

The "revisions" you speak of are how the Obama White House revised the narrative.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Your problem is that I have a rather good memory



No, the problem is that you are a two-bit politico grossly ignorant of economic basics .


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is that I have a rather good memory
> ...



Gee, we've reached the name calling stage so fast, Anton?  Don't have a come back for what I pointed out...do you?  Hard to argue with what you know deep down is the straight skinny, isn't it!

Georgie resorts to calling me a "dishwasher" when he gets schooled.  Did you want to go that route too?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm curious, Anton...do you know what an "economic school of thought" is?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Gee, we've reached the name calling stage so fast, Anton?  Don't have a come back for what I pointed out...do you?  Hard to argue with what you know deep down is the straight skinny, isn't it!



Well no, actually we've very carefully established both political bias and deep ignorance of economics on your side.

I've refuted your points, even if you cannot seem to understand it and keep recycling same already-addressed nonsense.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that  the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%?  Really?  When exactly did that take place?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that  the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%?  Really?  When exactly did that take place?



Yes really because ACTUAL is BASELINE + STIMULUS EFFECTS

Stimulus effect did not get revised - BASELINE did, because it wasn't possible to know how deep the recession was before recession happened.

To not understand this is to not understand basic economics.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You've "refuted" my contention that your graph is nothing more than a reset of the narrative that  the stimulus would keep unemployment levels below 8% to a NEW narrative that the stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 15%?  Really?  When exactly did that take place?
> ...



That's basic bullshit, Anton!  Christina Romer told us all that passing the Obama Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%.  Changing the BASELINE was what the Obama Administration did to change the narrative!  When you promise unemployment of under 8% and it goes to 10%...you look bad.  When you change the BASELINE and state that your stimulus kept unemployment from going to 15% you suddenly look good!  Well, you do if you're dealing with a really naive audience!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint.  You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE!  You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



AGAIN - Cristina Romer was simply taking incorrect baseline estimate of mild recession and adding stimulus effect to it.

To say that ARRA caused the revision in baseline to a deep recession is just stupid by your own admission that stimulus must have at very least made a few jobs.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint.  You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE!  You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!



I've asked you how many jobs YOU think 800 billion dollar injection into economy causes.

I've yet to hear an answer (because you are clueless)


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



So what you're saying basically is that you can create any number you want by manipulation of the baseline?  Which is what the Obama Administration did when their stimulus really didn't create anywhere close to the jobs they'd predicted.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > That was the great thing about the entire "Jobs created or saved" from a political standpoint.  You could get whatever number you felt like simply by changing the BASELINE!  You didn't have to deal with a static number like "Jobs created" that had to have some basis in reality...you could make it up as you went because there is no way on God's green earth you can verify "Jobs Saved"!
> ...



I gave you a rather succinct answer actually.  I told you that one could estimate how many jobs were created in a given time period but determining how many of those jobs were due to the injection of 800 billion dollars would be nothing more than a guessing game.  The problem that the Obama Administration had was that in the given time period...they didn't create many jobs PERIOD hence the switch to "Jobs created or saved"!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



No silly, what I'm saying is there are no actuals that could definitively say exactly how many jobs were made as there is no way to separate baseline from policy effect in the actual economic readings.

Best we have is economist's estimate of the effects and very reasonably they say 800 billion buys a couple of million jobs for a while.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Guessing? You think your guessing is some sort of equivalence to serious estimates economists produce?

You say very silly things.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



I hate to point out the inconvenient here, Anton but the reason that Economics is referred to as the "Dismal Science", is that there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on!  I by the way was not making a guess.  I was simply pointing out that the very serious Christina Romer had...and wasn't even close!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I hate to point out that I'll take what economists estimate over what some politicos wishfully make up any day of the week.

It's imperfect, but it is best we have to go on and 800 billion dollars making much more than "just a few jobs" is common sense itself - exercise it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Well that's an interesting concept, Anton...how do you feel about taking what economists who WORK for some politicos estimate as gospel? 

If one was to take the total spent in the stimulus and then divide that number into the number of jobs created...you get a REALLY obscene cost per job created.  That obscene number is what causes economists that work for politicians to start revising baselines and coming up with fictional numbers like "Jobs Saved".


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Well since you've yet to admit anything beyond "a few jobs" atributable to stimulus your argument is entirely moot.

You say you can't answer how many jobs 800 billion dollars in stimulus spending and tax-cuts buys, but you are somehow SURE it's "just a few jobs".


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You are doing the normal argument with ho support of any kind, me boy.  Nothing.  You are being made to look like what you are: A FOOL.  And you are starting to morph into your normal personal attacks.  
Problem is the normal, Oldstyle.  Being a con troll, and posting con talking points, does not prove what you would like the truth to be.
You are arguing with a person with a solid economic background.  This is not going to end well for you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton.  I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years.  I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd.  When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!  My point...a point which you seem unable to address...is that the "Jobs Saved" number was created and used by the Obama Administration not to provide the American people with a better idea of how the stimulus was working...but as a means of hiding how badly it worked.

Interesting...I just went back through every post I made since you joined the conversation and I didn't find a single one in which I said that the stimulus created "just a few jobs" yet you're quoting me as if I did!  So did I miss that, Anton?  Or are you making stuff up?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



I'm actually enjoying a little back and forth with Anton, Georgie.  He seems to have at least a modicum of knowledge of economics.  Of course after you...he seems like the second coming of Adam Smith!

Of course if he's misquoted me...and gotten caught at it...he's not much different than you are...oops!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Your statement is correct, of course.  the stimulus was close to 500,000 in terms of stimulus spending with the rest in the form of tax cuts.  And the actual total, as I recall, was about 780,000.  
When the cbo was scoring the stimulus by type of outlays, tax cuts were considered the least effective stimulus measures.  For all the reasons we tend to know, the taxes that went largely to upper class taxpayers did the very least.  
Oldstyle is simply a con troll, and wants to make the stimulus look as bad as possible. And truth is not of any interest to him.  So he has stated time after time after time that jobs saved is an invalid measure.  That it does not exist.  And he will, of course, not consider the facts as seen by economists.  Which I find obvious, related to jobs saved.  They are quite simple.  
In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening. In the Great Recession, in late 2007 through early 2008 we saw job losses of over 500,000 and more.   So stopping job losses was an important issue.  And, I have explained to OS, such a saved job was just as good as a newly created job.  In either case, one less person was unemployed whether the job was lost or saved.  
So, if you care about the truth, then you need to try to understand both jobs saved and jobs created.  You need to try to have both happen, if you are concerned at all about the well being of workers.  
While the exact number or either, created or saved, is a bit difficult to find exactly, I felt and others with background felt the economists taked with the job were pretty accurate.  And organizations like the cbo did the best they could.  And provided strong estimates of what was happening.  
Now, of course, we see the next level of criticism, where con trolls like oldstyle are suggesting that it is all a left wing conspiracy.  Really find that stupid, and not possible to deal with.  But over the last couple years, I have seen it all.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Ah.  the effort to make the new guy like you.  If you keep on your normal pace, that will end shortly.  Really, it is always fun to see you morph into personal attacks.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


"In normal low level downturns, say a 7.5% ue rate, coming back does not entail a huge amount of job losses having been happening."
Every time Rshermr tries to pretend like he knows something about economics you get sentences like THAT one!  Yeah, there's that college Economics degree shown off in all it's glory!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 7, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I have no doubt, Rshermr...that the more Anton sees of your VAUNTED knowledge of economics...he's going to want to have long detailed discussions with you about things like economic schools of thought!

Oh wait, I keep forgetting you don't know anything about any of those!  You just pretend to!  What was I thinking?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Your problem is that I have a rather good memory and I remember what the narrative was BEFORE the stimulus...that if we spent the money we would "cap" unemployment  at 8%!  Then when the stimulus didn't perform at anywhere near that projection...the narrative was changed to what was shown on your "graph"...that if we hadn't spent the money we'd be up over 15%.  Gee, what a great job by Barry and his minions to keep it just below 10%!
> 
> The "revisions" you speak of are how the Obama White House revised the narrative.



Ah.  I would not make that accusation without at least an expert source.  Again.  As usual.  No one, me boy, knew where the ue rate was going.  That it went to just over 10% was not a real surprise to actual economists, but seems to be a surprise to you that it could have been so difficult to predict.  
In addition, organizations like the cbo suggested that it could have gone considerably higher.  But then, you, having had two classes in economics suggest you have the answers.  Which are, strangely, the same as the bat shit crazy con talking points.  what a coincidence.  
Relative to your use of pet words for the president, just more proof of your lack of integrity or class.  But it is funny, on the other hand, that you create a recession, going toward being a depression, to a new president and blame the new president for it.  
Then, you have the loosing presidents political leaders meet on the night of the new pres' inauguration and determine that no republican will allow that new president to enact new efforts to tame the very recession they have created.  And in practice that they voted against every effort that president and his party brought forward, and brought none forward themselves.  Only a fool would believe that was ethical.  Only a fool would say that was not un-American, in the effects it had on the workers of this country.  Only a fool like you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 7, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Ah, and the personal attacks continue.  Normal, when oldstyle runs out of things to say.  I see, oldstyle, you have given up any attempt, weak though it was, at arguing economics.  Normal.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is that I have a rather good memory and I remember what the narrative was BEFORE the stimulus...that if we spent the money we would "cap" unemployment  at 8%!  Then when the stimulus didn't perform at anywhere near that projection...the narrative was changed to what was shown on your "graph"...that if we hadn't spent the money we'd be up over 15%.  Gee, what a great job by Barry and his minions to keep it just below 10%!
> ...



Gee, all those left wing talking points in one post as you whine about "bat shit crazy con talking points"?  You don't even realize what a joke you are most of the time...do you, Georgie?

Run out of things to say?  Me?  You could only hope, little buddy!  I'm having to much fun roasting your poser behind!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Speaking of which...you STILL haven't explained your lie that Obama never negotiated a deal with China!  You didn't think I forgot did you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Gee, all those left wing talking points in one post as you whine about "bat shit crazy con talking points"?  You don't even realize what a joke you are most of the time...do you, Georgie?

So, you say that,  but you know I am correct on each and every point I made.  Totally.  Want to argue one?

Please, me boy, since you claim I am posting left wing talking points, tell me what they were, and let me know where I found them.  Because, as you know, there is not a web site organizing and maintaining those talking points, like there is for Con talking points.  Just go to conservativetalkingpoints.com and there they are, all stored, organized,  and kept current.  Because cons like you love to be told what to believe and say.  You are part of the 25%  of the population who do not want to have to think for yourself.  And love to be told what to believe.  
But no such web site for left wing talking points site, me boy.  Because while cons like you like to be told what to believe and say, left wingers will not put up with that.  Because we have the capability to actually think for ourselves.  But good try.

Run out of things to say?  Me?  You could only hope, little buddy!  I'm having to much fun roasting your poser behind! 
Your right.  I meant to say "cogent things to say".
Sorry, I am not your buddy.  I do not even like you.  I prefer friends that have some class, and integrity.  which lets you out. 
And do not talk about my behind.  You seem to often have excess interest in mens behinds.  Really creepy. 
You do have a problem with being delusional, me boy.  You have roasting no one, except yourself.  Though you are way to stupid to see what you are doing and how irrational others see you to be. Your delusion causes you to feel like you are winning arguments when you are being destroyed.  Sad.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Speaking of which...you STILL haven't explained your lie that Obama never negotiated a deal with China!  You didn't think I forgot did you?


You are, technically, known as a fucking liar.  I told you plainly.  You are simply proving that you are a lying con troll.  I keep trying to educate you, but it just does not take.  
If you have any proof of Obama negotiating a deal with China, bring it forward.  But you do not, as I already proved, and you know better.  Lying piece of crap


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I see you're still lying about that. How sad.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


They never promised the unemployment rate would remain under 8%.

Do you EVER stop lying, ya lying con tool??

From the plan the administration presented...

_*It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.*_​
They were estimates, not promises. Their plan was presented in a 14 page document; 2 of which were the title and ToC. Contained within the remaining 12 pages, the word, _estimate_, appeared 24 times.

Furthermore, the unemployment rate was already over 8% by the time ARRA was passed and began being implemented. So who knows how you rightards think that plan could keep unemployment under 8% when it was already over 8% before the first dollar from it was even spent?


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Interesting...I just went back through every post I made since you joined the conversation and I didn't find a single one in which I said that the stimulus created "just a few jobs" yet you're quoting me as if I did!  So did I miss that, Anton?  Or are you making stuff up?


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??



Oldstyle said:


> As for the ARRA?  With all due respect, Antontoo...if the Obama Stimulus had worked as promised...the Obama Administration wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created and saved" to hide *how few net new jobs their programs actually created.*


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton.  I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years.  I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!



You did say it - "Obama is obscuring the fact that so few jobs were created", but now that you admit it clearly sticks of absurd it doesn't even matter.

800 billion is REASONABLY going to create A LOT of jobs, even if it does it inefficiently, so you have little basis to deny proffessional estimates and that is what we REASONABLY should go with.

So lets circle back to your original statement I was replying to:

You were saying that Obama owns Great Recession because he didn't have any policies to improve economy.

Now, having admited that yes he had policies and they resulted in significant Jobs and GDP improvement, do you agree that your statement was incorrect?



Oldstyle said:


> My point...a point which you seem unable to address...is that the "Jobs Saved" number was created and used by the Obama Administration not to provide the American people with a better idea of how the stimulus was working...but as a means of hiding how badly it worked.



This is what gives away your un-yelding politico instinct, but you have to understand something - what politicians say and how they say it does not change economic facts. Obama saying one thing or another does not change ARRA or TART or ACA effects - so why do you keep talking about it?

But since you keep doing that I may as well explain the politics of delivering economic numbers to layman. They, like you for much of this thread have trouble understanding that economy is large and bare ACTUALS cannot be used to understand policy effect.

Obama's administration already gave Republicans the talking points about how "Stimulus promised 8% unemployment but it is 10%!!!" even though the reason for revision as much more severe recession (DUH!). But in politics whenever you start going beyond silly one liners and explaining sound, but slightly more complex ideas you are losing the debate.

If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

* US economy adds a whopping 287,000 jobs *

Yeah, baby! ^^^ That's ^^^ what I'm talkin' about.



76th consecutive month of continuous job growth in the private sector.

Unprecedented.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> * US economy adds a whopping 287,000 jobs *
> 
> Yeah, baby! ^^^ That's ^^^ what I'm talkin' about.
> 
> ...



Daang, I expected it to be around 180K, but economy knocks it out of the park and easily makes up for May,s o we are back on track and conservative doom-glooming is again shown wrong.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting...I just went back through every post I made since you joined the conversation and I didn't find a single one in which I said that the stimulus created "just a few jobs" yet you're quoting me as if I did!  So did I miss that, Anton?  Or are you making stuff up?
> ...



Wow...are you ever an idiot!  Someone claims I said "just a few jobs"...I reply by saying that I don't remember saying that and now you claim that I'm lying because I said "few net new jobs"?  You do realize those two things are not the same...right?  I was misquoted.  If you weren't a lying sack of you know what...YOU'D ADMIT THAT!  But that's not how you and Georgie operate...is it!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton.  I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years.  I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!
> ...





antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You seem fixated on this whole "just a few jobs" thing, Anton.  I do believe that I posted a rather large listing of all the jobs created for a number of years.  I don't recall saying that just a few jobs were created since that would be absurd. When you spend 800 Billion you're going to create jobs!
> ...



Why would my statement be incorrect?  If the Obama Stimulus had created "significant jobs" then they wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created or saved"!  If the Stimulus had done what was promised they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have had to try and mislead the American people with a made up statistic!

The reason I say that Barack Obama owns The Great Recession is because of the choices that he made...both with how the stimulus money was spent and with the legislation that he pushed...namely ObamaCare and Cap & Trade both of which had negative effects on the economy and job creation.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Wow...are you ever an idiot!  Someone claims I said "just a few jobs"...I reply by saying that I don't remember saying that and now you claim that I'm lying because I said "few net new jobs"?  You do realize those two things are not the same...right?  I was misquoted.  If you weren't a lying sack of you know what...YOU'D ADMIT THAT!  But that's not how you and Georgie operate...is it!



Oldstyle maybe you are lying or maybe you have dishonesty so firmly ingrained in how you think you don't even notice it.

But fact remains that what you talked about ARRA creating few jobs



Oldstyle said:


> My point was that *so few jobs were created by the ARRA* that the Obama Administration came up with  "jobs saved" not to give a better picture of what was taking place but to obscure what had taken place.



But then you agreed that saying that ARRA created few jobs is ridiculous.

The rest is tomato-tomahtoing - if it wasn't few jobs you should not have talked about it in those terms.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Why would my statement be incorrect?  If the Obama Stimulus had created "significant jobs" then they wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created or saved"!  If the Stimulus had done what was promised they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have had to try and mislead the American people with a made up statistic!
> 
> The reason I say that Barack Obama owns The Great Recession is because of the choices that he made...both with how the stimulus money was spent and with the legislation that he pushed...namely ObamaCare and Cap & Trade both of which had negative effects on the economy and job creation.



...except I just explained why this is false.

You posting a response that that was already thoroughly disputed at length in the post you quoted makes me think that you either don't read or don't understand.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

"If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."

So what you're basically admitting is the Obama Administration misled the American people by "switching" from created (which was the previous standard but would have looked terrible because of how many jobs were created) to saved (which allowed them to plug in whatever number they felt like)?  But that's OK in your view because it's part of the "politics of delivering economics to layman"...which I assume means spinning a number that ignorant people will accept?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...are you ever an idiot!  Someone claims I said "just a few jobs"...I reply by saying that I don't remember saying that and now you claim that I'm lying because I said "few net new jobs"?  You do realize those two things are not the same...right?  I was misquoted.  If you weren't a lying sack of you know what...YOU'D ADMIT THAT!  But that's not how you and Georgie operate...is it!
> ...



Please don't say you're quoting me, Anton and then not use my words.  It's dishonest.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."
> 
> So what you're basically admitting is the Obama Administration misled the American people by "switching" from created (which was the previous standard but would have looked terrible because of how many jobs were created) to saved (which allowed them to plug in whatever number they felt like)?  But that's OK in your view because it's part of the "politics of delivering economics to layman"...which I assume means spinning a number that ignorant people will accept?



It is NOT MISLEADING, it stating VERY SAME ECONOMIC NUMBERS A DIFFERENT WAY.

There is NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between saying that Stimulus saved 1 million jobs or Stimulus created 1 million jobs. Both are based on job effects estimates by economists.

Why can't you understand this simple concept?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Why would my statement be incorrect?  If the Obama Stimulus had created "significant jobs" then they wouldn't have had to use "Jobs created or saved"!  If the Stimulus had done what was promised they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have had to try and mislead the American people with a made up statistic!
> ...



You just explained why and how the Obama Administration misled the American people.  Why you think that disputes what I said...I have no idea!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Please don't say you're quoting me, Anton and then not use my words.  It's dishonest.



WTF? I DIRECTLY QUOTED YOU.

I'm starting to believe that there is some sort of mental deficiency going on here.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."
> ...



Because that's not what they DID...is it!  Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million.  Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Because that's not what they DID...is it!  Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million.  Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!



THEY SAID WHATEVER ECONOMIC ESTIMATE SAID.

"1 million" is just an EXAMPLE NUMBER I used.

Obama’s Stimulus Generated Up to 3.3 Million Jobs, CBO Says

_President Barack Obama’s stimulus package may have created or saved as many as 3.3 million jobs last quarter and lowered the unemployment rate by as much as 1.8 percentage points, *the Congressional Budget Office said.*_

Now, 3 million is perhaps on the rosy side of estimates, but administration didn't simply make numbers up, they are real economic estimates.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Because that's not what they DID...is it!  Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million.  Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!
> ...



3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.

You just claimed that there was no actual difference between jobs created and jobs saved...which is laughable.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Since you claim the Administration didn't simply make numbers up and that jobs created or saved is a "real" economic estimate...perhaps you'd like to share with me what the economic formula was that they used to come up with their estimate?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Because that's not what they DID...is it!  Instead of saying they created 1 million jobs...they said they saved 3 million.  Why can't you understand THAT simple concept!
> ...



The problem you are running into in trying to get something rational out of oldstyle is something I have run into for three years.  He is truly a con troll and everyone who deals with him for some time comes to the same conclusion.  He absolutly believes what he WANTS to believe, and he will not accept what economists and impartial people believe.  His information library is the conservative talking points and NOTHING else.  Generally he will not provide a source, because he does not want you to see where he is getting his info.  He knows better, but it feels so good to him and he is a totally loyal con tool.
So, sorry to interrupt, but the crap he pulls pisses me up. I am into facts and truth, and trolls like him who push dogma are, in my personal opinion, equivalent to dog shit.  
Not sure what the purpose of oldstyle is.  I suspect, but can not prove, he is just trying to kill threads that are not beneficial to cons.  Because you have probably noticed, he is not capable of rational conversation.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> 3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.



...WTF is wrong with you?

I just showed that the number came from CBO, so wtf makes you think you can just turm around and claim that it was created by the administration???

You are seriously insane.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't say you're quoting me, Anton and then not use my words.  It's dishonest.
> ...


Ding, ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner here! Didn't take you long to figure out what a lying con tool Oldstyle is.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > 3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.
> ...



The CBO takes the numbers that it is given and crunches them to give an estimate.  When you give them skewed numbers then you will get a skewed estimate.  Which is exactly the way the Obama Administration used the CBO.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> The problem you are running into in trying to get something rational out of oldstyle is something I have run into for three years.  He is truly a con troll and everyone who deals with him for some time comes to the same conclusion.  He absolutly believes what he WANTS to believe, and he will not accept what economists and impartial people believe.  His information library is the conservative talking points and NOTHING else.  Generally he will not provide a source, because he does not want you to see where he is getting his info.  He knows better, but it feels so good to him and he is a totally loyal con tool.
> So, sorry to interrupt, but the crap he pulls pisses me up. I am into facts and truth, and trolls like him who push dogma are, in my personal opinion, equivalent to dog shit.
> Not sure what the purpose of oldstyle is.  I suspect, but can not prove, he is just trying to kill threads that are not beneficial to cons.  Because you have probably noticed, he is not capable of rational conversation.



I dealt with many conservatives by now and the one trait I keep running into is complete disregard for the burden of proof. There is this attitude that if they can come up with it, and it makes sense in their narrow capacity mind, then therefore it is true, without any actual supporting evidence required.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > 3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.
> ...



The three million jobs created or saved didn't come from the CBO...it was a number that was created by the Obama Administration who then asked the CBO to verify that number was possible.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The CBO takes the numbers that it is given and crunches them to give an estimate.  When you give them skewed numbers then you will get a skewed estimate.  Which is exactly the way the Obama Administration used the CBO.



BS.

CBO is a nonpartisan congressional economic advisory the Congress of the United States of America.

They will produce requested estimates using requested assumptions, but this policy estimate is not based on provision of any such thing but rather is CBO's best effort estimate on effect of Obamacare.

If you have evidence that the numbers were in ANY WAY manipulated by the Administration please provide it or retract your assertion. Just because you can imagine it, doesn't mean it actually is.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*NO, ME BOY, IT IS NOT LAUGHABLE.  YOU are laughable.  And a lying con troll.  And loosing your argument, big time.
And laughable includes statements you make like "number that was Created by the Obama Administration".  Complete with no source or link.  Because even you know you are lying.  The number is created by career employees of the BLS.  Which, me poor ignorant lying con troll, is not part of the Obama Administration.  And never, ever has been a part of any presidents administration.
Really.  You are showing your stripes.  And you are showing that you lie without compunction.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > The problem you are running into in trying to get something rational out of oldstyle is something I have run into for three years.  He is truly a con troll and everyone who deals with him for some time comes to the same conclusion.  He absolutly believes what he WANTS to believe, and he will not accept what economists and impartial people believe.  His information library is the conservative talking points and NOTHING else.  Generally he will not provide a source, because he does not want you to see where he is getting his info.  He knows better, but it feels so good to him and he is a totally loyal con tool.
> ...



Burden of proof?  You mean like providing the formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Created or Saved"?  That kind of proof?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Burden of proof?  You mean like providing the formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Created or Saved"?  That kind of proof?



Old what fucking formula? number comes from CBO, not administration. You can't even grasp basic concepts and you want someone to spend time on you going through formulas?

This is laughable.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The CBO takes the numbers that it is given and crunches them to give an estimate.  When you give them skewed numbers then you will get a skewed estimate.  Which is exactly the way the Obama Administration used the CBO.
> ...



Oh, for God's sake!  Of course the numbers were "manipulated" by the Obama Administration!  If they weren't...they would have simply given us the number of jobs that were created and that would have been it.  Lousy job numbers.  Sorry folks...we hope it gets better!  But they didn't do that...did they?  Oh no...they created "Jobs Saved" in about as obvious an attempt to manipulate the numbers as you could POSSIBLY come up with!  But you don't see that...do you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Burden of proof?  You mean like providing the formula that the Obama White House used to determine "Jobs Created or Saved"?  That kind of proof?
> ...



So now you're claiming that the CBO was the origin of the 3 million jobs created or saved number?  Really, Anton?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, for God's sake!  Of course the numbers were "manipulated" by the Obama Administration!  If they weren't...they would have simply given us the number of jobs that were created and that would have been it.



They did SIMPLY GIVE YOU THE NUMBER - 3 MILLION AS PER CBO.

you can call it jobs saved or jobs created but *That's the fucking number CBO estimated you idiot.
*
I'm done here, clearly no one is home.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Since you claim the Administration didn't simply make numbers up and that jobs created or saved is a "real" economic estimate...perhaps you'd like to share with me what the economic formula was that they used to come up with their estimate?


So there is oldstyle, trying to get the formula he says does not exist.  This is at least fifty times he has asked for it.  Now, he made a deal where he would meat a condition with me to get the formula.  While he admitted  that the Great Republican Recession of 2008 caused a large number of job losses, and it was proven that republicans blocked every effort by the administration to pass bills to help with the economic situation caused by that recession, he said that republicans passed a bill or bills to combat the economic issues.  So, he agreed to provide the info on the bills, and in exchange I would provide his equation. 
But, being a dishonest player, he was unable to provide info on such a republican bill but would not admit that there was none.  And, as a result, I could not provide the formula.  As I have explained to him, his refusal requires that I not provide the formula, and that is simply part of honor and integrity which he is lacking.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, for God's sake!  Of course the numbers were "manipulated" by the Obama Administration!  If they weren't...they would have simply given us the number of jobs that were created and that would have been it.
> ...



And when did the CBO estimate that number, Anton?  In their May, 2010 report?

Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2010 Through March 2010


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

If so perhaps you'd like to explain why the Administration was quoting that 3 million jobs created or saved a year earlier?

Estimates of Job Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


There is no difference between saying a few jobs created versus a few net new jobs created. Either way, you're _trying _ to portrsy job creation as limited to just a "few" new jobs. The key word being, _"few"_. But being the con tool the forum has known you to be, you can't even refrain from lying about something even as silly as this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Even worse for you -- this isn't even the first time you've made this claim...



Oldstyle said:


> It's nothing but smoke and mirrors to hide *how few jobs were created.*





Oldstyle said:


> Of course the numbers were just pulled out of somebody's ass, Pinqy!  That was the whole purpose of "Jobs Saved"!  It let the Obama Administration avoid having to tell the American public how *few jobs they created* with the stimulus by substituting a statistic that couldn't be verified!





Oldstyle said:


> He did give us the Obama Stimulus...something that turned into a liberal pork fest *that created so few jobs* that they had to invent a new economic statistic to hide how bad it was!


So yeah, keep denying you said it. Even though you've actually said it time and time again. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




All you're doing is proving me right when I say you're nothing but a lying con tool who will make up any lie, no matter how rightarded, to prop up your bullshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, for God's sake!  Of course the numbers were "manipulated" by the Obama Administration!  If they weren't...they would have simply given us the number of jobs that were created and that would have been it.
> ...


You just witnessed what is apparently the empty brain of a con troll.  And he just goes on and on and on.  I understand your frustration.  I suspect you are used to dealing with people that have integrity.  

I am sure you noticed the latest numbers the BLS just published.  Here is a quote from their site:
"Quashing worries that job growth was flagging, the government on Friday reported that* employers increased payrolls by 287,000 in June.* It was an arresting surge in hiring just weeks before the Republican and Democratic conventions where the presidential nominees will present their competing economic visions.
*The official unemployment rate did rise to 4.9 percent, from 4.7 percent, but that was largely because more Americans re-entered the work force.* And average hourly earnings ticked up again, continuing a pattern of rising wages that brought the yearly gain to 2.6 percent.
“Wow, this one takes my breath away,” said Diane Swonk, an independent economist in Chicago."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment-wages.html?_r=0


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> "If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."
> 
> So what you're basically admitting is the Obama Administration misled the American people by "switching" from created (which was the previous standard but would have looked terrible because of how many jobs were created) to saved (which allowed them to plug in whatever number they felt like)?  But that's OK in your view because it's part of the "politics of delivering economics to layman"...which I assume means spinning a number that ignorant people will accept?


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? Ever??

The Obama administration used the term _saved or create _ from the very first day they released their plan to the public. You are lying (again) when you claim they only added "saved" as an after thought because you _think_ they created just a few new jobs.

You've been shown this before so for you to claim it again is nothing short of you bald-faced lying.... again.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> If so perhaps you'd like to explain why the Administration was quoting that 3 million jobs created or saved a year earlier?
> 
> Estimates of Job Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009



Nah.  There is no use in attempting to explain anything to a troll with a made up mind, which is based on lies.  That has proven to any that tried to help you to be a total waste of time.  You want to believe what you want to believe. You are incapable of rational thought.  And, technically, you are what is known as a *DUMB FUCK.
TRYING TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO A DUMB FUCK IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.*


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > 3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.
> ...


Yeah... it's called "conservatism." And that one is inflicted badly with that disease.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, for God's sake!  Of course the numbers were "manipulated" by the Obama Administration!  If they weren't...they would have simply given us the number of jobs that were created and that would have been it.
> ...



For your information, I would like to say it has been a pleasure reading posts which are obviously from someone who cares about truth, and also obviously has a solid economic background.  Dealing with clowns is frustrating, I will admit.  And I leave from time to time.  But rational people do show up here, and make things more livable.  I hope you do come back.
At any rate, thanks for the effort at rationality.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I'm sure you know that ARRA ran through to at least the end of 2010; so one can only guess why you'd refer to an interim report from May of 2010, while the ARRA was not even fully implemented yet?

I know why you did. I'm sure others will reach their own conclusions as well.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Because what you just said is another lie.  Which you are unable to stop.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Poor ignorant congenital idiot can truly not stop himself.  He feels and understands no problem with lying.  And when he lies, and gets called on it, he has to lie again.  And so the chain goes.  But again, if you make a mistake and get called on it, or I, or any rational person makes a mistake and the mistake is caught, we admit to the mistake.  But a con troll can not admit the mistake, because it is a true lie.  And it just goes on and on and on.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've said it repeatedly because it's a fact.  The Obama Stimulus did turn into a liberal pork fest that didn't come close to producing the "shovel ready" jobs that Obama, Pelosi and Reid promised would be there if they were given the money.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

And you two idiots can keep right on daisy chaining each other until the cows come home.  It won't change the fact that "Jobs Saved" was nothing more than a slick accounting trick done to hide what really took place from naive Americans...like you two!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



My goodness.  You say it was a fact.  And we should believe you, as opposed to the cbo, for some reason that you can not explain.  Because you provide no source, no link.  And you are a simple fucking food services guy.  Dipshit.

Along with that you are a con troll.  And a liar.  Yeah, you are so believable.  dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And you two idiots can keep right on daisy chaining each other until the cows come home.  It won't change the fact that "Jobs Saved" was nothing more than a slick accounting trick done to hide what really took place from naive Americans...like you two!



My goodness. You say what?. And we should believe you, as opposed to the cbo, for some reason that you can not explain. Because you provide no source, no link. And you are a simple fucking food services guy. Dipshit.

Along with that you are a con troll. And a liar. Yeah, you are so believable. dipshit.
oh, and as always, you are a complete waste of space and time.  dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Waste of time?  You mean like repeating almost the same post word for word?  That kind of a waste of time and space?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

You're the buffoon who swears up and down that Obama never negotiated a deal with China on carbon emissions!  Duh?

The poser who says he taught economics at the college level as an undergrad...yet didn't know what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics he was basing a contention on!

The flim flam man who gave us A-B=Jobs Saved...then a feigned "You're on ignore!"...and then his "condition"!

The man who continually complains about "con talking points" when he does little else but post liberal talking points!

The man who constantly whines about personal attacks yet posts very little BUT personal attacks!

You're Georgie...who "NEVER LIES"!  (eye-roll)


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And you two idiots can keep right on daisy chaining each other until the cows come home.  It won't change the fact that "Jobs Saved" was nothing more than a slick accounting trick done to hide what really took place from naive Americans...like you two!



Sure, os.  But then you are an idiot.  And you probably think jobs lost at around 500,000 to 800,000 per month were nothing more than slick accounting tricks.  And when that was slowed, and stopped, there were no jobs saved.  Because you are a con troll, and you believe what they tell you to believe.  And though you can find no impartial source backing you up,  you just keep spreading your con talking points. Because that is all you have.  And no one buys it, oldstyle.  Just you.  And that is because you are stupid.
And to make you really look stupid, you suggest that the ue numbers come from Obama.  Jesus, you are dumb.  It is embarrassing.  I never let anyone see your posts that I am responding to, because you are such an embarrassment.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Waste of time?  You mean like repeating almost the same post word for word?  That kind of a waste of time and space?



Indeed I did.  Because your post was soooo stupid it was not worth wasting time on.  Dipahit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Waste of time?  You mean like repeating almost the same post word for word?  That kind of a waste of time and space?
> ...



So you wasted time responding to it twice?  God, you're a moron...
Or should I say you're a "Dipahit"?  LOL


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 8, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You're the buffoon who swears up and down that Obama never negotiated a deal with China on carbon emissions!  Duh?
> Duh is correct, me con troll.  Obama was never, ever involved in negotiations.  He simply signed the agreement.  Dipshit.  Which is why you can find NO sourse saying that he did any negotiating.
> 
> The poser who says he taught economics at the college level as an undergrad...yet didn't know what I was referring to when I asked what school of economics he was basing a contention on!
> ...


  [/QUOTE]
Funny.  Another lie by you, that has been proven to be a lie.  Fuck off, me lying con troll.
As we all know, Oldstyle, you lie without compunction, and have been trying to lie about the fact that I never ever lie.  Never, me boy.  But you repeat the same lies over and over and over.  And at this point, only new people posting do not know you are a liar.  But they learn, quickly.  And leave, tired of dealing with a person like you who does not have integrity.  Or honor.  and is a true dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 8, 2016)

Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement?  That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones!  (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)

"sourse"?  I think you've worn out your spell check, Georgie...it's not even trying anymore!  It probably has a "stupid threshold" that it can't go over!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 9, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement?  That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones!  (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)


  [/QUOTE]
Good.  So you have no problem with the fact that the agreement, the Nov 2014 agreement specifically, which has since been integrated with the France agreement, was negotiated by professionals which did not include the President of the United States.  Your having said Obama negotiated the deal simply showed again what a simpleton you are.  The agreement was negotiated in Bejing, me boy.  Over months.  And Obama was not there except briefly at the end.  When the deal was done by the professionals who had negotiated it.  After it was don.  To sign it.  So, physically, what you say is stupid.  Then, since you can find absolutely NO expert statement that Obama was negotiating the deal, would give rational people a pretty solid understanding that the was not the negotiator. 
That you are a simple minded con troll is well established.  But your suggestion that any president would go and spend months negotiating an agreement just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.  Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are?

So, your attack on me is personal and just normal.  Personal attacks are all you have, me boy.  Trying to say a president negotiated an agreement is high on the list of stupid claims.  But you have proven yourself capable of such, time and again.  Just a simpleton con troll.
By the way, if you look at this thread for the past few days, you have used personal attacks against each person who has disagreed with you.  All such persons.  One new member with solid economic background was so irritated with you that he chose to stop posting entirely, letting you know on the way out that you were the reason.  So, my questions are:
1.  What is the purpose of your personal attacks?
2.  Why do you make personal attacks with specific claims you can not prove?
3.  Can you name a single economic argument that you have made in the past month?


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yet you denied saying it when antontoo claimed you said it. And no, it's not a fact. It's your delusion which is contrary to the facts.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so Obama wasn't involved in negotiation with the Chinese...he just signed the agreement?  That is about as pathetic a claim as you've ever made, Georgie...and God knows you've made some pathetic ones!  (My favorite, by the way, is that the reason you can't spell or write well is that your "secretary" normally proofs all of your correspondence...that's classic!)


Good.  So you have no problem with the fact that the agreement, the Nov 2014 agreement specifically, which has since been integrated with the France agreement, was negotiated by professionals which did not include the President of the United States.  Your having said Obama negotiated the deal simply showed again what a simpleton you are.  The agreement was negotiated in Bejing, me boy.  Over months.  And Obama was not there except briefly at the end.  When the deal was done by the professionals who had negotiated it.  After it was don.  To sign it.  So, physically, what you say is stupid.  Then, since you can find absolutely NO expert statement that Obama was negotiating the deal, would give rational people a pretty solid understanding that the was not the negotiator. 
That you are a simple minded con troll is well established.  But your suggestion that any president would go and spend months negotiating an agreement just does not pass the giggle test, me boy.  Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are?

So, your attack on me is personal and just normal.  Personal attacks are all you have, me boy.  Trying to say a president negotiated an agreement is high on the list of stupid claims.  But you have proven yourself capable of such, time and again.  Just a simpleton con troll.
By the way, if you look at this thread for the past few days, you have used personal attacks against each person who has disagreed with you.  All such persons.  One new member with solid economic background was so irritated with you that he chose to stop posting entirely, letting you know on the way out that you were the reason.  So, my questions are:
1.  What is the purpose of your personal attacks?
2.  Why do you make personal attacks with specific claims you can not prove?
3.  Can you name a single economic argument that you have made in the past month?[/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is that Barry doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on?  That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?

You know what, Georgie?  I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do!  I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal.  I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are.  If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"!  Or don't you grasp how that works...Mr "I NEVER EVER LIE"?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

As for naming a single economic argument that I've made in the past month?  Georgie, I'm the only one making economic arguments here!  You're whining about "personal attacks" and calling me a liar to divert the conversation from yet ANOTHER example of you being clueless about there being two deals signed by Obama...the first with just China and the second...a full year later...with 145 other countries!  If I hadn't pointed that out you'd STILL not know that it happened!  You spend so much time spamming your liberal talking points from idiotic sites that you google trying to appear not to be an idiot that you've turned yourself into a COMPLETE idiot!

What's laughable is all you do is spam talking points because you're essentially totally ignorant of current events...yet you constantly accuse others of doing what you do!

I don't need to go to some (as you refer to them!) bat shit crazy con site to get talking points because I actually took economics in college and I actually know what's been taking place in the world around me!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So what you're saying is that Barry doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on?  That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?

You know what, Georgie?  I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do!  I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal.  I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are.  If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"!  Or don't you grasp how that works...Mr "I NEVER EVER LIE"?[/QUOTE]
Ah.  Opinion.  Personal attack.  And the beliefs of a food services employee.  With no expert opinion.  Nothing at all. No links to articles supporting your drivel.  
If you really want to see an empty suit, find a mirror.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Ah.  Opinion.  Personal attack.  And the beliefs of a food services employee.  With no expert opinion.  Nothing at all. No links to articles supporting your drivel.  
If you really want to see an empty suit, find a mirror.[/QUOTE]

Here's a news flash for you, Georgie!  In order to have an opinion that's worth anything...you have to have some knowledge to go along with it!  Links?  Those are the things that internet posers use to pretend that they aren't idiots!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So what you're saying is that BarryThat would be President Obama to people who have class and integrity but con trolls with no class use terms like you use doesn't really do ANYTHING...just signs his name to stuff that someone else does all the work on?  That he didn't have ANY input into the negotiation for that deal with China at all...just took credit for the work that someone else did?, And you have no proof of any of the drivel that comes from you.  Sad. I know you want to believe it so, so badly.

You know what, Georgie? You know my name, ass hole use it and stop the juvenile drivel. Or...Keep it up and show what a juvenile clown you are.  Because you always fall back to juvenile personal attacks.  I've said all along that Barack Obama is an empty suit again, if you want to see an empty suit, find a mirror but it turns out that I give him more credit than you do!  And another lie.  You know better than that.I think that he was involved every step of the way with negotiations with China on that deal. Ah, the authoritative opinion of a food services employee.  Thanks for that, dipshit. I think you're only saying he WASN'T because you don't want to admit that there were two deals made independent of each other and that Obama was part of the negotiations of each...especially the initial deal with China!
Actually, I am not delusional like you.  I do not think I know what he was doing. But I have done what I could to use a rational mind, and to spend some time researching the subject.  And you have done neither.  All you ever do, and shat you have done here, is simply post con talking points.  Pure illiterate drivel with no proof of anything at all, simply you trying to get someone to believe what you want them to believe.  From a simpleton con troll, a food services guy.  You are way to delusional to take seriously.

What you call "personal attacks" is my simply pointing out what a pathetic liar you are.You have been caught lying multiple times, and want in the worst way to catch me lying.  But you fail.  Because I never lie.  And it makes you so angry.  You have no ingegrity  If you didn't claim to be something that you OBVIOUSLY AREN'T you wouldn't be getting "attacked"!  You know better, me lying con troll.  If I lie, you would be able to prove it.  In the same way I have proven you lie, with no question.

I never ever lie.  Which is a simple thing.  I value integrity, you do not.  Everyone who gets into a argument with you ends up knowing what you are.  And what they learn is:
1.  You are a con troll.
2.  You use personal attacks because of a lack of knowledge.
3.  You lie constantly.
4.  You have no back up for your simplistic con talking points.

Here is the thing, me boy.  You can try to make excuses for your personal attacks.  But they are still personal attacks.  And they always show your lack of class and integrity.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Here's a news flash for you, Georgie!  In order to have an opinion that's worth anything...you have to have some knowledge to go along with it!  Links?  Those are the things that internet posers use to pretend that they aren't idiots![/QUOTE]

True.  But no news flash.  You see, if you did not know that it simply proves you are stupid.  So, attacking again with no economic argument.  What a surprise.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

When's the last time YOU made an economic argument?  You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied.  Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so.  You're a poser, Georgie.  You're this board's answer to George Costanza.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As for naming a single economic argument that I've made in the past month?  Georgie, I'm the only one making economic arguments here!  You're whining about "personal attacks" and calling me a liar to divert the conversation from yet ANOTHER example of you being clueless about there being two deals signed by Obama...the first with just China and the second...a full year later...with 145 other countries!  If I hadn't pointed that out you'd STILL not know that it happened!  You spend so much time spamming your liberal talking points from idiotic sites that you google trying to appear not to be an idiot that you've turned yourself into a COMPLETE idiot!
> Again, you are delusional.  You can not find liberal talking points.  And I never use liberal sites to provide proof of anything.  Because I prefer truth.  You may want to look the term TRUTH up.
> 
> What's laughable is all you do is spam talking points because you're essentially totally ignorant of current events...yet you constantly accuse others of doing what you do!
> ...


Yes we know.  You are a liar, a con troll, and post only con talking points.  And you do not need to go to bat shit crazy con site.  You just go there because it is the only place you like to go, and that provides you with the talking points you want to believe SO BADLY/
Again, no economic argument.  Your attacks on me are hollow.  The opinion of a food services worker.  And, if you believe that you are making economic arguments, it proves you do not understand economics at all.  You see, me boy, everyone who knows economics knows that what you make are at least 95% pure political arguments.  In the form of con talking points.  And personal attacks.  And 5% really weak economic arguments.  
I do not have to prove you make nearly no economic arguments.  That is obvious to anyone.  Please, show us an economic argument that you have made over the past month.  Because all that I have seen are:
1.  Personal attacks.
2.  Unfounded attacks on anything that does not agree with your con troll agenda.
3.  Lies.
4.  Political arguments supporting bat shit crazy con agenda. 
5.  Patting yourself on the back.
6.  Opinion of a food services guy. 
*But NO economic arguments.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"?  When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?

What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> When's the last time YOU made an economic argument?  You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied.  Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so.  You're a poser, Georgie.  You're this board's answer to George Costanza.


Yesterday.  It is only 8AM here where I am.  But I am confident that as long as I am responding to your posts, there will be no economic arguments.  At all.  
So, you can think of no economic argument at all.  But just more juvenile name calling and unfounded personal attacks.  Got it, me boy.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When's the last time YOU made an economic argument?  You spend most of your time declaring that you haven't lied.  Oh, that and making up "conditions" so you can continue to pretend that you haven't lied and been caught doing so.  You're a poser, Georgie.  You're this board's answer to George Costanza.
> ...


You made an economic argument yesterday?  Really?  What was that?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"?  When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?
> 
> What was the last economic argument that you made here, Georgie?


Sorry.  Delusion does not count as an economic argument.  Saying that the white house is lying about jobs created or saved is a political argument.  You think you won that political argument because you want to believe that.  And because you are delusional.  And you just proved my point.  But you proved nothing because it was 1. Untrue. 2.  A political argument.   Thank you for proving my point.

Economic argument?  How about the new thread I started YESTERDAY.   That the employment numbers are improving again based on 287,000 new jobs in the month of June 2016.  And support for the fact that the numbers were valid and supported by rational proof.  YESTERDAY,  I make economic arguments whenever I have a subject I judge to be worth discussing.  
Did you happen to notice that your argument did not work?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Did not work?  Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since?  He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false.  Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Jesus, give it a minute, then read what I say.  I can bring back economic arguments till the cows come home, because this is what I am here for.  Unlike you, I am not here with an agenda to prove conservative points.  That is, in my opinion, totally dishonest.  And that is you.  
Now, trot off and read my previous post, dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So when I schooled someone on the fact that the White House was using the figure of 3 million jobs created or saved a year before the CBO reported that number might be possible given the numbers they were given...that was only a "talking point"?  When I backed up my argument with links that proved that was the timeline that took place...that wasn't making an economic argument?
> ...



So you didn't make an economic argument HERE...you made it in another string?  When's the last economic argument you made here?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Did not work?  Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since?  He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false.  Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.


You lost, badly, a discussion about jobs created and saved.  As you have many times.  What he said to you, as a person with actual economic background, was that you were mindless and that there was no intelligence in your discussion.  And that he had had enough bullshit.  And would not play with you any longer.  Then, me boy, YOU LEFT.  For some time.  
Thanks again for proving you are a lying piece of shit.  You have no, and I mean no, integrity.  You are truly just a fucking con troll with no honesty or integrity.  And you wonder why he left.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Are you suggesting that an economic argument is not an economic argument unless it is made in this thread?  Are you just trying to prove you are stupid?  You could win that argument, dipshit.
A couple days ago, when there was a person posting with rational points posting in this thread.
So, I made a new thread, in the same Economics area, and that does not count.  Excuse me while I laugh at you for a while.  Dipshit.

So, you admit it was an economics post, and it was yesterday.  Thanks for that.  
In this thread, it was before everyone with economic points left because they were thoroughly fed up with you, oldstyle.  For the same reason no one is here now, except me defending myself from your personal attacks.  And lies.  Because you have NO INTEGRITY.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did not work?  Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since?  He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false.  Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.
> ...



Yeah, he said all that AFTER I showed him that he was completely wrong in his assertion that the 3 million jobs created or saved came from the CBO and not the Obama Administration.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You've claimed that you're here arguing economic points, Georgie!  As such you should be able to provide one.  Yet you're not.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

You're going to have to go back a long way to find the last time you made a REAL economic argument, Georgie.  You've spent most of your time here accusing me of being a liar.  It's what you do when you have nothing else.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So you admit that you haven't made a real economic argument here for weeks?  So what have you been doing here?  Oh, that's right...you've been accusing me of making personal attacks against you...as you accuse me of having no integrity...of being a dishwasher...of being a liar...or only posting con talking points?  The person with no integrity here is you, Georgie!  You're the one who promised the economic formula that the Obama White House used to compute "jobs saved" and then never delivered.  You're the one who claimed that Obama never negotiated a global warming deal with just China when it's obvious to everyone BUT you that he did!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Did not work?  Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since?  He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false.  Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.



Here is his post:
Friday at 8:46 AM#*214*
↑Oldstyle said:
3 million is the number that was CREATED by the Obama Administration.
...WTF is wrong with you?

The response:
I just showed that the number came from CBO, so wtf makes you think you can just turm around and claim that it was created by the administration???

You are seriously insane.









 Agree x *1* 
List







So, you felt you won that argument, dipshit.  Really?  You see what he said to you?  Are you just trying to prove you are an idiot.  He showed the CBO argument, you provided the argument of a food services guy.  You lost big time, but did not have the integrity to admit it.  

Friday at 7:56 AM#2137



Offline
*antontoo*
OS said:
Please don't say you're quoting me, Anton and then not use my words. It's dishonest.

Antontoo said:
WTF? I DIRECTLY QUOTED YOU.

I'm starting to believe that there is some sort of mental deficiency going on here.








 Winner x *1* 








And, Antontoo is getting frustrated because OS is delusional. He states he sees mental deficiency.  


Friday at 9:01 AM#2154



Offline
*antontoo*

Oldstyle makes this vacuous post:
Oh, for God's sake! Of course the numbers were "manipulated" by the Obama Administration! If they weren't...they would have simply given us the number of jobs that were created and that would have been it.
antontoo posts:
They did SIMPLY GIVE YOU THE NUMBER - 3 MILLION AS PER CBO.

you can call it jobs saved or jobs created but *That's the fucking number CBO estimated you idiot.*

*I'm done here, clearly no one is home.*









You had your ass badly kicked by a person who knew economics.  All you had, as usual, were personal statements from a person with no proof of what you posted.  And you are a *delusional food services worker.  *
So, your delusional mind thinks that antontoo left because he was "beaten"  by you?  Read the last line.  Frustrated, he was.  Beaten he was not.  You simply believe what you want to believe.  But the truth, me boy, is obvious.  You are a con troll with mental problems.  You were making a con talking point argument with no proof, no back up of any kind.  And the opposition used the CBO as proof.  No one, me boy, is going to believe a food services employee as opposed to the cbo.  You lost BADLY.  And you pissed of a really smart guy.  Sad.
Then, to compound your stupidity, you lie about why he left the thread.  Because you are a fucking liar.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did not work?  Did you happen to notice that the person I made that argument to...hasn't been back since?  He made a claim and I showed him quite clearly that it was false.  Taking a page out of your play book, Georgie...I can only assume he'll avoid this string until he thinks I've forgotten.
> ...



Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?

That's when he left...idiot child!  LOL


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

And you STILL haven't cited the last economic argument you presented on this string, Georgie!  Why is that?  Is it because you haven't had one in so long you're embarrassed to admit it?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?

Yes, because it did not occur.  That is just you lying again.  Same old thing.  
That's when he left...idiot child!  LOL

Wow.  Another lie.  And more personal attacks.  You showed Anton, or no one else, nothing.  As I showed above.  You are just a fucked up lying con troll.  and a simpleton food services employee, versus the cbo.  You lost big time.  But you never, ever have the integrity to admit you lost.  But everyone els knows.  You or the cbo.  Idiot child!  LOL.      You or the CBO.  dipshit.

Jesus, you are pathetic.
What is really, really funny is you, one of the biggest liars on this board, suggesting you are telling the truth and the cbo and the white house, are lying.  You, a food services worker, with no source to back up your claim.  You are, me boy, a joke.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And you STILL haven't cited the last economic argument you presented on this string, Georgie!  Why is that?  Is it because you haven't had one in so long you're embarrassed to admit it?


No, me poor ignorant juvenile minded con troll.  No one cares.  At all.  It was a day or two ago, but it is not worth looking back that far for you.  Because you are an idiot.  And it makes no difference.  I set up a new thread because you had clogged this one up with nonsense, and inability to argue anything.  You lost arguments time after time, and always claim to have won them.  And you spend all the time you can with personal attacks.  And you propose the stupidest arguments of anyone, and pretend it is serious. Your unending arguments of ignorance goes on in this thread, and everyone is gone, why would anyone try to set up a new argument in this thread.  You have poisoned it with lack of integrity, incessant lying, continual personal attacks. and the ignorance of a food services worker.  So, as everyone leaves there you are telling everyone how you won all sorts of arguments.  But, me poor ignorant fool, you are posting to yourself.  Everyone else left to avoid you.  You have become ed balamonte reborn.  Two completely ignorant con trolls.  
With you there, it is near impossible to have an economic discussion.  Anyone can  open a subject, and you change it to a political discussion.  Where discussion is bat shit crazy oldstyle pushing agenda.  It is *never* an economic discussion.  You do not allow economic discussion.  Because you are an agenda driven con troll.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > And you STILL haven't cited the last economic argument you presented on this string, Georgie!  Why is that?  Is it because you haven't had one in so long you're embarrassed to admit it?
> ...



Oh, so now it was a day or two ago?  Did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie, Georgie?

How exactly does someone "clog" a thread?  By asking you to provide the formula you promised?  You could have gotten rid of that "clog" in about twenty seconds if you really HAD a formula to determine Jobs Saved!  You didn't do that though...did you?  Why?  Because you lied when you said you had the formula.  That lie is what clogged up this string.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh, so now it was a day or two ago?  Did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie, Georgie?
Are you trying to call me a liar again, dipshit.  You are the liar, well proven.  I never lie.  so, you will lose that one again.  But then, just another personal attack.
How exactly does someone "clog" a thread? You know how.  You are the one doing it.  You do it by lying, by personal attacks, by political arguments as responses to economic arguments.  By saying you know something which no one believes you know, because you are a simpleton food services worker pretending to be an expert.  By irritating people to the point they do not want to try to discuss anything with you.   By asking you to provide the formula you promised? No, by lying about the fact that you promised to meet a condition to get that formula. And by making the same lie over and over and over and over.  About a subject that you could end simply by either admitting you can not meet the condition, or just letting it go.   You could have gotten rid of that "clog" in about twenty seconds if you really HAD a formula to determine Jobs Saved!  You could have by keeping your promise, meeting the condition you agreed to.  I could not, because doing so would be dishones
t and provide you with an out that you do not deserve.  You didn't do that though...did you?  Why?  Because you lied when you said you had the formula.  That lie is what clogged up this string.  It was really simple.  the condition was that you said you could provide a bill that republicans brought forward to address their recession.  You said you could and would, and agreed to the condition.  But, having no honor or integrity, you went back on your word.  And  you have made the above lie over and over for weeks now, oldstyle.  Knowing that you are lying.  Like a rug.  And yes, me boy,, not keeping your word and lying over and over and over does clog a thread.  Which is why, ass hole, no one is paying any attention to you.
Another thing you do not understand, at all, is how irrelevant you are.   What you say makes no difference because you lie so clearly that everyone knows.  You are well understood, me poor simpleton.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this nonsense about why you haven't provided the formula used to determine Jobs Saved?  You haven't provided it, Georgie...because it doesn't exist!  You know it...I know...and everyone who looks at this string knows it!  Which makes you about as big a liar as there has ever been, little buddy because you've been lying about this for WEEKS!

The reason this string is "clogged" is because you needed to obscure the fact that ONCE AGAIN, the US Message Board's resident poser...got caught pretending he knew something about economics!

You can post in CAPS...you can post in *BOLD*...you can post in RED...or you can post in ROYAL BLUE....and it still won't change how full of shit you are!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 10, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this nonsense about why you haven't provided the formula used to determine Jobs Saved? What is this, me poor con troll  The twentieth time you have asked the same question.  You are a lying fuck.  You haven't provided it, Georgie...because it doesn't exist!  You know it...I know...and everyone who looks at this string knows it!  Which makes you about as big a liar as there has ever been, little buddy because you've been lying about this for WEEKS    It could be so simple, me lying con troll.  but you are simply playing games.  Provide the name of the bill, or admit that republicans did not have any such bill.  Simple.  The fact that you have no honor, and you lied, is not my problem.  That would be yours.  You agreed to the condition, then cut and ran from the condition.  Because you lied, and now you have no honesty, and refuse to admit that you can not do as you said.  That would be YOUR fault.  I kept my promise, and still am.  

The reason this string is "clogged" is because you needed to obscure the fact that ONCE AGAIN, the US Message Board's resident poser...got caught pretending he knew something about economics!
Hardly, me lying con troll.  I never, ever lie.  You, on the other hand, as I and pretty much everyone who has ever dealt with you has said, are a  serial liar.

You can post in CAPS...you can post in *BOLD*...you can post in RED...or you can post in ROYAL BLUE....and it still won't change how full of shit you are!
So, another post by a food service worker.  I am so impressed with you.  And a proven liar.  I am so hurt by your drivel.  Do you yet understand that 1.  No one cares what you say anymore. 2.  No one is reading your posts.  3.  As a food services worker who never provides impartial sources for your drivel, you really do not matter.  4.  You are incapable of discussing economics, so you are wasting people's time.  5.  You are a fucking simpleton food services worker and con troll, and nothing else.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 10, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



If I really were a "simpleton food services worker" and not someone who ran multi-million dollar food and beverage operations for decades...it would only make it more pathetic that I know so much more about economics than someone who claims to have taught the subject at the college level.  

Here's a challenge for you, Georgie!   To prove your chops on economics...pick out your most intelligent post on an economic issue...then cut & paste that bad boy here where we can all bask in your superior intellect!  I'm willing to say I have a better chance of hitting Power Ball than you ever doing THAT because once you start going through your posts you're going to realize what a complete moron you sound like whenever you try to post an original thought of yours instead of cutting and pasting the thoughts of someone else.  But hey, maybe you'll shock me by finding something that doesn't sound like it was written by Homer Simpson!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> No, me poor ignorant juvenile minded con troll.  No one cares.  At all.  It was a day or two ago, but it is not worth looking back that far for you.  Because you are an idiot.  And it makes no difference.  I set up a new thread because you had clogged this one up with nonsense, and inability to argue anything.  You lost arguments time after time, and always claim to have won them.  And you spend all the time you can with personal attacks.  And you propose the stupidest arguments of anyone, and pretend it is serious. Your unending arguments of ignorance goes on in this thread, and everyone is gone, why would anyone try to set up a new argument in this thread.  You have poisoned it with lack of integrity, incessant lying, continual personal attacks. and the ignorance of a food services worker.  So, as everyone leaves there you are telling everyone how you won all sorts of arguments.  But, me poor ignorant fool, you are posting to yourself.  Everyone else left to avoid you.  You have become ed balamonte reborn.  Two completely ignorant con trolls.
> With you there, it is near impossible to have an economic discussion.  Anyone can  open a subject, and you change it to a political discussion.  Where discussion is bat shit crazy oldstyle pushing agenda.  It is *never* an economic discussion.  You do not allow economic discussion.  Because you are an agenda driven con troll.


  [/QUOTE]
Oh, so now it was a day or two ago?  Did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie, Georgie?
Are you trying to call me a liar again, dipshit.  You are the liar, well proven.  I never lie.  so, you will lose that one again.  But then, just another personal attack.
How exactly does someone "clog" a thread? You know how.  You are the one doing it.  You do it by lying, by personal attacks, by political arguments as responses to economic arguments.  By saying you know something which no one believes you know, because you are a simpleton food services worker pretending to be an expert.  By irritating people to the point they do not want to try to discuss anything with you.   By asking you to provide the formula you promised? No, by lying about the fact that you promised to meet a condition to get that formula. And by making the same lie over and over and over and over.  About a subject that you could end simply by either admitting you can not meet the condition, or just letting it go.   You could have gotten rid of that "clog" in about twenty seconds if you really HAD a formula to determine Jobs Saved!  You could have by keeping your promise, meeting the condition you agreed to.  I could not, because doing so would be dishones
t and provide you with an out that you do not deserve.  You didn't do that though...did you?  Why?  Because you lied when you said you had the formula.  That lie is what clogged up this string.  It was really simple.  the condition was that you said you could provide a bill that republicans brought forward to address their recession.  You said you could and would, and agreed to the condition.  But, having no honor or integrity, you went back on your word.  And  you have made the above lie over and over for weeks now, oldstyle.  Knowing that you are lying.  Like a rug.  And yes, me boy,, not keeping your word and lying over and over and over does clog a thread.  Which is why, ass hole, no one is paying any attention to you.
Another thing you do not understand, at all, is how irrelevant you are.   What you say makes no difference because you lie so clearly that everyone knows.  You are well understood, me poor simpleton.  [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this nonsense about why you haven't provided the formula used to determine Jobs Saved? What is this, me poor con troll  The twentieth time you have asked the same question.  You are a lying fuck.  You haven't provided it, Georgie...because it doesn't exist!  You know it...I know...and everyone who looks at this string knows it!  Which makes you about as big a liar as there has ever been, little buddy because you've been lying about this for WEEKS    It could be so simple, me lying con troll.  but you are simply playing games.  Provide the name of the bill, or admit that republicans did not have any such bill.  Simple.  The fact that you have no honor, and you lied, is not my problem.  That would be yours.  You agreed to the condition, then cut and ran from the condition.  Because you lied, and now you have no honesty, and refuse to admit that you can not do as you said.  That would be YOUR fault.  I kept my promise, and still am. 

The reason this string is "clogged" is because you needed to obscure the fact that ONCE AGAIN, the US Message Board's resident poser...got caught pretending he knew something about economics!
Hardly, me lying con troll.  I never, ever lie.  You, on the other hand, as I and pretty much everyone who has ever dealt with you has said, are a  serial liar.

You can post in CAPS...you can post in *BOLD*...you can post in RED...or you can post in ROYAL BLUE....and it still won't change how full of shit you are!
So, another post by a food service worker.  I am so impressed with you.  And a proven liar.  I am so hurt by your drivel.  Do you yet understand that 1.  No one cares what you say anymore. 2.  No one is reading your posts.  3.  As a food services worker who never provides impartial sources for your drivel, you really do not matter.  4.  You are incapable of discussing economics, so you are wasting people's time.  5.  You are a fucking simpleton food services worker and con troll, and nothing else.[/QUOTE]     [/QUOTE]

If I really were a "simpleton food services worker" and not someone who ran multi-million dollar food and beverage operations for decades...it would only make it more pathetic that I know so much more about economics than someone who claims to have taught the subject at the college level.
Prove it, me boy.  If it is true, and you want anyone to believe it, prove it and shut up.  You see, I do not care if you run a "food and beverage operation".  I see that makes you proud, so good for you.  But a liar gives away the ability to get anyone to believe what they claim.  And you are a serial liar.
You have proven, me poor ignorant con troll, over the years that you know nothing.  Just talking points.  And you are a food services worker, by definition.  And you have no economics background to speak of, by admission.  
What you are is a simpleton con troll, who is the only person who thinks his understanding of economics is beyond third grade level. Which it is not.   And, in addition, you are a proven con troll, to whom rational thought is foreign.  And, to top it off, you are a serial liar.  So, anything you say is beyond belief.  No one believes liars, and you have proven yourself to be a liar.  And you have posted the most ignorant posts ever. Have you noticed that no one has anything positive to say about your economic opinions.  The opinions, me boy, of a food services worker?

Here's a challenge for you, Georgie!   To prove your chops on economics...pick out your most intelligent post on an economic issue...then cut & paste that bad boy here where we can all bask in your superior intellect!  I'm willing to say I have a better chance of hitting Power Ball than you ever doing THAT because once you start going through your posts you're going to realize what a complete moron you sound like whenever you try to post an original thought of yours instead of cutting and pasting the thoughts of someone else.  But hey, maybe you'll shock me by finding something that doesn't sound like it was written by Homer Simpson!
Here is the thing, me boy. While you attack my knowledge of economics, and while you brag about your knowledge of same, what you have shown is that you lie constantly.  And those that have economic knowledge, have shown you a fool.  Yet you keep saying you win economic arguments that in fact you have lost big time.  Because you simply lie about it.   You have just proven that you know NOTHING about economics.  There is nothing that I can post in the realm of economics that you will not attack with your stupid simplistic con troll methodology.  No one, me poor ignorant con troll, wants to play games with you.  Take a look at your posts, and explain why anyone would want to subject themselves to your simplistic, juvenile personal attacks.  And there are no posts that are "most Intelligent".  If you knew anything at all about economics, you would understand that your posts are either true, as my posts are, or not true, as your posts are.  Then, there is objective proof of your post, which I provide.  Or there is just your opinion, which you rely on.  I have a  bachelors degree in economics that is now over 45 years old, which does not make me an expert.  I have a great deal of respect for higher level degrees in econ.  PHD's, Masters degrees often, but I have a simple BA in the subject.  So I always provide source documentation to back up what I say.  Because I do not expect people to look at me as an expert.  You, on the other hand, have had two classes in economics.  Believing that you are very capable in the subject with that education simply proves you to be stupid.  You say you do not need a source for your posts, because you know they are correct.  So, you try to pass your posts off as correct by your superior intellect.  Which, me boy, turns out to be a joke.  Because your posts are almost always unsupported, and have no support in the world of impartial expert sources.  They are, me boy, simply con talking points which I can find ONLY in the bat shit crazy con web sites, or in the conservativetalkingpoints.com site..  Which, of course, you suggest is only a coincidence.  And your posts are nearly always lies, based on your desire that they be true.  The hallmark of a stupid person.

So, in short, you are a dipshit, who lies and uses personal attacks for support. Thinking your personal attacks carry any weight proves your ignorance.  Thinking your unsupported posts carry any weight also proves your ignorance.  You posts about your superior knowledge, understanding of economics, or job resume likewise carry no weight.  People like you, who try to brag about their abilities and knowledge, simply prove up front that they have "no chops" as you say, and that they are liars.
If you want to discuss economics, post something in the realm yourself some time.   That would indicate that you actually are interested in the subject.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > No, me poor ignorant juvenile minded con troll.  No one cares.  At all.  It was a day or two ago, but it is not worth looking back that far for you.  Because you are an idiot.  And it makes no difference.  I set up a new thread because you had clogged this one up with nonsense, and inability to argue anything.  You lost arguments time after time, and always claim to have won them.  And you spend all the time you can with personal attacks.  And you propose the stupidest arguments of anyone, and pretend it is serious. Your unending arguments of ignorance goes on in this thread, and everyone is gone, why would anyone try to set up a new argument in this thread.  You have poisoned it with lack of integrity, incessant lying, continual personal attacks. and the ignorance of a food services worker.  So, as everyone leaves there you are telling everyone how you won all sorts of arguments.  But, me poor ignorant fool, you are posting to yourself.  Everyone else left to avoid you.  You have become ed balamonte reborn.  Two completely ignorant con trolls.
> > With you there, it is near impossible to have an economic discussion.  Anyone can  open a subject, and you change it to a political discussion.  Where discussion is bat shit crazy oldstyle pushing agenda.  It is *never* an economic discussion.  You do not allow economic discussion.  Because you are an agenda driven con troll.


Oh, so now it was a day or two ago?  Did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie, Georgie?
Are you trying to call me a liar again, dipshit.  You are the liar, well proven.  I never lie.  so, you will lose that one again.  But then, just another personal attack.
How exactly does someone "clog" a thread? You know how.  You are the one doing it.  You do it by lying, by personal attacks, by political arguments as responses to economic arguments.  By saying you know something which no one believes you know, because you are a simpleton food services worker pretending to be an expert.  By irritating people to the point they do not want to try to discuss anything with you.   By asking you to provide the formula you promised? No, by lying about the fact that you promised to meet a condition to get that formula. And by making the same lie over and over and over and over.  About a subject that you could end simply by either admitting you can not meet the condition, or just letting it go.   You could have gotten rid of that "clog" in about twenty seconds if you really HAD a formula to determine Jobs Saved!  You could have by keeping your promise, meeting the condition you agreed to.  I could not, because doing so would be dishones
t and provide you with an out that you do not deserve.  You didn't do that though...did you?  Why?  Because you lied when you said you had the formula.  That lie is what clogged up this string.  It was really simple.  the condition was that you said you could provide a bill that republicans brought forward to address their recession.  You said you could and would, and agreed to the condition.  But, having no honor or integrity, you went back on your word.  And  you have made the above lie over and over for weeks now, oldstyle.  Knowing that you are lying.  Like a rug.  And yes, me boy,, not keeping your word and lying over and over and over does clog a thread.  Which is why, ass hole, no one is paying any attention to you.
Another thing you do not understand, at all, is how irrelevant you are.   What you say makes no difference because you lie so clearly that everyone knows.  You are well understood, me poor simpleton.  [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this nonsense about why you haven't provided the formula used to determine Jobs Saved? What is this, me poor con troll  The twentieth time you have asked the same question.  You are a lying fuck.  You haven't provided it, Georgie...because it doesn't exist!  You know it...I know...and everyone who looks at this string knows it!  Which makes you about as big a liar as there has ever been, little buddy because you've been lying about this for WEEKS    It could be so simple, me lying con troll.  but you are simply playing games.  Provide the name of the bill, or admit that republicans did not have any such bill.  Simple.  The fact that you have no honor, and you lied, is not my problem.  That would be yours.  You agreed to the condition, then cut and ran from the condition.  Because you lied, and now you have no honesty, and refuse to admit that you can not do as you said.  That would be YOUR fault.  I kept my promise, and still am. 

The reason this string is "clogged" is because you needed to obscure the fact that ONCE AGAIN, the US Message Board's resident poser...got caught pretending he knew something about economics!
Hardly, me lying con troll.  I never, ever lie.  You, on the other hand, as I and pretty much everyone who has ever dealt with you has said, are a  serial liar.

You can post in CAPS...you can post in *BOLD*...you can post in RED...or you can post in ROYAL BLUE....and it still won't change how full of shit you are!
So, another post by a food service worker.  I am so impressed with you.  And a proven liar.  I am so hurt by your drivel.  Do you yet understand that 1.  No one cares what you say anymore. 2.  No one is reading your posts.  3.  As a food services worker who never provides impartial sources for your drivel, you really do not matter.  4.  You are incapable of discussing economics, so you are wasting people's time.  5.  You are a fucking simpleton food services worker and con troll, and nothing else.[/QUOTE]     [/QUOTE]

If I really were a "simpleton food services worker" and not someone who ran multi-million dollar food and beverage operations for decades...it would only make it more pathetic that I know so much more about economics than someone who claims to have taught the subject at the college level.
Prove it, me boy.  If it is true, and you want anyone to believe it, prove it and shut up.  You see, I do not care if you run a "food and beverage operation".  I see that makes you proud, so good for you.  But a liar gives away the ability to get anyone to believe what they claim.  And you are a serial liar.
You have proven, me poor ignorant con troll, over the years that you know nothing.  Just talking points.  And you are a food services worker, by definition.  And you have no economics background to speak of, by admission.  
What you are is a simpleton con troll, who is the only person who thinks his understanding of economics is beyond third grade level. Which it is not.   And, in addition, you are a proven con troll, to whom rational thought is foreign.  And, to top it off, you are a serial liar.  So, anything you say is beyond belief.  No one believes liars, and you have proven yourself to be a liar.  And you have posted the most ignorant posts ever. Have you noticed that no one has anything positive to say about your economic opinions.  The opinions, me boy, of a food services worker?

Here's a challenge for you, Georgie!   To prove your chops on economics...pick out your most intelligent post on an economic issue...then cut & paste that bad boy here where we can all bask in your superior intellect!  I'm willing to say I have a better chance of hitting Power Ball than you ever doing THAT because once you start going through your posts you're going to realize what a complete moron you sound like whenever you try to post an original thought of yours instead of cutting and pasting the thoughts of someone else.  But hey, maybe you'll shock me by finding something that doesn't sound like it was written by Homer Simpson!
Jesus.  And you want to ask me to do something and start the request by calling me Georgie.  You juvinile and insulting effort to attack me personally.  So, fuck off.
Here is the thing, me boy. While you attack my knowledge of economics, and while you brag about your knowledge of same, what you have shown is that you lie constantly.  And those that have economic knowledge, have shown you a fool.  Yet you keep saying you win economic arguments that in fact you have lost big time.  Because you simply lie about it.   You have just proven that you know NOTHING about economics.  There is nothing that I can post in the realm of economics that you will not attack with your stupid simplistic con troll methodology.  No one, me poor ignorant con troll, wants to play games with you.  Take a look at your posts, and explain why anyone would want to subject themselves to your simplistic, juvenile personal attacks.  
And there are no posts that are "most Intelligent".  If you knew anything at all about economics, you would understand that a person's posts are either true, as my posts are, or not true, as your posts are.  Then, there is objective proof of your post, which I provide.  Or there is just your opinion, which you rely on.  I have a  bachelors degree in economics that is now over 45 years old, which does not make me an expert.  I have a great deal of respect for higher level degrees in econ.  PHD's, Masters degrees often, but I have a simple BA in the subject.  So I always provide source documentation to back up what I say.  Because I do not expect people to look at me as an expert.  You, on the other hand, have had two classes in economics.  Believing that you are very capable in the subject with that education simply proves you to be stupid.  You say you do not need a source for your posts, because you know they are correct.  So, you try to pass your posts off as correct by your superior intellect.  Which, me boy, turns out to be a joke.  Because your posts are almost always unsupported, and have no support in the world of impartial expert sources.  They are, me boy, simply con talking points which I can find ONLY in the bat shit crazy con web sites, or in the conservativetalkingpoints.com site..  Which, of course, you suggest is only a coincidence.  And your posts are nearly always lies, based on your desire that they be true.  The hallmark of a stupid person.

So, in short, you are a dipshit, who lies and uses personal attacks for support. Thinking your personal attacks carry any weight proves your ignorance.  Thinking your unsupported posts carry any weight also proves your ignorance.  You posts about your superior knowledge, understanding of economics, or job resume likewise carry no weight.  People like you, who try to brag about their abilities and knowledge, simply prove up front that they have "no chops" as you say, and that they are liars.
If you want to discuss economics, post something in the realm yourself some time.   That would indicate that you are actually interested in the subject. [/QUOTE]


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?
> 
> That's when he left...idiot child!  LOL



I can't believe this is still going.

I'll give it one more try, one more time only.

Oldstyle, it is *very simple* - the numbers administration used are legitimate, un-made-up numbers confirmed by estimates CBO did. Your argumentation that they were somehow simply made up by administration is BS, no ifs, no butts.

Time to learn it and move on with your life, because when you deny the obvious you make yourself look like a idiot. Why are you so hell bent on making yourself look that way?


You want to make non-idiot argument against stimulus? Here it is, listen up:

Stimulus, and other expansionary policies Obama administration put in place during recession did in fact make for a significant jobs increase since he has been in office, these policies however have come at expense of aggravating our long term problems. The money we burrowed yesterday caused jobs, but the interest and eventual settling of the debt will ultimately cost even more jobs due to contractionary policies (increasing taxes and/or cutting spending) needed to repay it.

Yes, this is what sane, fact respecting, economically sound, conservative argument looks like - and because of those fine qualities we will rarely hear it from our challenged friends on the right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?
> ...



Wonderful!  Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?

You folks on the left keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is a verifiable number...yet none of you can give me the formula that one would use to arrive at that "verified" total!  There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured.  Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this nonsense about why you haven't provided the formula used to determine Jobs Saved? What is this, me poor con troll  The twentieth time you have asked the same question.  You are a lying fuck.  You haven't provided it, Georgie...because it doesn't exist!  You know it...I know...and everyone who looks at this string knows it!  Which makes you about as big a liar as there has ever been, little buddy because you've been lying about this for WEEKS    It could be so simple, me lying con troll.  but you are simply playing games.  Provide the name of the bill, or admit that republicans did not have any such bill.  Simple.  The fact that you have no honor, and you lied, is not my problem.  That would be yours.  You agreed to the condition, then cut and ran from the condition.  Because you lied, and now you have no honesty, and refuse to admit that you can not do as you said.  That would be YOUR fault.  I kept my promise, and still am. 

The reason this string is "clogged" is because you needed to obscure the fact that ONCE AGAIN, the US Message Board's resident poser...got caught pretending he knew something about economics!
Hardly, me lying con troll.  I never, ever lie.  You, on the other hand, as I and pretty much everyone who has ever dealt with you has said, are a  serial liar.

You can post in CAPS...you can post in *BOLD*...you can post in RED...or you can post in ROYAL BLUE....and it still won't change how full of shit you are!
So, another post by a food service worker.  I am so impressed with you.  And a proven liar.  I am so hurt by your drivel.  Do you yet understand that 1.  No one cares what you say anymore. 2.  No one is reading your posts.  3.  As a food services worker who never provides impartial sources for your drivel, you really do not matter.  4.  You are incapable of discussing economics, so you are wasting people's time.  5.  You are a fucking simpleton food services worker and con troll, and nothing else.[/QUOTE]     [/QUOTE]

If I really were a "simpleton food services worker" and not someone who ran multi-million dollar food and beverage operations for decades...it would only make it more pathetic that I know so much more about economics than someone who claims to have taught the subject at the college level.
Prove it, me boy.  If it is true, and you want anyone to believe it, prove it and shut up.  You see, I do not care if you run a "food and beverage operation".  I see that makes you proud, so good for you.  But a liar gives away the ability to get anyone to believe what they claim.  And you are a serial liar.
You have proven, me poor ignorant con troll, over the years that you know nothing.  Just talking points.  And you are a food services worker, by definition.  And you have no economics background to speak of, by admission.  
What you are is a simpleton con troll, who is the only person who thinks his understanding of economics is beyond third grade level. Which it is not.   And, in addition, you are a proven con troll, to whom rational thought is foreign.  And, to top it off, you are a serial liar.  So, anything you say is beyond belief.  No one believes liars, and you have proven yourself to be a liar.  And you have posted the most ignorant posts ever. Have you noticed that no one has anything positive to say about your economic opinions.  The opinions, me boy, of a food services worker?

Here's a challenge for you, Georgie!   To prove your chops on economics...pick out your most intelligent post on an economic issue...then cut & paste that bad boy here where we can all bask in your superior intellect!  I'm willing to say I have a better chance of hitting Power Ball than you ever doing THAT because once you start going through your posts you're going to realize what a complete moron you sound like whenever you try to post an original thought of yours instead of cutting and pasting the thoughts of someone else.  But hey, maybe you'll shock me by finding something that doesn't sound like it was written by Homer Simpson!
Jesus.  And you want to ask me to do something and start the request by calling me Georgie.  You juvinile and insulting effort to attack me personally.  So, fuck off.
Here is the thing, me boy. While you attack my knowledge of economics, and while you brag about your knowledge of same, what you have shown is that you lie constantly.  And those that have economic knowledge, have shown you a fool.  Yet you keep saying you win economic arguments that in fact you have lost big time.  Because you simply lie about it.   You have just proven that you know NOTHING about economics.  There is nothing that I can post in the realm of economics that you will not attack with your stupid simplistic con troll methodology.  No one, me poor ignorant con troll, wants to play games with you.  Take a look at your posts, and explain why anyone would want to subject themselves to your simplistic, juvenile personal attacks.  
And there are no posts that are "most Intelligent".  If you knew anything at all about economics, you would understand that a person's posts are either true, as my posts are, or not true, as your posts are.  Then, there is objective proof of your post, which I provide.  Or there is just your opinion, which you rely on.  I have a  bachelors degree in economics that is now over 45 years old, which does not make me an expert.  I have a great deal of respect for higher level degrees in econ.  PHD's, Masters degrees often, but I have a simple BA in the subject.  So I always provide source documentation to back up what I say.  Because I do not expect people to look at me as an expert.  You, on the other hand, have had two classes in economics.  Believing that you are very capable in the subject with that education simply proves you to be stupid.  You say you do not need a source for your posts, because you know they are correct.  So, you try to pass your posts off as correct by your superior intellect.  Which, me boy, turns out to be a joke.  Because your posts are almost always unsupported, and have no support in the world of impartial expert sources.  They are, me boy, simply con talking points which I can find ONLY in the bat shit crazy con web sites, or in the conservativetalkingpoints.com site..  Which, of course, you suggest is only a coincidence.  And your posts are nearly always lies, based on your desire that they be true.  The hallmark of a stupid person.

So, in short, you are a dipshit, who lies and uses personal attacks for support. Thinking your personal attacks carry any weight proves your ignorance.  Thinking your unsupported posts carry any weight also proves your ignorance.  You posts about your superior knowledge, understanding of economics, or job resume likewise carry no weight.  People like you, who try to brag about their abilities and knowledge, simply prove up front that they have "no chops" as you say, and that they are liars.
If you want to discuss economics, post something in the realm yourself some time.   That would indicate that you are actually interested in the subject. [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Gee, Georgie...you're always whining about how this thread doesn't discuss economics...but when I give you the opportunity to copy and paste one of your brilliant commentaries on economics...you decline?  Could it be that you realize how ignorant you are on the subject?  That if one took away the ability to cut and paste the thoughts of others on economic theory...you wouldn't be able to hold an intelligent conversation on economics?

I graduated with a degree in History in 1978.  38 years later I can still tell you most of the things I learned in my college classes those four years.  I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" in the field of History by any means but I can carry on an intelligent conversation about History.  Why is it that you can't do the same with Economics?  Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting...I actually got a degree in History while you just PRETEND that you got one in Economics!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Wonderful!  Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?



Umm no, not right.

You are seriously clueless what it takes to produce a macroeconomic estimate. There is actually a REASON why we need professional economists to do this stuff.

There is not one formula, there are various formulas used to calculate all kinds of different components of policy, from project spending, to grants, to various tax cuts, interest rates consideration, secondary effects etc. etc. which then get totaled up in the publicly made reports.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?
> ...



I note that you didn't respond to my point that the Obama Administration was using the figure of 3 million jobs saved a year before the CBO released their findings that given the numbers that the Obama Administration gave them to crunch that 3 million jobs saved was possible.

Don't you admit when you were wrong?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Wonderful!  Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?
> ...



But obviously there must be a formula that is used to determine "Jobs Saved", Anton?  Right?  They didn't just pull that number out of thin air!  So what was it?

It only stands to reason that if there are various formulas for calculating project spending, grants, tax cuts and interest rates...that there must be one for calculating "Jobs Saved"...correct?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I note that you didn't respond to my point that the Obama Administration was using the figure of 3 million jobs saved a year before the CBO released their findings that given the numbers that the Obama Administration gave them to crunch that 3 million jobs saved was possible.
> 
> Don't you admit when you were wrong?



BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT. The bottom line, the thing that really *MATTERS* is that their numbers were based on sound economic estimates, as confirmed by CBO.

Tell you get it THIS TIME.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

LOL...the reason you can't tell me what it is...is that they did indeed pull that number out of thin air!  They made it up.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I note that you didn't respond to my point that the Obama Administration was using the figure of 3 million jobs saved a year before the CBO released their findings that given the numbers that the Obama Administration gave them to crunch that 3 million jobs saved was possible.
> ...



Would those be the same economists that told us that if the Stimulus was passed...unemployment would stay below 8%?  Hmmmm...perhaps one should take their "sound economic estimates" with a very large grain of salt?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ok dumb ass here is the formula, are you ready?

JOBS SAVED = JOBS CREATED, because from policy evaluation point of view there is NO NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JOB GAINED AND A JOB NOT LOST.

That's why CBO report even states it in this non-differential manner: "Jobs saved or gained"


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

So when you make a claim that is shown to be totally false...you don't admit that you were wrong...you instead declare that it's IRRELEVANT?

Oh, you're gonna fit right in with Georgie...LOL


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



The difference between "Jobs Saved" and "Jobs Created" is that one is an actual number gathered to let us know how we're doing economically...the other is a number created out of whole cloth to *hide* how we're doing economically.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> LOL...the reason you can't tell me what it is...is that they did indeed pull that number out of thin air!  They made it up.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...the reason you can't tell me what it is...is that they did indeed pull that number out of thin air!  They made it up.



You might want to stick to emoticons for a bit, Anton...you're not exactly knocking stuff out of the park today!  Claiming that "Jobs Saved = Jobs Created" borders on farce.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The difference between "Jobs Saved" and "Jobs Created" is that one is an actual number gathered to let us know how we're doing economically...the other is a number created out of whole cloth to *hide* how we're doing economically.



No, dumb ass the two are treated the same because people are interested in NET changes in economy not turn over rates.

There are always people getting fired, hired, retiring or getting layed off - but the most important picture is one of net jobs in economy and how the policy effects it.

On the NET, the estimate states that there would be 3 million less jobs in economy in 2010 without Obamacare - you can call those jobs saved or jobs created - IT DOES NOT MATTER, in the end it would be 3 million job difference.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between "Jobs Saved" and "Jobs Created" is that one is an actual number gathered to let us know how we're doing economically...the other is a number created out of whole cloth to *hide* how we're doing economically.
> ...



Actually it does matter because there is absolutely ZERO way for determining how many jobs were "saved"!  The reason the Obama Administration used jobs created or saved is that they could use any total they felt like because there was no way to prove or disprove that it was accurate.

Why would you use numbers that can't be proven to get a clear picture of how well policy is affecting the economy?  The answer quite obviously is that you wouldn't!  The only use for numbers that can't be proven is to blur the picture of how your policies are affecting the economy!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Farce is you, os.  You are showing your stupidity.  You need to start by showing why a job saved with the result of a person being employed is different from a new job with a person employed.
Your ignorance on the issue provides proof of your inability to make a rational economic argument.  Jesus, you are a waste of space.
And, again, try to remember you are a food services employee with almost no economic background
and zero understanding of the subject.  So what you have to say is vacuous.  Try a source some time, and a link.  Otherwise just prepare to be ignored.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*NO IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T.
*
You may think that your little political *GOCHA* bullshit has some sort of significance outside of your little narrow mindset but it absolutely DOES NOT.

What matters to the world is that in 2010 there were significantly more jobs because of Stimulus policy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually it does matter because there is absolutely ZERO way for determining how many jobs were "saved"!  The reason the Obama Administration used jobs created or saved is that they could use any total they felt like because there was no way to prove or disprove that it was accurate.
Says the food services employee with no economics background, and no source to back up his ignorant claims. With no proof to his claim.  Which is based only on what OS wants so badly to believe.
Cons did all they could to stop jobs being saved.  Here is one of many examples:  And coincidentally, what the bat shit crazy con web sites say.  
"The number to watch is the total number of jobs created. A..  nd in this case, the economy added 244,000 jobs in April. That’s the third highest total since the recession started, and the single-best month when one excludes Census-related jobs. By most measures, this is the fastest job growth Americans have seen _in five years_.
*Also note, the total would have been even higher had it not been for state and local budget cuts — the private sector added 268,000 jobs, but the public sector lost 24,000 jobs. Those were jobs that could have been saved were it not for conservative fiscal policies."*
April shows surprisingly strong job growth

Why would you use numbers that can't be proven to get a clear picture of how well policy is affecting the economy?  The answer quite obviously is that you wouldn't!  Only to an idiot like you.The only use for numbers that can't be proven is to blur the picture of how your policies are affecting the economy!  That is probably what you would use them for, because you are dishonest.  Economists are simply trying to represent truth

So, oldstyle the food services employee says jobs saved does not exist, because that is what the con talking point says.  Because he has no source for his drivel.

Economists say jobs saved is obviously a valid measure.:
*• CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.*

*• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.*

*• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.*

*• Moody's economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created.*

So, Oldstyle versus four well respected economic organizations.  That does not indicate that OS is wrong. It simply indicates he is lying and a con troll.  And he is outvoted 5 to 1, where 5 represents economists and 1 indicates a food services worker with no source to back him up.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

Wonderful!  Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are not legitimate and made-up...you should have no problem at all providing a source with economic credentials and that is impartial to back up  your allegations.

You folks on the right keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is an un-verifiable number...you keep asking for a formula you say does not exist.  Any concept of how stupid that makes you look?Now oldstyle says "There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured.  Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public."   But Oldstyle can find no source to prove his accusations.  And they remain just the argument of a ignorant food services employee and ignorant con troll.  Makes oldstyle a total waste of space.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Ok dumb ass here is the formula, are you ready?

JOBS SAVED = JOBS CREATED, because from policy evaluation point of view there is NO NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JOB GAINED AND A JOB NOT LOST.

That's why CBO report even states it in this non-differential manner: "Jobs saved or gained"

Honest and true post, as usual. Problem is, as a con troll with no economics background, and just a political desire to attack Obama, it will make no difference to him.  OS is a simple liar.  And has no compunction about lying in a continuous basis.  
Now, if you posted something I thought was wrong, I would question where you got it.  And I have no doubt that you, as I, would not take offense and would post a link to what I used to validate what I said.  
Oldstyle simply posts what ever con talking point he wants, and posts no proof of anything.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]
Well, probably what we needed was a food services employee.  I am sure you were more accurate.  
You probably knew how badly the republicans had screwed up the economy, where others misjudged it.  So,  where is the estimate that you made??  Or are you simply saying, based on the deep understanding of a food services employee we should know you got it accurately.  And that we should believe  you this time, since you only lie some of the time?  
OH.......Can you believe it, Oldstyle did not make an estimate.  He is just posting con talking points again.  Can you believe it???  Nah.  No one believes a con troll and food services employee.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Wonderful!  Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are not legitimate and made-up...you should have no problem at all providing a source with economic credentials and that is impartial to back up  your allegations.

You folks on the right keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is an un-verifiable number...you keep asking for a formula you say does not exist.  Any concept of how stupid that makes you look?Now oldstyle says "There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured.  Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public."   But Oldstyle can find no source to prove his accusations.  And they remain just the argument of a ignorant food services employee and ignorant con troll.  Makes oldstyle a total waste of space.[/QUOTE]
"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."

Boehner also pointed to a memo from Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer, who said that the White House is misleading the nation by saying the Recovery Act has saved jobs.

"One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved,' " wrote Meltzer, who served as an economic adviser under President Ronald Reagan. "It doesn't exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"Stimulus creates 640,000 jobs - White House says - Oct. 30, 2009


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

*Tony Fratto: The White House "Jobs-Saved" Deception *
Tuesday, 2 Jun 2009 | 10:37 AM ETCNBC.com
63
SHARES
























COMMENTSStart the Discussion







After nearly twenty years in Washington I thought I've seen every trick ever conceived, but the White House claims of "jobs saved" attributed to the stimulus bill is unrivaled. What causes the jaw to drop is not just the breathtaking deception of the claim, but the gullibility of the Washington press corps to continue reporting it.

News stories from President Obama's event last week hailing the 100-day mark since the stimulus was passed typically repeated the assertion that the stimulus has already "created or saved 150,00 jobs." ("And that's just the beginning," the President crowed.)

Here's an important note to my friends in the news media: the White House has absolutely no earthly clue how many job losses have been prevented because of the stimulus bill. None. Not Christina Romer. Not Jared Bernstein. Not Austen Goolsbee.

Each of these distinguished economists would have failed Statistics 101 for making such a laughable claim. But we see them now repeating these assertions to reporters who have seemingly abandoned all skepticism.

Forget that only a trickle of stimulus spending has yet made its way into the real economy. Set aside your views on whether or not the stimulus has any job-saving or -creating impact. And leave for another day the White House's failing to account for changing macroeconomic conditions and seasonal adjustments.

There is only one necessary data point to make the "jobs-saved" claim: an accurate measure of expected employment levels in the future. That baseline data is critical to measure what the employment level would be in the absence of the stimulus. Unfortunately for the White House, they cannot possibly know that measurement within any degree of confidence -- and they know it.

To understand just how unknowable this data point is, it's not necessary to be an economist, a mathematician or a statistician.

You only need to know this: the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS) - thousands of the most professional and rigorous counters and analyzers of labor data in the history of mankind - makes TWO revisions of employment data for their ESTIMATE of the PREVIOUS month! And even then the reports are mere estimates - an annual benchmark survey is required to reset the nation's payroll baseline.

That is, the best employment statisticians the world has ever known, people whose lives are dedicated to employment data, conducting labor surveys and research, constantly refining their complex models, have a difficult time telling you how many jobs were created in the PAST!

In fact, monthly BLS revisions of past job creation estimates are routinely off by tens of thousands of jobs, and on occasion by more than a hundred thousand jobs. The annual benchmark surveys always reset employment levels by hundreds of thousands of jobs.

And we're supposed to believe that the Council of Economic advisors have acquired the clairvoyant ability to estimate payrolls in the future? Please.

Romer, Goolsbee and Bernstein are smart people, and yet they haven't learned from even their recent misadventures with payroll data projections -- having already experienced the folly of attempting to project the range of possible jobs levels if the stimulus were passed. Projecting job creation with any degree of accuracy was always inherantly impossible, and should never have been taken seriously.

If I -- or even my predecessors in the Clinton Administration -- had tried to pull off this ridiculous gimmick we would have been run out of town. I don't even believe it's possible to look back and accurately measure the "job-saving" impact of Bush or Clinton Administration policies, let alone to measure in real time, or project into the future.

On Friday the BLS will release its estimate of May job losses. They will also report their revisions for March and April. And White House officials will once again gear up the spin machine on how many jobs have been "saved".

A self-respecting press corps would vigorously question the White House on their claims. We'll see if we have one.

______________________ 
_Tony Fratto is a CNBC on-air contributor and most recently served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary for the Bush Administration._

























by Taboola
MORE FROM CNBC


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

*The Myth of the Multiplier*
*Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment*
Veronique de Rugy from the November 2009 issue - view article in the  Digital Edition 


EMAIL
SHARE 
PRINT
Give us money, and we’ll give you jobs. That was the promise President Barack Obama made when he asked Congress for a $789 billion stimulus bill. The cash, he said, would create millions of jobs during the next two years. Without the stimulus, the administration warned in a January report by economic advisers Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, unemployment by the end of 2010 would reach as high as 9 percent.

*RELATED ARTICLES*

*$15 Minimum Wage Could Kill Up to 5 Million Jobs*
Ronald Bailey|7.06.16


*Ronald Bailey and Robin Hanson Talk Robot Overlords at Cato: Video*
Ronald Bailey|6.15.16


*Billions of Artificial Robot Brains Take Over the World: New at Reason*
Ronald Bailey|6.03.16

* MORE ARTICLES BY Veronique de Rugy *

*Privatize the Postal System, Abolish a Monopoly*
7.07.16 9:00 am


*How Government Cronies Redefined the Catfish*
6.30.16 12:01 am


*Reduce the Hurdles to Private Investment in Infrastructure*
6.23.16 12:01 am


Economics
Stimulus
Well, Obama got his money. Since then, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs and the unemployment rate has climbed to 9.4 percent. By May 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) had changed its message. Now the stimulus would “save or create” 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. 

Measuring total jobs “saved” by a piece of legislation is as difficult as measuring total crimes prevented by police patrols. That’s why no agency—not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics— actually calculates “jobs saved.” As the University of Chicago economist Steven J. Davis told the Associated Press, using saved jobs as a yardstick “was a clever political gimmick to make it even harder to determine whether this policy has any effect.”


A look at the CEA’s job creation model undercuts its promises even more. The model’s calculation of saved or created jobs is based on a macroeconomic estimate, not on actual data. According to the authors, the estimate rests on a “rough correspondence over history” that indicates a 1 percent increase in gross domestic product (GDP) represents an increase of 1 million jobs. They might as well have said the estimate was picked at random.

How did they come up with the 1 percent figure? Since government spending is increasing, and since such spending is a component of GDP, they assumed GDP would grow whether or not the spending produced real growth in the economy. This is akin to assuming I will have a baby in nine months whether or not I am pregnant.

The May report concedes that while the CEA will attempt to measure job creation through data collected from stimulus recipients, the results will contain errors and inconsistencies. “Because of these limitations,” it warns, “the reported jobs numbers will need to [be] used with caution and as part of a more complex estimation strategy.”

Since then, Romer has told CNBC she couldn’t say for sure how many jobs would be created, since we can’t know what would have happened without the stimulus. But didn’t her report pro-ject what would happen if the stimulus wasn’t passed? Wasn’t the 3.5 million number supposed to be the difference between employment with the stimulus and employment without it?

The confusion flows from the faulty theory underlying the stimulus bill. In Keynesian thought, a decline in demand causes a decline in spending; since one person’s spending is someone else’s income, a fall in demand makes a nation poorer. As a poorer nation cuts back on spending, it sets off another wave of declining income. So any big shock to consumer spending or business confidence can set off waves of job losses and layoffs, as fewer goods are demanded and more workers become useless.

Under this logic, one possible remedy is for public spending to take the place of private spending. As government increases its spending, the money creates new employment. That, in turn, spurs those new workers to consume more and prompts businesses to buy more machines and equipment to meet the government-induced demand. Economists call this increase in aggregate income the “multiplier” effect. One dollar of government spending, the theory goes, ends up creating more than a dollar of new income. It’s a rare free lunch.

As appealing as the Keynesian story sounds, many economists have long doubted it. In 1991, looking across 100 countries, Robert Barro of Harvard presented historical evidence that high government spending actually hurts economies in the long run by crowding out private spending and shifting resources to the uses preferred by politicians rather than consumers. For a dollar of government spending, we end up seeing less than a dollar of growth. Can long-term poison be short-term medicine?

Even in the short run, if there’s a big decline in the demand for workers, why should that alone cause mass unemployment? If all those workers really want to work, why won’t wages just fall until all the workers have jobs? That’s how markets end a glut, whether it’s a glut of employees or a glut of blue jeans: with lower prices. If recessions really are caused by a fall in demand (and nothing else), why don’t wages fall enough to keep people from losing their jobs? 

It’s because wages are sticky, Keynesians argue. Wages and salaries don’t change on a daily basis the way stock prices and gas prices do, so if a company hits a sales slump, salespeople might earn fewer commissions, but the vast majority of workers don’t get a pay cut. There’s something about the market for workers that keeps businesses from cutting wages in a slump. As long as wages are sticky, in the wake of a nationwide collapse in sales, entrepreneurs will start firing people.

If a decline in demand means mass firing, a rise in demand can mean mass hiring. Even if government spending is inefficient, pork-laden, and financed by future tax increases, the theory goes, it can still create some real jobs, some real output, in both the public and private sectors. 

So what do the data say? There aren’t many studies of the issue. But two stand out: Robert Barro’s work and research by Valerie Ramey, an economist at the University of California–San Diego, on how military spending influences GDP. Both studies found that government spending crowds out the private sector, at least a little. And both found multipliers close to one: Barro’s estimate is 0.8, while Ramey’s estimate is 1.2. This means that every dollar of government spending produces either less than a dollar of economic growth or just a little over a dollar. That’s quite different from the administration’s favored multiplier of four. What’s more, Ramey also found evidence that consumer and business spending actually decline after an increase in government purchases.

Why this crowding out of private spending? Government spending comes from three sources: debt, new money, or taxes. In other words, the government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy.

Take taxation: Taxes simply transfer resources from consumers to government, displacing private spending and investment. Families whose taxes have increased will have less money to spend on themselves. They are poorer and will consume less. They also save less money, which in turn reduces the resources available for lending.

In addition, higher taxation encourages people to change their behavior to avoid taxes. They might switch their efforts to nontaxed activities, such as household production, or to the untaxed underground economy. Economists call this a deadweight loss, because people give up the taxed activity or good they prefer.

There are high costs to the other options as well. If the government borrows money, that leaves less capital for the private sector to borrow for its own consumption. If the government prints new money, it will create inflation, which reduces the value of the money we own and decreases everyone’s purchasing power.

Overall, government spending doesn’t boost national income or standard of living. It merely redistributes it—minus the share it spends on the bureaucracy that collects and spends our tax dollars. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger. In fact, it’s smaller.

_Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy (vderugy@gmu.edu) is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University._
The Myth of the Multiplier


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."

Boehner also pointed to a memo from Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer, who said that the White House is misleading the nation by saying the Recovery Act has saved jobs.

"One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved,' " wrote Meltzer, who served as an economic adviser under President Ronald Reagan. "It doesn't exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"Stimulus creates 640,000 jobs - White House says - Oct. 30, 2009[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with 640,000 jobs?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


What's wrong with 640,000 jobs?[/QUOTE]

Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Felix Salmon
*How the government fudges job statistics*
By Felix Salmon
February 17, 2010
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and "costs a good $200,000 per job". Just as well I didn't use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic! " data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google,mail" data-share-count="false">
*Tags:*
employment
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and “costs a good $200,000 per job”. Just as well I didn’t use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic!

The host, Kai Ryssdal, had no time to read out the letter in full, but has allowed me to reprint it:

Dear Mr. Ryssdal:

I have always enjoyed your show and have enjoyed past opportunities to discuss issues as your guest. However, I was distressed last Friday to hear a purported expert guest, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, state with great certainty that infrastructure investment is an inefficient jobs creator because those jobs are so expensive to create. To back up his argument he claimed that it costs $200,000 to create one infrastructure job. However, he provided no source for this claim and you failed to challenge his assertion.

The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that $92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year, regardless of the sector of the economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation, arguably the most knowledgeable government agency when it comes to transportation spending and the resulting job creation, states that an investment of $35,941 creates one infrastructure-related job. Those two confirmable estimates are a far cry from the dubious $200,000-per-job claim from Mr. Salmon. Unfortunately Mr. Salmon’s assertion went unchallenged while the other guest, Heidi Moore of The Big Money, seemed to tacitly agree with him.

I am particularly sensitive about this issue since the AP ran an article last month on an “analysis” by AP reporters that used incomplete information to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about the success of the transportation infrastructure component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The article claimed that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment ” based on the reporters’ finding that “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation.” However, instead of examining the impact of ARRA’s transportation investment on jobs in the transportation industry – an appropriate comparison – the reporters compared the transportation funding, which comprised only 6 percent of spending in the Recovery Act, to the overall unemployment rate. This led to a specious conclusion and ignores the fact that transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion.

I continue to support infrastructure investment as both a justified investment that future generations will benefit from as well as one of the most efficient creators of jobs, contrary to the beliefs of purported experts like Mr. Salmon and the so-called investigative reporters from the AP. I hope you will set the record straight. If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me directly at [redacted].

Sincerely,

Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

(In case you were wondering, the “M.C.” just means Member of Congress.)

I have no dog in DeFazio’s fight with the AP. But his attacks on me are just plain wrong. Infrastructure investments are simply _not_ “one of the most efficient creators of jobs”, no matter how much DeFazio might want them to be, and the sources he cites to back up that claim don’t support it.

What’s at issue here is a ratio: I’m talking about dollars per job created. To get that number, you take the number of dollars spent, and divide it by the number of jobs created. DeFazio, by contrast, subtly tries to change the denominator when he says that “$92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year”: he’s taking dollars, dividing by jobs created, and then dividing _again_ by the number of years that each job is expected to last.

In the real world, of course, if you spend $300,000 to create a job which lasts three years, then that’s one job created with your $300,000, not three jobs. Only in DC would people attempt to claim that their $300,000 had created three “job-years”.

What’s more, the $92,000 estimate covers government spending in general, not just infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending gets you low bang for the buck, in terms of job creation, compared to other kinds of spending — my example on the show was arts subsidies. A lot of government spending goes on creating new federal jobs: you get much more job creation per buck that way than you do building infrastructure.

And if you look at the CEA report, you’ll see that it carefully fudges the difference between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs saved, on the other; in fact, it seems to used “created” and “created or saved” as synonyms. So if you’ve had a job for years, and you’re still in that job, you can still be counted in these job-creation statistics if the government somehow determines that you might not be in that job had the stimulus bill not passed.

The fact is that if you move away from vague country-level statistics and start drilling down to the actual number of jobs created by actual infrastructure projects, you never get anywhere near $92,000 per job. For instance, have a look at the job-creation statistics on this page.

A 5-mile stretch of highway, costing $50 million, creates a total of 79 jobs. That’s over $600,000 per job. Even if you divide that by two on the grounds that it’s a two-year project, that’s still $300,000 per job-year. In railways, a $15 million investment creates 12 jobs — that’s $1.25 million per job, and it’s a one-year project.

I’ve seen similar numbers surrounding hospitals, and higher numbers surrounding nuclear power stations — basically, infrastructure investment is an incredibly inefficient way of creating jobs.

But what of DeFazio’s $35,941 figure? I finally tracked it down to here — a report which does _not_ say that spending $35,941 “creates one infrastructure-related job”. Again, it’s talking job-years, not jobs, but more importantly, it says this:

The FHWA analysis refers to jobs supported by highway investments, this includes ‘new jobs’ to the extent unemployed labor is hired; ‘better jobs’ as currently employed workers move into jobs with better compensation and/or full time positions; and ‘sustained jobs’ as current employees are retained with the expenditure.

This is an even looser definition than “created or saved” — it also includes substantially everybody who just gets a promotion as well, along with that ill-defined definition of “sustained jobs”, comprising people who just stay in the same job they’ve had all along.

Finally, what is DeFazio talking about when he says that “transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion”? Simple division here would seem to imply that each worker is earning no more than $5,200 a year, which can’t be right. But again, look at the footnotes — specifically in this report, which is the source of DeFazio’s statistic:

Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).

Yes, for the purposes of this report, the government has calculated the number of jobs created by taking the number of hours worked and dividing by 173. If you pay a man to wield a shovel for one year, working 40 hours a week, then hey, you’ve created 12 jobs! If you pay him overtime, and he works 60 hours a week, then you’ve created 18 jobs! If he keeps on working at that pace for three years, then you’re up to 54 jobs! All from one man earning one paycheck.

So it’s not just DeFazio, then: everybody in the government seems to be happy fudging job-creation statistics, especially by using job-years or even job-months rather than actual jobs, and also by eliding the distinction between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs improved or saved, on the other. That’s worth remembering, next time you hear a politician kvelling about how the government is creating millions of new jobs.
How the government fudges job statistics


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!


I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
> ...



Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun!  My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? Ever??

I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.

Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating.  Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time.  It was laughably bad!  Now you bring it back?  Like it's going to be better now?

As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"?  Of course it is you buffoon!  The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part!  It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. OK. You could not find a further right source.  Let me see what Ried has to say.  Nah.  I have integrity.  Dipshit."The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."
Posting republican political officials means nothing, me boy.  We are al used to their 24/7/365 attacks.  

Boehner also pointed to a memo from Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer, who said that the White House is misleading the nation by saying the Recovery Act has saved jobs.
"Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute"
The Arena: - Allan Meltzer Bio
So, you have no idea what an impartial source is, do you, Oldstyle?

"One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved,' " wrote Meltzer, who served as an economic adviser under President Ronald Reagan. "It doesn't exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"Stimulus creates 640,000 jobs - White House says - Oct. 30, 2009
Thank you, me boy, for proving my point.  You stay in the bat shit crazy sites and use conservative sources and call them impartial.  Because you are a lying con troll.  No surprise, and nothing learned.  Just Oldstyle being what he is.  
In the face of multiple economic  groups that are considered impartial, Oldstyle picks quotes from a republican past speaker of the house.  Because he could not find a more partial source.  Except he then picked a quote from Allan Meltzer, a visiting professor at the american enterprise institute., and well know con.  Great, oldstyle, thanks for proving me correct and showing what you are.  Which is, of course, a JOKE.  


[/QUOTE]


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> *The Myth of the Multiplier*
> *Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment *



Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.

You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.

So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

You disagree with Meltzer?  So YOU must have seen the term "jobs saved" when you were studying Economics...correct, Georgie?  Would you care to quote an Economics text book that does mention "jobs saved"?

Oh, wait...I keep forgetting you didn't actually read any Economics text books or go to any classes...you just PRETENDED to!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Ph


antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > *The Myth of the Multiplier*
> ...



Oh, it created jobs...I think the CBO said it cost something like $240,000 for each job that the Obama Stimulus created?  That kind of encompasses "ludicrous" AND "dysfunctional"...don't you think?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Felix Salmon
> *How the government fudges job statistics*
> By Felix Salmon
> February 17, 2010
> ...



So at least oldstyle is consistent.  Here he picks a source  who is a pretty small time journalist.  No economists for oldstyle.  He chooses to pick sources with as little economic background as himself.  That is, basically NONE.What a stupid source.  Just like the poster.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Oh, it created jobs...



And yet you posted article arguing it didn't create jobs, so we must go with option 2 - you are saying blatantly contradictory things but are not even conscious of it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Felix Salmon
> ...



The American Statistical Association presented Salmon with the 2010 Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award "for his body of work, which exemplifies the highest standards of scientific reporting. His insightful use of statistics as a tool to understanding the world of business and economics, areas that are critical in today's economy, sets a new standard in statistical investigative reporting."

Yeah, he doesn't know anything about economics, Georgie!  He only worked for Nouriel Roubini!  Does that name ring a bell?  You know...the guy who was a senior economist on Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers?  Duh?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, it created jobs...
> ...



Oh for god's sake, Anton...you know EXACTLY what I'm claiming and it WASN'T that the Obama Stimulus didn't create any jobs...I'm claiming that it created so few that the Obama White House had to come up with "jobs saved" to make it look palatable when they sold how well the stimulus was working to idiots like Faun and Georgie!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!



Because from economic estimate perspective it DOESN'T.

You don't understand this point because you don't understand anything about how an estimate works.

So to get you thinking about that I'll give you an exercise:

Suppose I, an African prince, wire you $100,000 out of the kindness of my heart. Tell me, how many jobs would this cause? Would these jobs be created or saved?


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


_"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."_






It's hysterical how you say that as though I require your approval.






Just like last time, you claimed the term had never been used before Obama, I showed you Bush used it.

And guess what...? I still don't need your acceptance of that for it to be true.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

Did *YOU* read your article? It explained how they calculated the number of jobs saved.


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you ever stop lying? Ever??

You've already been shown that the Obama Administration used that term *before* the plan was implemented. So for you to continue claiming they only came up with it because it created so few jobs is nothing other than a lying con tool, lying again.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If that's what you believe then why did you post article that in it's title heading states that stimulus didn't make any jobs?

Can you answer that question?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You disagree with Meltzer?  So YOU must have seen the term "jobs saved" when you were studying Economics...correct, Georgie?  Would you care to quote an Economics text book that does mention "jobs saved"?

Oh, wait...I keep forgetting you didn't actually read any Economics text books or go to any classes...you just PRETENDED to![/QUOTE]
I would never read stuff rom a partial source.  That is your style not mind.
Relative to jovs saved, you lost that argument big time.  Five impartial economics organizations to you, a ignorant food services employee.  Nothing  you can do, me boy.  Partial sources and writers as sources really make you look like the fool you are.  And  your personal attacks are just boring.  You have long since proven to all that you are a liar.

Nah.  No reason to respond to a pair of con trolls.  Just a con economist and lies and personal attacks from Olstyle.  Same old thing.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Poor oldstyle.  He has so little, and without lying, he has nothing.  But he keeps on lying, and has finally ended up lying about lying.  Sad existence for the poor small minded con troll.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



God but you're pathetic...you really think someone using the expression "save jobs" is the same thing as someone basing a job creation statistic on "jobs saved"?  Bush did NOT use "jobs saved" and you're an idiot for trying to say that he did!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!
> ...



What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton?  LOL  Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I would never read stuff rom a partial source.  That is your style not mind.
Relative to jovs saved, you lost that argument big time.  Five impartial economics organizations to you, a ignorant food services employee.  Nothing  you can do, me boy.  Partial sources and writers as sources really make you look like the fool you are.  And  your personal attacks are just boring.  You have long since proven to all that you are a liar.

Nah.  No reason to respond to a pair of con trolls.  Just a con economist and lies and personal attacks from Olstyle.  Same old thing.[/QUOTE]

I notice you backed off calling Felix Salmon a second rate journalist, Georgie!  He actually knows more about economics than you could ever dream of.  You can tell that simply from reading his analysis of the economic statistics that the Obama Administration were using.  You might also take note that Salmon is a staunch Keynesian not some far right ideologue as you seem to claim.  He believes in Government spending to buoy economies but that doesn't mean he's buying the line of bullshit that the Obama Administration was putting out with "jobs saved".


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

You three are sad tonight...where is the vaunted "intellect" that you liberals are supposed to possess?  It certainly isn't on display here!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!

And your "exercise" with the African Prince is about as stupid as your contention that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing!  $100,000 as "stimulus" might create zero jobs or it might create thousands...that would entirely depend on what was done with the money.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Bush used Clinton's surplus and gave Obama deficits


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Ph
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> ...


You think.  Really, me boy.  Is that it?  You think?  But you forget.  You lie.
What is ludicrous is:
1.  The great republican recession of 2008 and it's 10% unemployment rate.
2.  Loosing over 600,000 jobs per month in 2008.
3.  Saying that when job losses slowed and stopped that there were no jobs saved.
4,   Making proclamations about economics when you are a food services employee.
5.  Suggesting you are highly economics knowledgeable when you have had only 2 undergraduate econ classes.
6.  Spending time after time after time lying and making uncalled for personal attacks.
7.  letting the great republican recession of 2008 go on without corrective stimulus measures.
9.  The Republican congress meeting and stating that they would cause anything Obama did to fail.
10 The Republican congress voting against every measure that Obama's team brought forward to fix the mess of the Great Republican Recession.
11.  The Republican congress doing nothing at all to pass a bill or bills to mitigate the damage being done by the Great Republican Recession.

Want more?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Ph
> ...



You know what, Georgie...for someone who's always whining about "talking points"...you sure do know every single progressive talking point!

Do I want to hear more?  Nah, I'm good!  I would like to hear what the economic formula was that the Obama Administration used to determine "jobs saved" though!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Bush definitely did burn through money, Sealy!  No question about that.  Kind of what happens when you've got something like 9/11 happening and the war that followed.

I'm curious...how do you think Barry compares to W. when it comes to deficits?  Do you really want to have that discussion?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  ![/QUOTE]
*CBO Refutes Republicans: Stimulus Saved Or Created 600,000-1.6 Million Jobs*
*CBO Refutes Republicans: Stimulus Saved Or Created 600,000-1.6 Million Jobs*
That was back in 2009.  
So, I fish, religiously  Steelhead and salmon, and trout.  And I am an expert at what they look like. And they look like you as they flop about on a dock dying.  You lost this battle long ago.  Your sad efforts to push con agenda is just that.  SAD.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You wouldn't understand. Just like bush and trump don't understand the formula.

The formula is 75% goes to the rich and 25% to us. But bush and trumpanomics gives us 10% and the rich 90%.

Dont think the Republicans obstruction hasn't benefitted the rich. They'll blame Obama when talking to poor people but fact is the rich did great. Why isn't it trickling down?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


If only bush didn't hand him a mess we'd know what was actually his spending. The biggest is probably the aca.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm curious once more, Sealy...do you know who did better under Barack Obama...the rich or the poor?  Did you really want to have THAT discussion?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well you are wrong.   But there is no point in explaining how things work to a partisan bigot.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Here is the thing.  There is a site you are very aware of called conservativetalkingpoints.org.  And it has THOUSANDS of categorized con talking points they proudly suggest you use.  There is not any such site for liberals.  Because we do not like to be told what to say, or believe.  The opposite of cons. 
That must be hard for you to understand, being a con tool.  And believing what you are told to believe.

The formula?  You did not keep your word.  You lied.  Did not meet the condition you agreed to.  So no, me boy, fuck you.unemployment rate


Oldstyle said:


> What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!



What's  ludicrous is that you are so stupid that you can not understand that a saved job is the same, from an unemployment point of view, as a created job.  You have to be brain dead to not understand that, but then, it is oldstyle.  He is indeed brain dead.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No because I'll have to explain everything that's happened the last 60 years that led us to where we are and it's been all GOP vs American middle class. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA but don't try blaming Democrats wheen it was you guys who pushed us to free trade.

It's like blaming hillary for Iraq when bush is the one who lied us to war


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



President's are given cards to play that are left over from the President who came before...it's the nature of the job.  Clinton left office with an economy headed towards recession.  Bush left office with two wars going on and a recession in full force.  Obama is about to leave office with a global battle going on with ISIS, racial divisions at home and a weak economy.

Just between you and me, Sealy?  By the time Barack Obama leaves office he may very well have spent more money than every other President before him combined!  It's hard to spin that in such a way that it makes him look good...know what I mean?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I agree pal. You ain't convincing anyone


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President?  Did you want to have THAT discussion?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I will debate that, me boy.  But it will not end well for you.  Later.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Every president spent more than every other president. Bush did that too.

Bush also created Isis. Invading Iraq. Imagine if Clinton or Obama did such a thing. Oh my


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Every single aspect of any part of society is built on the history that came before it.

If excuse making was an Olympic sport, you and left-wingers like you would win so many Gold metals, you'd have to build your own vault.

The claim that Obama is exempt from the blame or credit of every bad action he has taken, because of actions that happened before he came into office, then equally you can't claim Clinton had anything to do with the 1990s.   After all, if it hadn't been for the taxes and spending policies that came about before him, he wouldn't have had the budget he did.

If Bush Sr had not handed Clinton a growing economy and expanding government revenue, then we would know what he was actually spending in the 1990s.

You are trying to selectively apply your double standards on Obama, while exempting all the presidents before him, who were judged on their actions while in office, not given a universal pass by blaming everything on the president before.

Honestly, it's a very childish an immature argument, one I would expect more on an elementary school playground, rather than a forum for adults.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you want to have the discussion about Mitch McConnell record filibuster and Jon boehner obstruction and teabaggers?

Do I want to have that discussion? Yes


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Actually, Bush did not create ISIS.  It was well documented that all the top leadership of AQI, were all captured or killed off, by 2010.  It was Obama, or the Iraqi government, or more likely both, that released all the ISIS leadership from detention camps, and allowed them to build back up AQI and change into what we now know is Islamic State.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You can trash every president the same way you trash Obama. I can show you facts on how bush Tom delay Dennis hastert and their cohorts destroyed the middle class and widened the gap between rich and poor.

If Obama tried fixing it you cried class warfare


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You mean GOP opposition during the first years when Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate?  All that political power, Sealy and all they managed to give us was the Obama Stimulus that spent 825 Billion and created so few jobs they had to use jobs saved to hide how bad it was...and the Affordable Care Act...a piece of legislation so poorly written that the Democrats had to lie to the American people to get it passed and bribe their own politicians with political pay offs to get them to vote for it.  Is that what you're talking about?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 11, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What did Obama do to try and "fix" the gap between rich and poor?  Other than talk about it a lot!  His agenda certainly didn't help the Middle Class.  They're the ones who will end up paying for the ACA.  That isn't the GOP screwing them over...that's you liberals!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Actually, wrong again. I hate to keep correcting you but actually it was Reagan and the cheap GOP. Did you see Charlie Wilson's war? True story


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


No one liked pre existing condition. We need nationalized healthcare. Some things shouldn't be privatized


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Great spin.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!



stupid fuc...ahem, yes sure buddy:



Oldstyle said:


> *The Myth of the Multiplier*
> *Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment *



I'll even chew this up and place it in your throat:

"hasn't reduced unemployment" means "hasn't created jobs"



Oldstyle said:


> And your "exercise" with the African Prince is about as stupid as your contention that jobs saved and jobs created are the same thing!  $100,000 as "stimulus" might create zero jobs or it might create thousands...that would entirely depend on what was done with the money.



Stupid? Really? Because that's what these macroeconomic estimates do, they estimate how dollars in particular spending or tax-cuts convert to GDP, Jobs and etc.

Suppose you bought a Tesla and spent the rest on misc. expenses.

What I'm trying to get your little mind to appreciate just how complex it is and even if you come up with some sort of reasonable estimate there is no way to differentiate a job saved from job gained that this $100,000 will cause in economy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Those were the years I'm talking about when Mitch McConnell broke filabuster records. I know you aren't aware of this because the so called liberal media never pointed it out.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



OK...if the GOP has been against the Middle Class then I would assume that the Middle Classes' lot improved dramatically under the almost eight years that Barack Obama has been President?  Did you want to have THAT discussion?[/QUOTE]

And that proves that you are a complete fool.  Which is no surprise.  A president has to have support from senators and house members.  They all voted against anything obama wanted done.  so, it worked well for them, but badly for the middle class.  Simple.
Was that your best economic argument, dipshit?  Remember when you said there was a bill meant to help with the great republican recession of 2008?  And you found there was none.  There you go, dipshit.  Remember when republicans met on the eve of Obama taking office, and decided to block everything that obama attempted.  And did you forget that the republican congress was named "the do noting congress"?  They passed zero bills to help the middle class, and blocked everything that the democrats tried.  And that, me boy, was it.  Way too easy,, dipshit.  Jesus.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The American Statistical Association presented Salmon with the 2010 Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award "for his body of work, which exemplifies the highest standards of scientific reporting. His insightful use of statistics as a tool to understanding the world of business and economics, areas that are critical in today's economy, sets a new standard in statistical investigative reporting."

Yeah, he doesn't know anything about economics, Georgie!  He only worked for Nouriel Roubini!  Does that name ring a bell?  You know...the guy who was a senior economist on Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers?  Duh?[

did you think that statistical reporting is economics, me boy. Look the two up, it may help you.  As his bio says, he is a writer.  Not an economist.  No matter how badly you want him to be.  And, me boy, if I work for a historian, does that make me a historian.  As you say,  *DUH!  Dipshit.  *So that is five economic organizations well respected by repubs and dems, against ZERO economists for you.  That is, me boy, certain proof that you LOOSE.
So, seriously, can you tell me, does stupid hurt?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton?  LOL  Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?

You know better, oldstyle.  There is no way to make you look intelligent. And the fact that you do not know what Anton said is further proof.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 11, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Nowhere nearly as bad as the economy he inherited.  In fact, overall pretty good from the cespool that he inherited.  No president since fdr inherited a mess form republicans in 1933 has any administration left the mess that bush left.  The Isis mess is a direct result of the Bush adventure in iraq.    Read some time.  

Says a food services worker, with no source to back him up.  And, he does not know the difference between spending and lack of revenues.  But then, it was obvious to everyone who noticed the great republican recession of 2008,  Hell, Reagan managed that when he spent more than all other presidents combined.  And he was not handed a recession.  He made his own. And Reagan tripled the national debt.  Obama will come close to doubling it, but mostly as a result of The Great Republican Recession of


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton?  LOL  Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?
> 
> You know better, oldstyle.  There is no way to make you look intelligent. And the fact that you do not know what Anton said is further proof.



"from economic estimate perspective" are my words, he misquoted.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!
> ...





antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > If you can show me the article that has a title stating the stimulus didn't make any jobs I'd be happy to!
> ...



Where exactly does it say no jobs were created in that title?
You do realize that unemployment and job creation are two very different things...right?  Oh, you don't?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Ah, then you DO know what "economic estimate perspective" means, Georgie?  I would love to hear from you on that!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > What is an "economic estimate perspective", Anton?  LOL  Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks if you get "wordy" you can make stupid sound intelligent?
> ...



How did I misquote you?  You don't know how quotes work either?

I notice you didn't try to explain your "economic estimate perspective" Anton.  Why is that?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What I "think" is that in order to do statistical reporting on economics, one would need to understand it as well.  His bio says that he has a Masters in Art History actually with an Honors concentration in Mathematics.  What better authority on the viability of an economic statistic, such as "jobs saved", than an expert in statistical reporting who has worked for one of the more esteemed economists of our time, Nouriel Roubini?  You have to deride him as a "small time journalist" because you can't refute what he's stated.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Too bad Charlie Wilson was a Democrat!  True story!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I notice you didn't address my point that the Middle Class will bear the brunt of paying for the ACA.  They were begging Washington to reform healthcare so that their costs would be affordable.  They didn't get that though...what they got was the ACA, which provides heavily subsidized healthcare for the poor and for those who have preexisting conditions and passes that cost onto the backs of the Middle Class.  The Democrats have totally screwed the Middle Class with the ACA.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

Bush used that term to push his CAFTA policy.

Again, your acceptance is not actually needed. Here's more examples for you to ignore...

Transcript of Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman regarding National Homeownership Month Kennett Square, PA - June 23, 2004

"Our Rural Development programs also help communities with infrastructure such as electricity, water and telecommunications and with economic development assistance. *We have estimated that our rural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs just since the Bush Administration took office in January of 2001*. Recently we have seen more positive numbers showing that the U.S. economy created nearly a quarter of a million jobs last month alone for a total of 1 million jobs created in the last three months and about 1.5 million jobs in the past nine months.​
JOHANNS ANNOUNCES INVESTMENT OF $9.2 MILLION IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR RURAL AMERICA

"I applaud the local community leadership for their efforts to secure these investments, which are needed to create economic opportunities and improve the quality of life available in their community," said Johanns. "These funds are part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to spur economic development in rural areas and *will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs.*"​
USDA ANNOUNCES $19.75 MILLION IN RURAL BUSINESS LOANS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GRANTS

"These funds will help support local economic development agencies, finance infrastructure improvements, establish low-interest revolving loan funds, and help jurisdictions implement regional business and community development plans," Dorr said. *"The funding announced today is expected to save or create more than 2,300 jobs in 20 states."*​
so g'head, ya lying con tool. Tell the forum again how the term was never used before Obama became president. That's 4 examples I gave you (one in the past and 3 more now).


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You three are sad tonight...where is the vaunted "intellect" that you liberals are supposed to possess?  It certainly isn't on display here!


Your lack of understanding the bitch-slapping you're taking is quite entertaining. Keep it up.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So Bush was lying then when he said he was giving people back their money in the form of rebates because there was a surplus?


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Oh? Post the numbers you think might show Obama spending more than every president before him combined...... this ought to be interesting.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That they saved any jobs during Bush's Great Recession is a miracle itself. We were bled 1 million jobs in January, 2009 alone. All total, as many as some 3 million jobs were saved or created during those first two years.We had a net loss of some 4 million jobs those two years. Without Obama's stimulus, we could have lost as many as 7 million jobs; which would have been even more devastating to the nation. Funny thing is -- had that happened, you lying con tools would then be marching at the White House with pitch forks and torches, demanding to know why Obama didn't do something about it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



My point was that you have a double standard.   When something good happens, you claim it was due to president X.  When something bad happens, oh it wasn't him, it was the guy that hasn't been in office for 8 years.

Beyond that, with how utterly ignorant the left is at economics, I highly doubt you can post such information.   But by all means try.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You do know that without any government intervention at all, the economy would recover?   In the 1920s, the government made no attempt whatsoever to fix the economy from a much steeper recession than 2008, and the economy recovered without any government program at all.

In 1930, under Hoover, the government intervened at every level of the economy, and the result was a great depression.

In 2001, Bush faced a recession and did very little.  The economy recovered.

In 2008 and 2009, Bush and then Obama, intervened heavily into the economy, and we had the great recession with what is now known as the slowest recoveries since the Great Depression.

Government didn't save jobs.  No evidence of that whatsoever.    If anything, government hindered the recovery.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Another day, another conservative making another fucking stupid argument that expansionary policies caused deepening of recession.

Andy, you say lefties do not understand economics? Tell me, what economic understanding lead you to believe that stabilization of financial sector and spending 800 billion dollars not only  DIDN'T grow economy, but made it worse?

The biggest stimulus of all time was World War 2, which caused gigantic government spending, huge debt increase and oh by the way, the end of the Great Depression period and fundamental transformation of American economy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


You know this tactic very well. Anything Clinton did well you credited Reagan bush or luck of timing.

But you can't seriously say either bush handed Clinton or Obama anything good.

So then you give newt or Paul Ryan credit instead. You are laughable talking about economics

Your problem is that you are wrong on so many levels. Sort of like you suggesting bush was winning the Iraq war when he turned it over to Obama. No ones buying your spin


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.



No, they didn't turn around the economy by increasing taxes, which is a contractionary policy.

What they turned around was DEFICITS with higher receipts from increased taxes and tech/finance driven economic boom.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You are a complete moron - and believe, me I don't say it lightly or out of spite, but out of lack of any other words to explain how you end up consistently posting such ridiculous nonsense.

YES idiot, it actually DOES say that and goes on to make all kinds of false economic arguments about how this 800+ billion spending is not actually helping economy. Starting from the stupid "they promised 8% unemployment but it turned out higher, so stimulus didn't work", claims of "crowding out effects" (in the middle of Great Recession no less!) and re-payment cost (while there wasn't any repaying or even meaningful interest on debt incurred).


I've seen A LOT of stupid, but you are easily making top 3 specimen on that list. Congratulations.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, I don't know that and neither do you. For all you know, both the Great Depression and Great Recession would have lasted longer than they had without government intervention. No one knows; so spare me your biased conservative revisionism. Which is meaningless anyway as ignorant since Republicans engineered both economic disasters. You'll excuse me if I reject the remedy from the very same folks who caused the mess to begin with. And no one put this better than Donald Trump himself...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


But you are stupid. You are not an economist.  And you are posting lies. So, any proof.  It is untrue that a downturn is a downturn.  The 1920's recession was no big deal, lasting under 18 months and was caused by a surplus of labor resulting from soldiers returning home from wwII.  And, me boy, there were efforts by the gov to fix the mess.  
You post about the great depression with more lies.  The great depression started in 1929, and through 1933 nothing was done to speak of by the gov.  Over 4 years of republicans happily watching the unemployed suffer. And that, me boy, worked great if you like to see human suffering.  The unemployment rate went from 3% to 25% before meaningful gov efforts started. Over 22% increase in less than 5 years.   Jesus, you are a tool.  And no other recession you mentioned was anything like as major as the great republican depression of 1929. And, me boy, it decreased from 25% to 4% in 9 years.  Fastest decline in history.  With one exception, which was when republicans stopped stimulus spending in 1926 with disastrous results.  But, FDR got the economy back on track a year later when he resumed stimulus spending.   Dipshit.
The great recession of 2007 was a different story.  It was a full fledged aggregate demand recession, heading downhill toward depression, when efforts were made to slow it down by the President, and supported by George W. Bush for the short time he was still in office.  It was loosing jobs at the rate of 500,000 to 800,000 per month.  And you lyingly say that no jobs were saved by the stimulus.  But here is the deal, dipshit.  Nearly all economists disagree with you.  And the CBO stated plainly that the Stimulus saved millions of jobs and saved us, most probably, from a depression.  Your words are hollow, me poor ignorant con troll.  It is you or the CBO.  And like almost everyone, my money is on the cbo.

Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut.  Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor.  Tripled the national debt.  Spent more than all previous president combined.  And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.  
You should try the truth some day.  It will set you free.

Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut.  Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor.  Tripled the national debt.  Spent more than all previous president combined.  And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
> You should try the truth some day.  It will set you free.
> 
> Now, why don't you scurry back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and look for more con talking points, like a good con rat.



Early 80 recession is usually attributed to tightening of monetary policy (high interest rates) by the Fed under Carter appointed (and Reagan supported) Volcker. This policy was pursued to break the cycle of high inflation that plagued the 70s. Once the inflation subdued interest rates were brought down and economy kicked into high gear aided by tech, big government spending and tax-cuts that caused tripling of national debt.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Even had Bush41 not passed on a growing economy to Clinton, the economy would have still flourished under Clinton. Bush41 turned the economy around by raising taxes. Clinton raised taxes even more and the economy boomed. The tax hikes were not the only cause. he dawn of the dot-com bubble also fueled the economy. But that wasn't until the mid 90's.
> ...


The clinton years were not problematic at the time.  While tax increases themselves do not help an economy, in these particular days they seem necessary to politicians who want to spend stimulativly.  And spending was a great part of the economy of clinton.  The .com bubble was a stimulus, also.  And every living politician loved it.  But in the end, as with all bubbles, it was destructive when it burst. I lived it, in the middle working for a infant company trying to go public.  And watching the nut cases with the money investing in anything with.com attached to the name.  And believing that the boom would last forever, whether there was actual value in the companies or not.
But, still, it was interesting to end up with a surplus for a while.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true.  One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending.  He's written extensively on the topic.  Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and me boy, you conveniently forgot the 1982 recession of Ronald Reagan, created when he cut domestic programs after his famous tax cut.  Then, in a near panic, he raised taxes 11 times and spent stimulativly like a drunken sailor.  Tripled the national debt.  Spent more than all previous president combined.  And, turned the economy from a serious depression to better days.
> ...


Indeed.  But the stagflation issue was a new one to economists.  Knowing what to do about it caused a lot of arguing.  But in the end, cutting of jobs in the non-military sector caused a good deal of aggregate demand loss and pressure to spend even more, which the Reagan people pushed toward the military side of things. Military spending, while stimulative, takes a while to get going.  But it did, and worked well to make the economy go.
What is not true, however, is to say the tax cuts of 1981 helped a mediocre economy.  The UE rate, which had been holding for several years at around 7.5%, went to 10.8% in a span of about 10 months, and the reagan crew suddenly began raising taxes to provide revenue for stimulus spending, which they did in spades from 1982 on.    The conservative idea of supply side economics was tried in 1981, but when things got rough by 1982, and the political polls were against the republicans, they resorted to good old stimulative spending big time.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?

I know you LOVE that whole "Reagan raised taxes 11 times!!!!" mantra but it's simply one more of your progressive talking points and not backed up by the reality of who and what Reagan was...which was an overall tax cutter.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Speaking of spending.... I'm still waiting to see the numbers you're referencing when you said Obama is on track to spend more than every prior president combined.....


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



When Barry took office the national debt was I believe at around 10.8 trillion?  When he leaves office it's estimated that the national debt will be over 20 trillion dollars.  THAT is what I'm referring to.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



not really true on this point - Federal spending barely grew in real terms and has actually declined as a % of GDP during Clinton's term.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?
> 
> I know you LOVE that whole "Reagan raised taxes 11 times!!!!" mantra but it's simply one more of your progressive talking points and not backed up by the reality of who and what Reagan was...which was an overall tax cutter.



Reagan was fiscally irresponsible tax-cut and spend Republican, even he eventually recognized that the voodoo economics some of his advisers were pushing are causing a river of red ink and raised some taxes.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing.  It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Still pushing the false narrative that Reagan was a "tax and spend" Republican, Georgie?
> ...



You won't get an argument from me or from Reagan on that score, Anton.  One of his biggest regrets was that he did spend so much.  To label him a tax and spend politician as Georgie has is laughably inaccurate however because he was overall a rather substantial tax cutter.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing.  It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!



Nothing wrong with not knowing things. 

Problem is when you are (yes you Oldstyle) are explained same thing over and over and over and still don't get it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I had a hunch that's what you were referring to. I just wanted you to confirm before I point out how rightarded you are.

That's "debt," not "spending," as you moronically claimed. 

And while debt is the accumulation of spending excessive of revenues -- debt is not spending. As of now, Obama has increased the debt 83% (100% needed to add more debt than all other presidents combined). Bush increased it 86% and Reagan increased it 187% (well more than every president before him combined).

In terms of "spending" more than every president before him combined, Obama is not even close. Especially when using real figures.

So yes, you really are dumber than you appear. <smh>


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


After your blazingly retarded conflation of "spending" versus "debt," I'd be a tad more careful about calling others ignorant, if I were you.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The first thing you'll come to understand about our Georgie is that every time he tries to post something about economics that he hasn't cut and pasted from someone else...he invariably displays a level of ignorance of the subject that is downright embarrassing.  It's why I refer to him as George Costanza!
> ...



For some reason you folks on the left think repeating something that's wrong a lot of times somehow makes it less wrong.  Sorry, Anton...I don't subscribe to that view.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> For some reason you folks on the left think repeating something that's wrong a lot of times somehow makes it less wrong.  Sorry, Anton...I don't subscribe to that view.





Anyone with half a thought in their head would recognize your foolish nonsense for what it is, left or right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Debt is not spending?  Interesting concept.  How do you incur debt without spending?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Between you and me, Faun...I feel very comfortable calling Georgie ignorant since he backs that viewpoint up every time he posts his own material.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Two is better than none.  But does not help much.
The Great Thomas Sowell???  Really.  You forgot to mention the libertarian, koch bought and paid for, part of the lead up to Sowell.  
And Oldstyle, in addition to using a juvenile name to try to insult me (as normal) forgets somehow to provide the qualifications of Thomas Sowell.  Who never saw a chance to demonize democrats that he did not like and make use of.  And was, and still is, a Libertarian (self admitted).  Pushing an economic type that has never, ever existed in real life.  And is a close friend of the Koch brothers for whom he does work whenever possible.  And is, by the way, a contributing author for the Koch think tank, the Cato Institute.  So, no, Sowell is not generally looked at anything other than what he is, which is a bought and paid for economist, by the far far right.  Particularly by Cato and the Koch brothers
When still in college and trying to decide what to do next, I considered grad school in economics.  Maybe a masters or even PHD, depending on the availability of money.  I learned as most students of economics did that the way to get really rich was to get an advanced degree in economics and work for the far right.  I found that an affront to my self respect, as most did.  But many did take that route.  And used their education to further the desires of the very, very wealthy on the far right.  So went Sowell.  
Wow, Oldstyle.  That is three totally agenda driven references you have used.  Just coincidence, I am sure, that none are impartial.  At all.
t


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Debt is not spending?  Interesting concept.  How do you incur debt without spending?



deficit(change in debt annual) = spending-reciepts


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Did I say debt is incurred without spending? Of course I didn't, lying con tool. I even pointed out debt is the accumulation of spending in excess of revenue. You just can't stop lying though,so you pretend as though I didn't say that.

And while spending is a component of debt; it is not debt which is why you look like a complete retarded conservative when you idiotically claimed that Obama is on track to spend more than every president before him combined.

I'm trying to help you by educating you and by recommending you don't go around calling others ignorant when you're making such moronic statements like the one above; but it appears you're too stupid to catch on.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Debt is not spending?  Interesting concept.  How do you incur debt without spending?
> ...


He just doesn't get it.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true.  One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending.  He's written extensively on the topic.  Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?



I've never taken an economic class in my life (at least that I recall), my degree is in mathematics.

Professor Sowell is an armchair economist and a big time right wing tool to boot. He has some respected economic work published but he is way more a politico than he ever was an economist or historian.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



First, what a food services employee with nearly no economic education "subscribes to" is a joke.  Oldstyle, we all understand that you are a con tool.  And you are incapable of making an economic argument.  Got that.  And your only economic wording was to pat the back of a nut case conservative Libertarian eon professor who is, me boy, a joke himself.  
And that is interesting, that you do not understand Anton's view.  Because no other person posting on this board has said the same thing over 25 times.  And you have done so on numerous occasions.  Which makes you....... A nut case.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Faun said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Is the clown still arguing that the national debt requires spending?  It is really not his fault.  He is a congenital idiot.  And a con troll.  He just posts con talking points.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


No, that idiot is demonstrating he doesn't know the difference between debt and spending.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true.  One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending.  He's written extensively on the topic.  Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?
> ...



What is an "armchair economist"?  Sowell is a Libertarian more than a right winger, Anton.  As for his being a "politico"?  Since he's never run for public office and hasn't been in anyone's administration it's hard to see the validity in your claim that he's a "politico".  I found him to be brilliant.  One of my college professors that I felt I learned a great deal from.  A "tool"?  Far from it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Debt is not spending?  Interesting concept.  How do you incur debt without spending?
> ...



I was referring to the national debt, Anton...not the deficit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



If you can show me how you accumulate debt without spending I'll be really impressed, Georgie!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Georgie loves to point out that I've only taken two Econ classes in college, Anton...which is true.  One of those classes however was taught by the great Thomas Sowell at Amherst College and in that class Professor Sowell refuted the "myth" that FDR ended The Great Depression with Keynesian spending.  He's written extensively on the topic.  Perhaps you should read some of his material for a different viewpoint on what caused the end of The Great Depression?
> ...



Yet you know so much more about economics than Rshermr...who maintains that not only did he graduate with a degree in economics...but taught the subject at the college level while he was an undergrad!  Gee...how about THAT!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What is an "armchair economist"?  Sowell is a Libertarian more than a right winger, Anton.  As for his being a "politico"?  Since he's never run for public office and hasn't been in anyone's administration it's hard to see the validity in your claim that he's a "politico".  I found him to be brilliant.  One of my college professors that I felt I learned a great deal from.  A "tool"?  Far from it.



Armchair economist refers to those that have never seen their advisory used in practice of policy formation in either private sector or governing. He spends his time theorizing in an office, unchallenged by results. His did sign up as an adviser to Reagan...for all of one meeting in 1981, after which he resigned.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


Your knowledge of who Sowell was is about as good as your knowledge of economics, Georgie!  He describes himself as a Marxist when he was in his twenties.  He only became a Libertarian after studying the effects of mandated minimum wage laws for sugar cane workers in Puerto Rico for the Federal Government.

Sowell has spent the majority of his career working as a professor.  He has not gotten rich by being bought and paid for by anyone.

So all conservative economists are rich and all liberal ones are poor?  Do you have any idea how stupid you sound with this nonsense?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What is an "armchair economist"?  Sowell is a Libertarian more than a right winger, Anton.  As for his being a "politico"?  Since he's never run for public office and hasn't been in anyone's administration it's hard to see the validity in your claim that he's a "politico".  I found him to be brilliant.  One of my college professors that I felt I learned a great deal from.  A "tool"?  Far from it.
> ...



Would you prefer he be like a Larry Summers or Christina Romer...who saw their "advisory" used in practice of policy formation...only to run back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley when what they advocated didn't pan out?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Would you prefer he be like a Larry Summers or Christina Romer...who saw their "advisory" used in practice of policy formation...only to run back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley when what they advocated didn't pan out?



I prefer him to be less of political commentator and more of an economist with some real world experience.

And yes, the two names you mention are preferable. But there are also plenty others on the right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Interesting take on what constitutes "real world experience", Anton!  Sowell grew up black in Harlem, worked at Western Union, tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers and was in the Marine Corps before going to college.  Larry Summers grew up the son of two college professors at the University of Penn., went right into MIT out of high school and then on to Harvard.  Christina Romer went from MIT right into a professorship at Princeton and has never worked in the Private Sector.  What "real world" experience do either of them possess?  I think you'd be hard pressed to find two people with LESS real world experience than Summers and Romer...whereas Thomas Sowell has quite a bit.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Interesting take on what constitutes "real world experience", Anton!  Sowell grew up black in Harlem, worked at Western Union, tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers and was in the Marine Corps before going to college.



None of which constitutes real world professional economist experience.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious

Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus

For those who don’t know him, Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an American economist, retired professor, social critic, political commentator, author, and lunatic. After seeing his vile, depraved weekly columns for the past four years I truly believe he belongs in an institution – which is just where he is. Since 1980, Sowell has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution, like the Heritage Foundation and countless others, is basically a welfare program for Right Wing Op-Ed writers. Wealthy donors give people like Sowell the financial freedom to rail against entitlement programs and rewrite history, particularly the Great Depression. Consequently, they are not bound by prickly things like facts or editors or journalistic ethics.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The deficit, or national debt, can occur with no spending.  It is really so simple that I am surprised that even an idiot like you can not understand.
Lets say you have a banking account.  Now, the change in that account can occur in two ways.  You can spend it.  Or you can stop putting in deposits.  Got that simple idea, me boy.
Now, the deficit or surplus is made up that way.  If you spend more than you take in, you get a larger deficit.  Like every republican has for the past 50 years.  You can decrease the deficit in two ways:1.  Decrease spending, or 2.  Increase revenues.  If you decrease  spending and increase revenues  enough, you can create a surplus.  Look it up. You can increase the deficit by doing the opposite.
The national debt, me boy, will ALWAYS increase when unemployment is high.  As, for instance, when Reagan created a high unemployment level in 1982.  Or with the great republican recession of 2008 when the ue rate went to 10%. 

It is so simple that even a third degree equivalent person like you should be able to understand it.   Though I know you would rather just lie.  
Here are the spending numbers by president: (You know, the ones you do not want to talk about)




Now, I know graphs are pretty difficult for  your stunted brain.  But just try to understand that moving downward is less, moving upward is more.  To simplify, the red bars represent republicans, and MORE spending.  The Blue represents democrats, and LESS spending.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



And why, me poor ignorant con troll, would you feel that anyone cares about the opinion of a lying troll.  And one who has never won an economic argument in his life.  But always lies and claims he has.  You see why you are a joke?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious
> 
> Thomas Sowell: Idiot Emeritus
> 
> For those who don’t know him, Thomas Sowell (born 1930) is an American economist, retired professor, social critic, political commentator, author, and lunatic. After seeing his vile, depraved weekly columns for the past four years I truly believe he belongs in an institution – which is just where he is. Since 1980, Sowell has been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution, like the Heritage Foundation and countless others, is basically a welfare program for Right Wing Op-Ed writers. Wealthy donors give people like Sowell the financial freedom to rail against entitlement programs and rewrite history, particularly the Great Depression. Consequently, they are not bound by prickly things like facts or editors or journalistic ethics.



Don Millard?  Really, Anton?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 12, 2016)

At some point, the Labor Force Participation rate gate so low that that there will be nobody left to drop out.  And then the Elites will unleash the killer drones and robots to cull the surplus population.  Hope change!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Btw this article on Sowell is hilarious
> ...



I don't know who Don Millard is, but what he wrote about Sowell is spot on and a really funny read.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Interesting graph, Georgie!  I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate.  When was Obama elected again?  I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office.  I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on?  Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on?  Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!



You are welcome to dispute it, which you haven't.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank!  I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So you're quoting some guy you don't know about a guy that you also don't know...but what he says is spot on?  Now THAT is a funny read, Anton!
> ...



Why would I have to dispute the ramblings of "some guy" that even YOU don't know?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Uh, apparently you do not understand english.  What is your language.  And thanks again for the attack with your little Georgie immature effort at insult.  So immature. 
Relative to saying that Reagan raised taxes 11 times?  It was the truth.  His people do not deny it.  He did not deny it.  Only nut cases like you deny it. 
Here, me boy, is an expert impartial source.  Something you do not ever use:
"And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."
*Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times.* That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

So, no it is not a talking point.  It is the truth.  Something that you neither appreciate or understand.  Oh, and the above proves you are lying when you say his raising taxes was "not backed up by reality".  Just more lies, Oldstyle.
And really, we are so sorry that you are hearing these inconvenient truths about your hero, Reagan.  But facts are facts.  
Oh.  And by the way, I never in my life called Reagan a tax and spend president.  That would be another lie on your part.  However, he did spend and borrow like a drunken sailor.  Tripled the national debt.  Borrowed more than all the other presidents combined.  So, maybe we should call him a tax and borrow president.  Eh, Oldstyle?  Oh.  forgot.  You do not like truth.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank!  I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.



Was he calling people Nazis back then too?

Look, if all you got to point to when it comes to question of economics is a rightwing hack who used to be an economist at a university 35 years ago then you really don't have much.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Interesting take on what constitutes "real world experience", Anton!  Sowell grew up black in Harlem, worked at Western Union, tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers and was in the Marine Corps before going to college.  Larry Summers grew up the son of two college professors at the University of Penn., went right into MIT out of high school and then on to Harvard.  Christina Romer went from MIT right into a professorship at Princeton and has never worked in the Private Sector.  What "real world" experience do either of them possess?  I think you'd be hard pressed to find two people with LESS real world experience than Summers and Romer...whereas Thomas Sowell has quite a bit.


Uh, yes.  You just proved that you love Sowell.  The well known Libertarian professor.  Next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's laughable is Millard's claim that Sowell is only free to spout his claims because he's supported by a right wing think tank!  I hate to break this to you, Anton but he was saying the same things back in the 70's when he was a college professor at Amherst.
> ...



Thomas Sowell is a "rightwing hack"?

LOL

"After his discharge, Sowell worked a civil service job in Washington, D.C. and attended night classes at Howard University, a historically black college. His high scores on the College Board exams and recommendations by two professors helped him gain admission to Harvard University, where he graduated _magna cum laude_ in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics.[4][8] He earned a Master's degree from Columbia University the following year."  Wiki  And then went on to receive a Phd from the University of Chicago!

"Sowell has taught economics at Howard University, Rutgers, Cornell, Brandeis University, Amherst College, and UCLA."  Wiki

So all of these distinguished institutions hired a rightwing hack as a professor?  Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago graduated a "hack"?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Interesting graph, Georgie!  I love how W. gets all of 2009 on his plate.*Yes, well that would be because spending is always part of a president's budget.  So, I know this is too complicated for you, but 2009 was part of the George W. budget.* *And you are welcome for the education.*   When was Obama elected again? *Same as always, elected the year before he took office.  And always responsible for his budget that goes for the year after he leaves.  Same for all the presidents, me boy.  Most know that.  Again you show how little you know about economics.* I also love that your graph shows Ronald Reagan spending less than Bill Clinton for most of his time in office.  I thought you claimed Ronnie was that big spender and Slick Willie wasn't?
*I made no claim about Cinton.  And I see you using another insulting name for a US President.  Just proving your lack of class and integrity.  You just lie, and lie, and lie.  And continue to prove you are stupid.  thanks for that.  It's always fun to have you play.

So, another lesson for you, OS.  Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?  But still, Clinton raised spending.  Because, again, the change in the National Debt is the total of receipts less spending.  So, clinton managed to make receipts greater than spending.
Are you confused about other things?  Perhaps I can help.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yup. That would be the case.  Institutions always look to hire a few from the dark side.  
And, Sowell was not a "Amhurst" professor, as your list recognizes.  He was at amhurst for about a year as a writer, and visiting professor.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yup. They do that.  To provide theother view from the dark side.  And laugh at them.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Well, i doubt you are correct about that.  You never are, you know.

But Sowell is the crown jewel of your sick mind.  A guy who professes that he is a libertarian.  A fucking LIBERTARIAN.  Pushing the theories of an economic system that has never, ever worked.  In hundreds of years, with hundreds of countries, not a single one ever had a Libertarian economy that did not crash in it's infancy.  Hell, as bad an idea as communism was, it has had longer runs than Libertrianism.  And you are backing Sowell, who says he is a Libetarian.  Makes both of you look stupid. But it is you that is stupid.  Sowell is RICH.  Thanks to the Koch brothers and a few other far right nut cases.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



so, you support the hack.  Tell  us all how you believe a person who believes in Libertarianism is a serious economist.  To me that is less serious than someone who believes in Big Foot.  Sorry, didn't intend to make fun of you.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



lol YES, wing hacks are known to work just fine in these institutions, there is no ideological test for those positions and he was there LONG time ago. But for the past 35 years his job was that of a professional hack for right-wing organization.

It is CRAZY to suggest that he is some sort of objective or even semi-objective source, he is no less than a right-wing zealot who is so far gone he compared Obama to Hitler, calls him a fascist and a socialist and considers Palin to be intelligent.

You couldn't find a hackier hack if you TRIED.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually that's not even true.   The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all.   There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.

First, they claim that unemployment went down.    Did it go down?   Sure.   But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas?

We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison.    Neither indicates a rebound of the economy.

Second, they use the increase in GDP.   Did GDP increase?   Yes.   But not because the economy rebounded.   Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending.    Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.

But does that mean anything has improved?   No.  The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public.   Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen?    No.

In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined.   Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.

Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.

As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true.  Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it.   The question there is, was it needed, and did it help?   I would say no to both.

First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.

Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly.  Banks grow with existing economic growth.

If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter.  Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing.  There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".

Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing.  I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing.  No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".

You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.

Japan is living proof of this.  Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation.  The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail".    They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over.   And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.

Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered.  They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.

And this isn't the only example.  Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail.    Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well.  Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Actually that's not even true.   The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all.   There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
> 
> First, they claim that unemployment went down.    Did it go down?   Sure.
> Second, they use the increase in GDP.   Did GDP increase?   Yes.
> ...



*YES*, OF COURSE IT DOES. Those are the very statistics DEFINE good economy. They are what separates recessions from growth periods.

When you have a job, you have means to sustain your own and your family's needs - of course that's a good thing, especially considering how poor the safety net programs were at that time.

Further, this effort has radically changed manufacture industries in US like auto and flight as well as make for giant leaps in computational sciences and application. And when soldiers were coming back GI Bill expanded access to education so they can have a follow up career.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


 
It is always interesting when someone calls obama a fascist, and a socialist.  SDumbest thing ever.  You really can not be both.  The two are polar opposites.  Proving Sowell to be a hack, assuming he never says anything else.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Actually that's not even true.   Yes, it was.  Millions were hired.  That is, me boy, the biggest stimulus of this century.   The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all.   There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
Another stupid statement, but lets look at your stupidity for a moment.  Then we will bury you.

First, they claim that unemployment went down.    Did it go down?   Sure.   But did it go down due to the economy recovering, or did it go down because unemployed were drafted into the military and sent over seas?  Before the war, until 1941, the rate had dropped from 25% under the hoover regime, to 9.6% under FDR.  Now, you may be interested to know that the drop in the ue rate, of 16%, from 1933 to 1941 ( 8 years) was the fastest decline in the ue rate ever.  Then, the war.  By 1942 the ue rate had dropped to 4,7%  So, as you have been told, the ue rate dropped because of the efforts of FDR and ended with the giant stimulus of the war.  When every single person in the US who wanted a job had a jot.  Dipshit.
And, though you are probably too stupid to see it, you have been buried.

We could instantly drop unemployment within a month, no matter how bad any economic recession is, just be rounding up all the unemployed, and shipping them off to war, or even prison. Wow, you are stupid.  Did you know that prisoners are not considered part of the ue numbers.  They are not considered.  And you should know that it is illegal to ship people off to war, unless there is a war and they actually join the armed forces.     Neither indicates a rebound of the economy.  One represents an illegal activity on the part of the US, so it will probably never happen, dipshit.  The second is also illegal, but if they are in jail, they will not affect the ue rate.  Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?  
Second, they use the increase in GDP.   Did GDP increase?   Yes.   But not because the economy rebounded.   Inherently in the formula for Gross Domestic Product, is government spending.    Every time the US government increases spending, by the definition of the formula used, GDP goes up.

But does that mean anything has improved?   No.  The only time that the lives of the public, are actually improved by GDP, is when the product, in Gross Domestic Product, is what benefits the public.   Do tanks, and metal helmets, and camos benefit the average citizen?    No.
Sorry,, dipshit. People have to make helmets and camos and tanks, me boy.  And they get paid for making those things, me boy.  And yes, that makes them better off.  And, they buy things.  Which help other humans, dipshit.  So, yes, they are helped.  Greatly.  Sorry you are so stupid.  It must hurt.


In fact, by any rational measurement, the standard of living during World War 2, declined.   Rationing of meat, milk, eggs, consumer goods, control on wages, reduction of housing.

Only a left-winger can look at the economic decline and fall in standard of living, ignore it all, and point to a fall in unemployed because people were drafted, and a growing GDP most of which was war product, and conclude that somehow this is a victory for government stimulus.

As for the claim that they stabilization of financial sector, that's true.  Generally if you give money to people who screwed up, they tend to be "stabilized" by it.   The question there is, was it needed, and did it help?   I would say no to both.  Uh, you just made a sentence that was totally stupid.  Congratulations.  We can all spend time wondering why you are so stupid, though.

First there is no evidence and plenty to the contrary, that suggest that if the banks which engaged in bad loans were not bailed out, that it would done anything other than cause those specific banks to fail.
And another really stupid statement.  I would suggest you get proof of your statement but there is no proof of anything that stupid.  Thanks for proving you are a congenital idiot.  Check on you wording, however.  "would done" makes no sense at all.  Maybe a remedial english class would help you, idiot.

Second, Banks to do not create economic growth directly.  Banks grow with existing economic growth.
I would suggest a remedial economics class to help you with this sentence.  But I do not believe there is any school that would let you in.  You are way to stupid.

If I am running a failing business, what conditions the banks are in doesn't matter.  Whether the banks fail, or grow, doesn't change the fact that my business is failing.  There is no customer anywhere on the faces of this planet, that said "I'm going to Bob's Business, because the bank Bob uses is fantastic.".
Jesus.  Please stop.  You are too stupid to make sentences.  Perhaps if you shoot yourself.  


Equally, if my business is profitable and growing, it doesn't matter what my bank is doing.  I can simply open my account with another bank that isn't failing.  No customer ever said "I'm not going to Bob's Business anymore, because Bob uses XBank which is failing".
Damn, you are stupid.  

You can prop up the banks until the end of time, and if the economic policies of the government are harming the economy, no amount of bank bailouts is going to fix that.

Japan is living proof of this.  Japan in 1993 fell into a recession/stagnation situation.  The Japanese government labeled many of these companies and banks "too big to fail".    They were kept alive by bailouts on bailouts, over and over.   And the result was that none of these companies and banks, could do anything but continue to exist, while never growing or becoming self sustaining.

Meanwhile the entire economy of Japan never recovered.  They call this period the "lost decade", but in reality it stretched out for almost two decades, until the practice of 'too big to fail', and bailing out zombie firms, ended.

And this isn't the only example.  Iceland famously let their three largest banks, which controlled nearly everything in Iceland, simply fail.    Even before that, Estonia also allowed their biggest debt-ridden banks to fail as well.  Instead of being a devastating event for the economies of each countries, all countries economies have recovered faster and stronger than the US has.
No, they have not.  that is simply the statement of a really stupid con.  In this case, YOU.

Really, you must be in terrible pain.  I have never read anything as stupid as this post.  And, I have read some reall stupid ones.  If there is a contest for stupidest post, I am confident you will win.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


I don't know how you read his rants/manifestos and decide to answer them. Bless you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Well, sometimes us old retired guys simply have more time than smarts.  The guy is a total waste of space.  Just thought he should be clobbered.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Actually that's not even true.   The "stimulus" of World War 2, did not end the great depression at all.   There are basically only two real data points used by pro-stimulus economists, to support this particular narrative.
> ...



So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.

Let's ration everything, reduce the standard of living, and claim we're advancing our economy.

By your logic, we could regress to third world status, have everyone employed, and eating minimal food, and as long as the numbers are higher, we're doing fantastic.

Reminds me of the Soviet Union, that while reporting ever greater advances, was marching towards economic collapse.   In 1982, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr after visiting the Soviet Union said "Those in the US who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of Social and Economic collapse...  Are only kidding themselves.".


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.
> 
> Let's ration everything, reduce the standard of living, and claim we're advancing our economy.
> 
> ...



I have a better (much better) idea - stop the silly historic revisionism, stop reading politico fluff and spend more time reading up on economics from economists who have some pride in their profession.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > So let's round up all the men and ship them off to war again, and say our economy is amazing.
> ...



Robert Higgs earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, and Seattle University. He has also been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University. He held a visiting professorship at the University of Economics, Prague in 2006, and has supervised dissertations in the Ph.D. program at Universidad Francisco Marroquín, where he is currently an honorary professor of economics and history.

Without having real information supporting your position, I'll take his opinion, and that of the economists which have said the same thing, over some random internet poster.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Robert Higgs earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, and Seattle University. He has also been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University. He held a visiting professorship at the University of Economics, Prague in 2006, and has supervised dissertations in the Ph.D. program at Universidad Francisco Marroquín, where he is currently an honorary professor of economics and history.
> 
> Without having real information supporting your position, I'll take his opinion, and that of the economists which have said the same thing, over some random internet poster.



And mrs.Poppins was a nanny. What the fuck is your point?

You made your argument why you don't think war effort improved economy, I explained to you why your point didn't make any sense. You proceeded to tell me about how wonderful mr.Higgs is. Tool much?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



So, you want to use a Libertarian, who is a student and believer in the Austrian School of Economics, along with being a proponent of the New Institutional Economics and Buchanons Public Choice.  Wow.  Another far, far right nut case.  And crooked as can be.
Here is the Source Watch report on the clown:
*Robert Higgs*

*Robert Higgs* is Senior Fellow in Political Economy for *The Independent Institute (which took over the rump of the Cash for Comments Economists Network, and also the Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review. The Independent Institute took over fronting the Cash for Comments Economists Network when its leader,* Robert D Tollisonwas exposed as a tobacco shill, and its organiser, James M Savarese was transferred over to work on union bribery though the tobacco industry's Labor Management Committee*. Higgs was only a minor lobbyist from the *viewpoint of the network operations (although he clearly worked for the tobacco industry in other ways)

Higgs received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation.

"*Dr. Higgs is the editor of The Independent Institute books The Challenge of Liberty, Re-Thinking Green, Hazardous to Our Health? and Arms, Politics, and the Economy, plus the volume Emergence of the Modern Political Economy.*
GMU is George Washington University, the Koch run college.
He is both an economic historian and libertarian economist w*ho combines material from the GMU Public Choice Society, the New Institutional economics, and the Austrian Hayek/Mises school of economics. In general he promotes an extreme form of free-market deregulations, *in political, legal theory and public policy.

"His authored books include _Neither Liberty Nor Safety, Depression, War, and Cold War_;  _Politická ekonomie strachu_ (_The Political Economy of Fear_, in Czech), _Resurgence of the Warfare State_;  _Against Leviathan, The Transformation of the American Economy 1865-1914_;  _Competition and Coercion, and Crisis and Leviathan_. A contributor to numerous scholarly volumes, he is the author of more than 100 articles and reviews in academic journals.

_"Dr. Higgs has spoken at more than 100 colleges and universities and at the meetings of such professional organizations as the Economic History Association, Western Economic Association, Population Association of America, Southern Economic Association, International Economic History Congress, Public Choice Society, International Studies Association, Cliometric Society, Allied Social Sciences Association, American Political Science Association, American Historical Association, and others." [1]_

*The question is how many of these articles were written for poisoning and polluting corporations and industry advocacy organizations. We know that a significant number were written for the tobacco industry.
Robert Higgs - SourceWatch

Wow.  Wonder if you would ever use an impartial source.  Nah.  Of course not, dipshit.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



You're right, Georgie...Thomas Sowell was not an "Amhurst" professor...he was an Amherst professor!  Sowell was there for one semester and I was lucky enough to take one of his classes.

Hire from the dark side?  Oh, you mean like Elizabeth Warren?  Careful...little buddy your racist is showing!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 12, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Oh God, now you think the National Debt became a surplus under Clinton?  Every time I think you can't post something dumber than what you've already posted, Georgie...you out do yourself!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


 
Really, me boy. When I say hire from the dark side, I have the confidence that no one but a stupid con troll would equate that to a race of people.  But shows more of your makeup.  A southern con troll.  Eh.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 12, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



*And here you have been telling us what an important guy you are.  But really, you just proof check stuff.  We paid minimum wage for that function.  But thanks, dipshit.
So, three posts by oldstyle.  Two proofing checks, and one stupid statement regarding race.  Got it, oldstyle.  You are, I am sure, afraid to post economics because you do not want your posts shoved back down your stupid throat.  Good idea.  Keep to the stuff you have some ability to do, and away from economics.  Much more safe for con trolls.
And, what the hell.  Everyone has learned you are a simpleton food services guy with no ability to carry on a conversation, just an ability to lie like crazy.  *


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm from Massachusetts.  Doh!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Strange how a "simpleton food services guy" knows that Bill Clinton didn't turn the National Debt into a surplus...but you don't have a clue!  You keep babbling on about wanting to discuss economics, Georgie...but every time you try to do that you say something REALLY stupid like that!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Proof check?  What are you babbling about now, Georgie?

* proof check* 

*Definitions*
Sorry, no definitions found.

*Etymologies*
Sorry, no etymologies found.


----------



## Markle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."
> ...



Just like saying there is no difference between an apple and an artichoke.  You're quite a joke.


----------



## Markle (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You're 100% correct.

The CBO is nothing more than a bloated, $5.00 calculator.  The agency requesting the analysis provides all the numbers, ALL THE NUMBERS.  They provide the growth rate, interest rate, number of people involved etc., etc., etc..  They cannot change one thing, nothing.  They can't say that a 5% GDP rate for the next five years is crazy so we're changing it to 2%  Ten million young, healthy people will not join, it will be more like four million.

It is no different than all computers.  GIGO!  Garbage In, Garbage Out.


----------



## Markle (Jul 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > "If Administration would come out and say "Stimulus created a million jobs" that gives Republicans the stupid one liner "Obama says stimulus made million jobs but since it's passage we are ACTUALLY down 3 million!" So instead of "created" administration switched to "saved" as in "Stimulus saved a million jobs so we lost 3 million instead of 4 million", but that is POLITICS because to the two words are underlied by very same economic facts and are without an actual difference."
> ...



First administration in history to make up the term and even THEY won't explain how it is supposed to be found.


----------



## Markle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Dayam!  You and Oldstyle are like stupid in stereo.

Here are at least three examples of the Bush administration using the term you moronically claim wasn't used until the Obama administration....


Transcript of Remarks by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman regarding National Homeownership Month Kennett Square, PA - June 23, 2004

"Our Rural Development programs also help communities with infrastructure such as electricity, water and telecommunications and with economic development assistance. *We have estimated that our rural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs just since the Bush Administration took office in January of 2001*. Recently we have seen more positive numbers showing that the U.S. economy created nearly a quarter of a million jobs last month alone for a total of 1 million jobs created in the last three months and about 1.5 million jobs in the past nine months.​_____________________________________​
JOHANNS ANNOUNCES INVESTMENT OF $9.2 MILLION IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR RURAL AMERICA

"I applaud the local community leadership for their efforts to secure these investments, which are needed to create economic opportunities and improve the quality of life available in their community," said Johanns. "These funds are part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to spur economic development in rural areas and *will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs.*"​_____________________________________​
USDA ANNOUNCES $19.75 MILLION IN RURAL BUSINESS LOANS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GRANTS

"These funds will help support local economic development agencies, finance infrastructure improvements, establish low-interest revolving loan funds, and help jurisdictions implement regional business and community development plans," Dorr said. *"The funding announced today is expected to save or create more than 2,300 jobs in 20 states."*​


----------



## Markle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> It is always interesting when someone calls obama a fascist, and a socialist.  SDumbest thing ever.  You really can not be both.  The two are polar opposites.  Proving Sowell to be a hack, assuming he never says anything else.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually Faun's right, they were using that term at the Department of Agriculture under Bush.  Of course they weren't using it as an entire Administration to hide poor job creation numbers from the public.  The liars at the USDA appear to have used the "jobs saved" thing to make their accomplishments seem more impressive than they were!  Which makes the people at the USDA just as big a bunch of liars then as the Obama Administration is now!

I guess I was giving the Obama people more credit than they deserved, Markle!  I thought they came up with the "jobs saved" scam all by themselves...but it turns out they just stole the idea from those people at the USDA and took it to a whole new level!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This is the problem I was talking about. I explained to you ten different ways that there isn't way to differentiate jobs saved from job gained in macroeconomic effect estimates and that the two terms mean exactly same effect from that perspective. BUT, you just CAN'T get it.

Ignorance is one thing, but what you got is much worse, you've got a bad case of stupid.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
Oldstyle, the con troll, says:
Strange how a "simpleton food services guy" knows that Bill Clinton didn't turn the National Debt into a surplus...but you don't have a clue!  You keep babbling on about wanting to discuss economics, Georgie...but every time you try to do that you say something REALLY stupid like that![/QUOTE]
Not the National Debt, of course,  You are picking on my error in wording.  Which was my mistake.  What I meant to say was that Clinton had a Budget Surplus, which no other president had in the previous 30 years.  
So, did Clinton have a budget surplus, or a budget deficit like all the republican presidents for the 1970's until today?  Lets look at the record:

*The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits*
By Ezra Klein September 5, 2012

There's a reason Bill Clinton is on the stage tonight. *When he was president, America enjoyed a booming economy and surpluses (here are some charts). Since he left the White House, things haven't been quite as good.*

But the story of why they haven't been quite as good is more complicated than "Clinton isn't around now." Here are three of the best analyses of what's happened to the federal budget since 2001. I've included the key paragraph and chart from each of them.

*The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative:* "Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation.* Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases.* Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, i*n fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."*








All of these analyses are using data from the Congressional Budget Office, and all of them are telling the same basic story. But they explain it in slightly different ways.

All agree that the projections in 2001 were simply wrong. They didn't see that the tech bubble was about to pop, and they definitely didn't foresee the economy falling off a cliff in 2008. That alone accounts, in all the papers, for about a quarter of the deterioration.

The place where you see real differences is in how the papers account for the role of legislation and policy in piling up the debt.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
So, there you go, me con troll.  An actual impartial source with a link.  You don't get to use them because you are trying to prove a lie.
My goodness, Oldstyle.  Surpluses by clinton and most of the national debt by REPUBICANS and republican economic policies. 
Maybe we should try another impartial source, to make sure you are the liar you appear to be:
In 1998, the United States achieved its first federal budget surplus in three decades (the final two years of Clinton’s presidency also resulted in budget surpluses).
Bill Clinton - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com
So the fact that you are just a food services employee does indeed not work well for ypu.  And my 45 year old ba in economics did indeed hold up, though that was really very easy.
Lets check the score on proof of statements:  
OLDSTYLE
No references, no links
RSHERMR   
2 (TWO) references, 2 (TWO) Links
In this debate, Oldstyle looses again, but did waste peoples time with lies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Ignorance?  You mean like insisting that jobs created is the same thing as jobs created or saved?  That kind of ignorance?  Of course there is a way to differentiated between the two!  You refuse to do so because it would mean admitting that the Obama Administration was conning the American people each and every time they used that statistic.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


>


   [/QUOTE]
Oldstyle, the con troll, says:
Strange how a "simpleton food services guy" knows that Bill Clinton didn't turn the National Debt into a surplus...but you don't have a clue!  You keep babbling on about wanting to discuss economics, Georgie...but every time you try to do that you say something REALLY stupid like that![/QUOTE]
Not the National Debt, of course,  You are picking on my error in wording.  Which was my mistake.  What I meant to say was that Clinton had a Budget Surplus, which no other president had in the previous 30 years.  
So, did Clinton have a budget surplus, or a budget deficit like all the republican presidents for the 1970's until today?  Lets look at the record:

*The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits*
By Ezra Klein September 5, 2012

There's a reason Bill Clinton is on the stage tonight. *When he was president, America enjoyed a booming economy and surpluses (here are some charts). Since he left the White House, things haven't been quite as good.*

But the story of why they haven't been quite as good is more complicated than "Clinton isn't around now." Here are three of the best analyses of what's happened to the federal budget since 2001. I've included the key paragraph and chart from each of them.

*The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative:* "Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation.* Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases.* Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, i*n fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."*







All of these analyses are using data from the Congressional Budget Office, and all of them are telling the same basic story. But they explain it in slightly different ways.

All agree that the projections in 2001 were simply wrong. They didn't see that the tech bubble was about to pop, and they definitely didn't foresee the economy falling off a cliff in 2008. That alone accounts, in all the papers, for about a quarter of the deterioration.

The place where you see real differences is in how the papers account for the role of legislation and policy in piling up the debt.
The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
So, there you go, me con troll.  An actual impartial source with a link.  You don't get to use them because you are trying to prove a lie.
My goodness, Oldstyle.  Surpluses by clinton and most of the national debt by REPUBICANS and republican economic policies. 
Maybe we should try another impartial source, to make sure you are the liar you appear to be:
In 1998, the United States achieved its first federal budget surplus in three decades (the final two years of Clinton’s presidency also resulted in budget surpluses).
Bill Clinton - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com
So the fact that you are just a food services employee does indeed not work well for ypu.  And my 45 year old ba in economics did indeed hold up, though that was really very easy.
Lets check the score on proof of statements:  
OLDSTYLE
No references, no links
RSHERMR   
2 (TWO) references, 2 (TWO) Links
In this debate, Oldstyle looses again, but did waste peoples time with lies.



[/QUOTE]

God but you're an idiot!  You don't know the difference between a budget surplus and the National debt...do you?   Why don't you just take a blue Sharpie and write on your forehead  "I'm clueless when it comes to economics!!!"


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Ignorance?  You mean like insisting that jobs created is the same thing as jobs created or saved?  That kind of ignorance?  Of course there is a way to differentiated between the two!  You refuse to do so because it would mean admitting that the Obama Administration was conning the American people each and every time they used that statistic.



That's pretty much the expected response given that you don't have capacity to understand why it is NOT POSSIBLE for macroeconomic estimate to tell a job saved from a job created.

You just can't understand that simple concept, so you keep posting the stupid nonsence that you do, keep proving that time is wasted trying to respond to you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993  09/30/1993  $4.411488 trillion  
FY1994  09/30/1994  $4.692749 trillion  $281.26 billion
FY1995  09/29/1995  $4.973982 trillion  $281.23 billion
FY1996  09/30/1996  $5.224810 trillion  $250.83 billion
FY1997  09/30/1997  $5.413146 trillion  $188.34 billion
FY1998  09/30/1998  $5.526193 trillion  $113.05 billion
FY1999  09/30/1999  $5.656270 trillion  $130.08 billion
FY2000  09/29/2000  $5.674178 trillion  $17.91 billion
FY2001  09/28/2001  $5.807463 trillion  $133.29 billion 

*Fiscal
Year* *End
Date* *Claimed
Surplus* *Public
Debt* *Intra-gov
Holdings* *Total National
Debt*
FY1997 09/30/1997   $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $55.8B $1.792328T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $168.9B $5.526193T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $97.8B $2.020166T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $227.8B $5.656270T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $230.8B $2.268874T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $248.7B $5.674178T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001   $3.339310T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $66.0B $2.468153T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $199.3B $5.807463T 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 $133.3B

Show me a surplus in the National Debt under Clinton!  It never happened.

What went down under Clinton was the "Public Debt" and the only reason that happened was because the Dot Com Boom put so much money into Social Security which is required by law to take any surpluses it has and buy US government securities.  Intergovernmental debt skyrocketed under Clinton but you liberals don't count that debt against Clinton's "surplus".  The national debt most definitely did _not_ get paid down because we did _not_ have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorance?  You mean like insisting that jobs created is the same thing as jobs created or saved?  That kind of ignorance?  Of course there is a way to differentiated between the two!  You refuse to do so because it would mean admitting that the Obama Administration was conning the American people each and every time they used that statistic.
> ...



What's NOT POSSIBLE is to calculate an accurate estimate of "jobs saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Jesus, Oldstyle.  You are a really stupid con troll.   The CBO is made up of civil servants and are considered impartial by republicans and democrats.  The BLS is the same.  Both say that jobs saved is a valid concept.
Others include:
The Federal Reserve of St. Louis
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2014/q2/dupor.pdf

FACTCHECK.ORG
Stimulus Jobs, Re-revisited

AND MANY OTHERS.  

So, it is you with no economists or researchers working for you, and who is completely agenda driven, versus many organizations with teams of researchers and economists working for them.  So, what have you to offer:
1.  You offer no source with a link to prove anything you say.  The others do in all cases.
2.  You have NO resources except conservative talking points which you do not reference.  They all have lots of resources, monetary and personal.
3.  The sources are impartial.  You are a con troll.
4.  The sources say jobs saved is real.  You say it is a lie. 
5.  They have expertise, particularly economists.  You are a simple food services employee with a couple classes in economics a long time ago.

Uh, you loose.  Five to Zero.  The obvious, me poor lying con troll, is that you are simply trying to sell snake oil again, with NO impartial sources.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Until you can show me a viable formula that one would USE to determine "jobs saved" then you can bluster all you want, Georgie but that's all it is...bluster!  The "lie" here is the statistic itself.  It's something used to hide economic reality rather than reveal it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Fiscal
> Year Year
> Ending National Debt Deficit
> FY1993  09/30/1993  $4.411488 trillion
> ...



Yes, it did.  And, so did the budget, becoming a *surplus,* dipshit.
Wow.  How to lie with statistics?
The surplus or deficit does not refer to the national debt.  It refers to the budget for a particular year.  No one, me poor ignorant con troll, claimed that the national debt had become a surplus.  As you know. The Budget was never a surplus for the preceding 30 years, or since that time.   *Making you a liar again. You are saying someone stated that Clinton had a surplus in the National Debt, which is a lie.  *

Again, you produced numbers with no link to where they came from.  And congratulations, you produced the worst and hardest to read used to be tables ever.  Jesus, you are a clown.  Complete with no link so that you can not see what was actual.  

thanks again for proving yourself to be a liar.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!


Nope.  Because you lied, and failed to live up to your word to provide the bill.  As you know.  Liar.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Fiscal
> ...



You're the one who made that claim!  Do you want me to pull up your post?

#2369 *
"So, another lesson for you, OS. Did you notice the National Debt became a Surplus under Clinton, before George W. gave it away?"
*
Who's the liar?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!
> ...



That's keeping Faun and Anton from providing the formula?    None of you can come up with it, Georgie because it doesn't exist and every time you come here and pretend that it does...you're lying through your teeth!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, let me try to understand this.  Lets take it by the numbers:
1.  In exchange for the formula, you promised to provide the bill which republicans used to aleviate the problems created by the Great Republican Recession.  YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO. 
2.  Since you failed to keep your word, you have NOTHING coming.
3.  You are showing no honor by demanding something you now have no right to.
4.  You say that because you do not have a formula, that all the organizations with economists and researchers that say jobs saved is a valid concept and did occur are LYING.
5.  You have no source backing up your contention that anyone was lying.
6.  You are not an economic expert, just a food services employee.  You need sources but have none.
7.  It is illogical to say no jobs were saved as jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month. 
8.  You are a con troll, and a clown wasting people's time.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That is the SECOND time you made that comment, me boy.  I posted National debt instead of budget, and there after admitted my mistake.  As you well know. 
Calling someone a liar when they admitted their mistake previously is bad form.  Really bad form.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month?  Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing.  Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



It is simple, me boy.  And obvious.  None of us like you.  And you do not deserve it.  It is a free lesson for you. in honesty.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Ah, so when you post information that is false...it's a "mistake"...not a lie?  What's amusing about that comment, Georgie is that you wouldn't know it was a mistake unless I pointed it out to you!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Oh, so the reason none of you can provide the formula isn't that you don't HAVE it...it's that you don't like me?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's NOT POSSIBLE is to calculate an accurate estimate of "jobs saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used it.



No, you dumb ass, estimated difference in employment can be described as either created or saved, without a any actual difference. The numbers cited by administration were estimated and *confirmed by CBO*.

*HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE* IF THE NUMBER WAS MADE UP?

It's not possible, but what is very much possible is your unyielding stupidity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's NOT POSSIBLE is to calculate an accurate estimate of "jobs saved" which is EXACTLY why the Obama Administration used it.
> ...



Confirmed?  How could the CBO possibly "confirm" an estimate that was arrived at without using a formula to determine the estimate?  All the CBO did was confirm that given the numbers provided by the Administration that their estimate might be possible.  How are you confirming the numbers that the Administration provided?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Which is why neither you...nor Faun...nor Georgie...will ever present me with an economic formula used to determine "Jobs created or saved"!


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

You yourself posted a link to how jobs saved was measured.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?



No silly, there is not some sort of simple formula that takes all kinds of different components of a policy and spits out a number. It takes actual WORK by professional economists to produce these numbers.

The fact that you don't understand it and keep asking for some sort of formula is due to your stupidity and general lack of understanding how the world works.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14731604, member: 31215"

]When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month?  Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing.  Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics  Sorry, you are WRONG.  Your mental malfunction relates to gross and net.

You are again showing the lack of economic knowledge, as we would expect from a food services employee. Lets look at the concept, me boy. Careful, this may be too complex for you:
1.  Early on, as a result of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, up to 700,000 jobs per month were being lost, NET. That is even then there were some number of new jobs.  Maybe it was 25000 new jobs and 725,000 lost jobs.  Net would be 700,000 jobs LOST.  (Are you starting to see  your mental malfunction yet?) Then, the trend went to more jobs created and saved, and less jobs lost, and the net may have been 200,000 jobs saved and 700,000 jobs lost, so the net was 500,000 jobs lost.
But, there may have been 100,000 jobs saved.  
I suspect you are now very confused.  But in fact, it is very rational, and very logical. It is EXACTLY what any person who has a working brain and is rational would expect.   A jobs report saying that there were X jobs lost says nothing about how many jobs were created or saved.  Nothing at all.  And therefore you comment is specious.  
I am sure you will want to come back and make up new lies.  So, another opportunity for you to lie.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> [QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14731604, member: 31215"
> 
> ]When the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved"...you're now claiming that jobs lost went from hundreds of thousands per month to jobs increased by hundreds of thousands per month?  Jobs were not increasing when they started using that "jobs created or saved" statistic, Georgie...on the contrary they were still decreasing.  Your memory is as bad as you knowledge of economics  Sorry, you are WRONG.  Your mental malfunction relates to gross and net.
> 
> ...



When did that "trend" start, Georgie?  Did it start before or after the Obama Administration started using "Jobs created or saved" instead of jobs created?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

As I've stated all along...this was never about providing an economic statistic that clearly showed what was happening in the economy as far as job creation was concerned but was ALWAYS about masking what was happening with job creation.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?
> ...



So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers?  Really, Anton?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As I've stated all along...this was never about providing an economic statistic that clearly showed what was happening in the economy as far as job creation was concerned but was ALWAYS about masking what was happening with job creation.



How does providing estimate of Stimulus effect on jobs market, estimate consistent with the CBO's 
findings add up to "Masking what is happening with the job creation".

It doesn't because it is not masking, but rather REVEALING what is happening according to best information we have.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers?  Really, Anton?



Of course they use formulas, all kinds of formulas with all kinds of givens and all kinds of considerations and if you want to learn more about that process I suggest you go ahead and find some math and macro economic classes or resources to study instead of demanding that these complex things be explained to you by someone from a casual political discussion forum...on the second thought I don't even know why I would suggest something like that to you if you can't even get enough neurons to fire to understand why "jobs saved or created" language is used in an estimate.

You are NEVER going to get this, it is what it is.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers?  Really, Anton?
> ...



The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual.   You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.

That's a broad assumption, that just makes an ass of out the assuming.   After all, millions of jobs are created and lost routinely on a month by month basis.

The outcome of these formulas can be changed on a whim.    In the 1970s, Carter asked the US Geological Survey to determine how much Coal was left in the US.   The report indicated there was over 200 years worth of coal left in the US at the rate of increasing usage at that time.

This of course didn't work for Carter who was pushing the need for investment in replacement technologies today.   So he had those people at the US Geological Survey fired (moved to a more suitable position), and replaced with more open-minded people.   Magically a new report was created which came to more politically supportable positions.

This is normal for government.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14731604, member: 31215"
> ...



Give it up, dipshit.  You lost this argument long ago. Jobs saved is valid.  Which is why you can find no impartial source to back up your stupid claims.  You were outgunned 5 to ZERO most recently.  You were lying, posting con talking points, and lost the argument.  It is just that you never, ever quit lying.
When did the obama administration start using jobs created and saved after it had been used by others for decades.  Dipshit.  The trend started later, but the fact is, jobs created were happening from the very beginning.  Anyone with a rational mind can see that.  Which leaves you out.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual.   You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.



COUNTER FACTUAL?

What is counterfactual about estimating that 800 billion dollars in spending and tax-cuts made for few million jobs? Which FACT does it contradict?

Estimate does not ever state "THIS SPECIFIC JOB", it just gives a general impact on jobs.

It's not perfect, but it's the best information we have to go on. Do you have some other, better method to form and report on policies?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


What is normal is that you are a clown.  Got it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, you must by definition assume the counter factual.   You must assume that without X, that this job would not have been created, or would have been lost.
> ...



the poor clown is brain dead.  He posts the best he can, it is simply that it is 1st grade level. All he really accomplishes is to clog the thread.  He says pretty much noting that matters.  And if it matters, it is untrue.  Guy is a troll.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?


Oh, good Lord....the formula is:
Estimate of jobs that would have been lost without policy X minus the estimated actual net change in jobs (aka "jobs created")

The estimate of actual net change is derived from the Current Employment Statistics and/or the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
The estimate of jobs that would have been lost is derived from multiple models and includes admin reports from companies receiving stimulus money.

CBO report on stimulus effects


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> As I've stated all along...this was never about providing an economic statistic that clearly showed what was happening in the economy as far as job creation was concerned but was ALWAYS about masking what was happening with job creation.


And again, you lost that argument 5 to* ZERO*.  Where you were the zero.  Five impartial organizations with teams of researchers and economists, versus you, Oldstyle.  A food services employee.  With virtually no economic background.  
Now, why is it you thought someone should believe you and not those organizations?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me, Anton...is the reason you're not giving me the economic formula that the Obama Administration economists used to determine "jobs created or saved" because you don't like me?


Oh, good Lord....the formula is:
Estimate of jobs that would have been lost without policy X minus the estimated actual net change in jobs (aka "jobs created")

The estimate of actual net change is derived from the Current Employment Statistics and/or the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
The estimate of jobs that would have been lost is derived from multiple models and includes admin reports from companies receiving stimulus money.

CBO report on stimulus effects
OK.  There you go, Oldstyle.  Now you can quit asking me for something you do not have a right to. 
And thanks, Pinqy. Always nice to have a rational and truthful post in this argument.  Now maybe Oldstyle can shut up.  And, I did not have to break my word.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers?  Really, Anton?
> ...



When you "estimate" and those estimates are all over the place...what good is the estimate?  You've got claims of "jobs saved" back then that ran the gamut from a hundred thousand all the way up to three million...but you somehow declare that these numbers have been "confirmed"?  That borders on FARCE, Anton and I think you know it!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So when they are doing this "WORK" you speak of...they aren't using formulas to produce their numbers?  Really, Anton?
> ...



So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are?  But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I see you still haven't read your own link which described how they accumulated the data. Don't you think it would be wise to do that first before you speak?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You are a lying con troll.  Different times had different estimates.  And they are estimates, that get better over time.  Now, what you have is con talking points.  As I have reminded you time after time.  You have no source, and you are a simple minded food services worker.  So,  your statements are meaningless.  You just lost five to ZERO, with you having the zero.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You will never understand because:
1.  You are too stupid to understand.
2.  You do not want to understand. 
3.  You simply want to post drivel.
4.  It has been explained to you and no one else cares to explain it again.
5.  You are a simple food services worker pretending to know something.  Period.  

So, technically, you are a waste of space.  No one cares about your drivel.  Everyone knows you are a serial liar.  And a con troll, though that is redundant.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...


That's all he's programed to know how to do.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 13, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yup.  Programed is a good term for how they get their "beliefs". Being a con troll requires that you not care about truth, and that you say what you are told to say.  And, you should lie whenever there is a reason to.  Then, you should try to call anyone who questions you names and lie about them.  
For most, it would be a sad existence.  For Oldstyle, it is what he wants to believe, and how he wants to act.  Sad.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 13, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are?  But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?



Look buddy, I'm not an economist, I have a job and I do that, Obama and his administration have their jobs, leaving the economic estimates to economists.

The estimates they used are real and reasonable, there is no evidence of "HIDIN DA TRUF!" by the administration you claim.

You want to say it's not 3 million? Ok maybe it's 2 million. But bottom line, going back to your original post is that you are wrong when you say Obama didn't have policies that helped the economy throughout his presidency.

The End.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 13, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So you're convinced they use formulas...all kinds of formulas...but you just don't know what any of them are?  But we should trust their findings because we know that politicians would never try to use misleading statistics to keep the truth from the voters...right, Anton?
> ...



Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"!  What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus.  They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result.  They also used the economic data that was coming in from local governments or businesses that got stimulus money and were required to fill out forms reporting how many jobs were created with the stimulus they got.  What we learned over time is those job creation numbers that were being reported were grossly over stated.  Through a combination of people simply not understanding the complex forms they were required to complete...or people deliberately lying about how many jobs were really created with their share of the stimulus...the data that Obama Administration economists were "estimating" with was so skewed that it rendered whatever result they got to be a totally fictional number.

As for Obama's policies?  Which ones helped the economy?  Seriously...show me Obama policies that created jobs.  ObamaCare was something that stifled job creation.  His calls for Cap & Trade legislation was a disincentive for those with capital to invest in either new industry or the expansion of existing industry.  His use of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to impose a moratorium on drilling killed jobs in that industry.  His refusal to allow the Keystone Oil pipeline killed jobs in the Mid West.  His use of the EPA to impose new standards for carbon emissions stifled job creation.  He was anti fracking...one of the drivers of the recovery that we DID have!  He spent billions on "Green" industry subsidies only to see many of those companies take our money and then declare bankruptcy shortly thereafter.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"!  What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus.  They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result.



Ok so lets note that you now agree that your claim about administration making something up is BS.

Moving on.

I don't see you answering WHY that's not reasonable.

If anything such method would seem to UNDERESTIMATE impact, since increased liquidity during Great Recession would have more of an impact than during a milder recession where demand is not as depressed.



Oldstyle said:


> They also used the economic data that was coming in from local governments or businesses that got stimulus money and were required to fill out forms reporting how many jobs were created with the stimulus they got.  What we learned over time is those job creation numbers that were being reported were grossly over stated.  Through a combination of people simply not understanding the complex forms they were required to complete...or people deliberately lying about how many jobs were really created with their share of the stimulus...the data that Obama Administration economists were "estimating" with was so skewed that it rendered whatever result they got to be a totally fictional number.



TOTALLY FICTIONAL NUMBER? Source for that?

And I really do hope that you have something pointing to general issue and not just something that would make up tine percentage of reporting. What was that fictional number and how does it compare to NOT fictional number?




Oldstyle said:


> As for Obama's policies?  Which ones helped the economy?  Seriously...show me Obama policies that created jobs.



One more time...the 10th time now?

800 billion was spent into economy and you can think of NOTHING that created jobs, while admitting that it created jobs...which means that YOU ARE A COMPLETE MORON, SIR.

Meanwhile, this is what will be in the history books:






The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Anton...the estimates they used were real...but they were far from "reasonable"!  What they did was make estimates based on things like assuming what had happened with economic stimulus in the past would happen with this stimulus.  They made the quantum leap that if spending $100,000 in stimulus before had resulted in X number of jobs being created then spending $100,000 now would get the same result.
> ...



With all due respect, Anton...repeatedly posting a graph put out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing what the "estimate" of unemployment might have been if they hadn't done a massive governmental response is like repeated posting a graph put out Planned Parenthood estimating how many women would die from back alley abortions if you got rid of legal abortions!  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a liberal think tank who's main goal  is increased governmental spending to help the poor.  They have an agenda.

As for my agreeing that the Administration didn't make something up?  When I refer to "they"...I'm referring to the CBO.  The Obama Administration totally made up their numbers.  The CBO then bent over backwards using unreasonable estimates to validate those numbers.  When you base what your present stimulus is going to accomplish on what past stimulus spending has done you're not giving a number that's real...you're giving a number that is a guess...based on an assumption!

Did you not know that there were huge problems with over estimations of how many jobs were created by the stimulus because the companies or governmental agencies filing reports either didn't understand what they were doing or flat out exaggerated the results?  I'd be happy to cite an example if you'd like.
BART vendor pushed to boost job numbers to meet stimulus promises


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...




Your pleads of numbers being unreasonable while being unable to provide any alternative numbers is not going to convince anyone.

If you think there are more reasonable numbers - fine, lets have them. But your repeated assertions that we didn't get some jobs out of these huge volume expansionary policies are straight MORONIC.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head.  The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus.  Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck.  The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?

There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton!  You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money.  It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda.  It's why we got things like Solyndra.
Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

When liberals provide "analysis" from economic "experts" that state wide eyed that YES, THE STIMULUS DID CREATE MORE JOBS THEN IF WE HADN'T SPENT 800 BILLION...SO THE STIMULUS IS A SUCCESS!!! I can only laugh at their definition of success.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

Reasonable numbers?  You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs?  Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton.  What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job.  What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> When liberals provide "analysis" from economic "experts" that state wide eyed that YES, THE STIMULUS DID CREATE MORE JOBS THEN IF WE HADN'T SPENT 800 BILLION...SO THE STIMULUS IS A SUCCESS!!! I can only laugh at their definition of success.



All congenital idiots laugh. It is a condition you should not be proud of.
You have had it proven to  you that $500 billion was not spent.  About $500 Billion was spent.  About 250 billion was tax reductions, which last time I knew, you like all the republicans approved of.  

So, more lies by oldstyle. 
What is funny, oldstyle, is you with your eyes CLOSED loving the fact that a republican administration caused a huge recession, and then did nothing about it.  You love it so much, you wish dems would do the whole thing.  Because you wanted the economy to implode. Because you are un-american.  Just a lying con troll.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Reasonable numbers?  You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs?  Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton.  What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job.  What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.





Oldstyle said:


> When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head.  The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus.  Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck.  The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?


  [/QUOTE]

There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton!  You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money.  It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda.  It's why we got things like Solyndra.


Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER
*Institute for Energy Research *

So, lying again, and unable to provide an impartial source, Oldstyle brings forward a far, far right wing source.  Totally partial, and totally conservative. Lets see what Source Watch says about IER;
The *Institute for Energy Research* (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by *Charles G. Koch *and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

*Koch Wiki*
The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers,Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.

*Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council*
In August 2011, Dr. Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the IER, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Forcemeeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana.[3]

*About ALEC*
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.


*Campaigns*
In 2009 IER run a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain.[4] These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe[5] and Ontario, Canada.[6] The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists.[7]

A report by the Europan NGO Corporate Europe Observatory tried to get more information on the funding of the libertarianInstituto Juan de Mariana responsible for the Spanish study and the Danish think tank CEPOS doing the study on wind energy in Denmark. The report states: "In their reply to CEO, Instituto Juan de Mariana affirmed that it finances all its activities through the individual donation of his over 250 individual members and that they did not receive corporate funding with the exception of a small Spanish insurance company. When contacted again to check whether the Institute for Energy Research (IER) support for the above study was financial, the Institute stopped responding."[8]

*Staff*



 
Robert L. Bradley, President
Nancy C. Bradley, Secretary / Treasurer
Howard Gano, Jr., Director
Jim Clarkson, Director
Preston Marshall, Director
Wayne Gable, Director
*Funding*
EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]

According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.[10]

So,OLDSTYLE,  you tried to sneak by a source that is a far right nut case source for the far right Libertarians, the Koch brothers.  Very poor form, dipshit.  As one would suspect from you.
So, again, you were unable to find a single source that is impartial to support you.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Reasonable numbers?  You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs?  Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton.  What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job.  What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.


Lets see what is moronic, moron:
1.  Taking the statement that jobs saved are incorrect from a Bat shit crazy con troll called Oldstyle.
2.  Believing a person who is a food services worker with essentially no economic background, that being Oldstyle.  
3.  Believing a person who lies constantly, that being Oldstyle.
4. Not believing FIVE impartial sources all with teams of economists and researchers who say, without question, that jobs saved is valid.
5.  Believing only conservative talking points posted by Oldstyle, who can find NO impartial sources that agree with his claim.

You lie and lie and lie.  Caught again, oldstyle.

Your posts are always applying con talking points to actual economic issues.  Makes it very easy to prove your posts to be what they are, which is lies.  Simple.
But, for you, the worst part is it continues to show you to be useless.  Of no rational value, me boy.  If you post talking points, it makes you an easy target.  And you always loose.  Always.  No contest to make it even interesting.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When liberals provide "analysis" from economic "experts" that state wide eyed that YES, THE STIMULUS DID CREATE MORE JOBS THEN IF WE HADN'T SPENT 800 BILLION...SO THE STIMULUS IS A SUCCESS!!! I can only laugh at their definition of success.
> ...



"You have had it proven to  you that $500 billion was not spent.  About $500 Billion was spent."

God but you're an idiot!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Reasonable numbers?  You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs?  Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton.  What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job.  What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.
> ...



There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton!  You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money.  It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda.  It's why we got things like Solyndra.


Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER
*Institute for Energy Research *

So, lying again, and unable to provide an impartial source, Oldstyle brings forward a far, far right wing source.  Totally partial, and totally conservative. Lets see what Source Watch says about IER;
The *Institute for Energy Research* (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by *Charles G. Koch *and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.

IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] AEA states that, by "communicating IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral high ground in the national public policy debates in the energy and environmental arena."[2] AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

*Koch Wiki*
The Koch brothers -- David and Charles -- are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers,Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.

*Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council*
In August 2011, Dr. Robert Bradley, founder and CEO of the IER, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Forcemeeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana.[3]

*About ALEC*
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.


*Campaigns*
In 2009 IER run a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain.[4] These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe[5] and Ontario, Canada.[6] The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists.[7]

A report by the Europan NGO Corporate Europe Observatory tried to get more information on the funding of the libertarianInstituto Juan de Mariana responsible for the Spanish study and the Danish think tank CEPOS doing the study on wind energy in Denmark. The report states: "In their reply to CEO, Instituto Juan de Mariana affirmed that it finances all its activities through the individual donation of his over 250 individual members and that they did not receive corporate funding with the exception of a small Spanish insurance company. When contacted again to check whether the Institute for Energy Research (IER) support for the above study was financial, the Institute stopped responding."[8]

*Staff*



 
Robert L. Bradley, President
Nancy C. Bradley, Secretary / Treasurer
Howard Gano, Jr., Director
Jim Clarkson, Director
Preston Marshall, Director
Wayne Gable, Director
*Funding*
EIN: 76-0149778
This is a 501(c)(03) public charity [1]

According to the ExxonMobils Corporate Giving Reports the IER received 307.000 US$ from the oil company or its foundation between 2003 and 2007.[9] The institute also received 175.000 US$ from Koch Industries according to a Greenpeace report.[10]

So,OLDSTYLE,  you tried to sneak by a source that is a far right nut case source for the far right Libertarians, the Koch brothers.  Very poor form, dipshit.  As one would suspect from you.
So, again, you were unable to find a single source that is impartial to support you.  

[/QUOTE]

What's laughable is that you think Source Watch is a credible referee on what is or isn't an impartial source.

"The wiki is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) think tank, which also runs PRWatch. According to CMD, it does not accept government grants or corporate donations.[1] CMD was founded by environmental activist John Stauber.

The site suffers somewhat from liberal bias in that there's not much documentation of left-wing front groups, though the wiki is meant to concentrate on corporate FUD campaigns. Occasionally, some anti-scientific stuff from nature woo-meisters creeps in and a few editors like to slap Koch Industries under the funding sections of every front group page. However, the wiki is in general active and well-maintained and collects a lot of good sources and research. Their coverage of global warming denialism, oil and coal interests, and tobacco front groups is superb." SourceWatch - RationalWiki


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head.  The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus.  Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck.  The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?
> 
> There is a reason why the Obama Stimulus didn't create the jobs that Democratic leaders promised it would, Anton!  You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid controlling who and what got paid out of that money.  It became a giant slush fund with which Democratic leaders could reward political supporters and fund their agenda.  It's why we got things like Solyndra.
> Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures - IER



Hilarious when it's counting the deficits it's nothing but  - OBAMA SPENT LIKE DRUNKEN SAILOR!
When it's counting the jobs that spending bought it's - ANYBODY woulda done it! He didn't do nothing special! 


Well leave it to you to make IRRELEVANT arguments. It doesn't matter who-woulda-coulda. Fact is Obama DID. So when you say he DIDN"T pass job creating policies, you are WRONG.

Since you haven't been able to provide anything resembling what you would consider GOOD NUMBERS on how many jobs 800 billion dollars caused we can safely ignore your BS ramblings.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Reasonable numbers?  You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs?  Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton.  What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job.  What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.



Yes, Reasonable numbers. Give us what you consider REASONABLE numbers.

Lets have them asshole. Enough bitching and moaning and dodging.

Time to true up and say something HONEST.

You don't know how many jobs? Just fucking say so and admit that you are arguing ENTIRELY from wishful ignorance rather than fact. Arguing entirely from NEED to deny the UNTHINKABLE, UNACCEPTABLE idea that Obama's policies actually did benefit the jobs market.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head.  The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus.  Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck.  The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?
> ...


As a con tool, it just eats at him that Obama, despite inheriting a recession where we lost 800,000 jobs as Bush was leaving office, has added 10 million jobs; while Bush added just one million.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> As a con tool, it just eats at him that Obama, despite inheriting a recession where we lost 800,000 jobs as Bush was leaving office, has added 10 million jobs; while Bush added just one million.



800,000 was lost in just one month, with almost 9 million jobs lost before we started gaining jobs again.






It's tough to deny the obvious day in and out but that's what lemming conservatives have to do to not admit the politically un-admitable.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Reasonable numbers?  You mean like the jobs created numbers that should have been used to give a more accurate evaluation of whether or not what we were doing was creating jobs?  Faun used the example of the USDA puffing up their numbers under the Bush Administration, Anton.  What that department did is the exact same thing that the Obama Administration did on a massive scale...the USDA managers used a bullshit "jobs saved" number to provide a narrative that sounded wonderful and made people who didn't know better think that they were doing one heck of a job.  What's MORONIC is for anyone with a little common sense to take a "jobs saved" number for anything more than it is...a self serving deception.
> ...


Oldstyle is off checking the conservativetalkingpoints.com site for an answer.  Poor stupid con troll.
I always thought that everyone tried to be honest.  Then I ran into Oldstyle.  He simply lies all the time.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Actual unemployment is around 23 percent. The stats are are only for those still collecting unemployment. When they can no longer collect benefits, they no longer count as being "unemployed".


LIAR!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Tale of the tape right here, folks......
> 
> Alternate Unemployment Charts


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > As a con tool, it just eats at him that Obama, despite inheriting a recession where we lost 800,000 jobs as Bush was leaving office, has added 10 million jobs; while Bush added just one million.
> ...



Yup.  After the first three years in office, the first with W's budget, he had more newly employed than Bush did in his first SEVEN.  Then, W's 8th year, he lost even the few that had been newly employed from his earlier years.  But the cons loved it.


Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Actually, I heard that the 426 number was the displacement of a 70's dodge Hemi.  And that is the number that the guy that has Dale Smith's ear used in determining unemployment.  Poor Dale, boy is stupid but thinks he is very, very smart.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll.


LIAR!


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll.
> ...


Oh, that one was a gem.

Not only does he think unemployment benefits are use to determine how many folks are unemployed -- but he thinks it's the White House, and not the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does that.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Yep.  Not the brightest bulb on the tree.  Pretty sure he is a congenital idiot.  Really serious mental illness.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When I ask for what Obama policies created jobs, Anton and you respond by pointing to the 800 plus billion dollar stimulus as the "policy" that satisfies that request I can only smile and shake my head.  The truth is there was going to be a stimulus put into effect no matter who was elected President since there was overwhelming bipartisan support for stimulus.  Obviously when you spend an amount as large as 870 billion you are going to get some sort of bang for your buck.  The question is...how much bang did we get for the money we spent...was the stimulus structured in the best way to create jobs and grow the economy...or was it used by the politicians in power to reward their supporters and further their agenda?
> ...



So you can't name them...but it's a FACT that Obama did have policies that created jobs?  I'm curious, Anton...when you make arguments like that...is there anyone that doesn't laugh?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll.
> ...


Now that companies are hiring and paying more people who gave up have started looking again.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]

Yup.  I don't laugh because while you lie like a rug, Anton never lies.  Ever.  Because you know that you are lying, I don't think you have anything to laugh about.  that would be you lying again.  
*First,* Oldstyle, you have promised months ago to provide bills that republicans have brought forward to combat the disaster known as the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  You promised, and then failed to do so.  So, was it simply another lie of yours?

*Second,* you have been shown many times the numbers, in the millions, of jobs that obama has been responsible for saving and creating.  

*Third.  *You have been unable to find a single job bill by Republicans, so at this point we know it was *Obama Millions of jobs saved and created, Republicans 0 jobs.  That's Zero.  *

*Fourth, *you are LYING again when you quote the $800 Billion number.  As you have been shown, it was $500 Billion in stimulus, and a couple hundred Billion in tax decreases that Republicans put in the Stimulus (and then voted against).  

*Fifth, *Republicans have voted against many bills brought forward by democrats to address the damage of the Great Republican Recession of 2008, in full.  Zero republicans have voted for any bill to clean up their own mess.
Really, oldstyle, you lie so much your posts are a waste of space.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



Yup.  I don't laugh because while you lie like a rug, Anton never lies.  Ever.  Because you know that you are lying, I don't think you have anything to laugh about.  that would be you lying again.  
*First,* Oldstyle, you have promised months ago to provide bills that republicans have brought forward to combat the disaster known as the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  You promised, and then failed to do so.  So, was it simply another lie of yours?

*Second,* you have been shown many times the numbers, in the millions, of jobs that obama has been responsible for saving and creating.  

*Third.  *You have been unable to find a single job bill by Republicans, so at this point we know it was *Obama Millions of jobs saved and created, Republicans 0 jobs.  That's Zero.  *

*Fourth, *you are LYING again when you quote the $800 Billion number.  As you have been shown, it was $500 Billion in stimulus, and a couple hundred Billion in tax decreases that Republicans put in the Stimulus (and then voted against).  

Really, oldstyle, you lie so much your posts are a waste of space.[/QUOTE]
Republicans congratulate Republican governors for the economic recovery they deny is happening because they don't want to give Obama any credit. How do you take someone who does this seriously? And if the economy were as bad as Republicans say why aren't republicans governors worried about their jobs? Michigan gov GOP Rick Snyder poisoned us with lead and he still has his job.

Bush has zero to do with this economic recovery. For once Republicans can't try to credit the previous administration for a Democrats success


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 14, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Republicans congratulate Republican governors for the economic recovery they deny is happening because they don't want to give Obama any credit. How do you take someone who does this seriously? And if the economy were as bad as Republicans say why aren't republicans governors worried about their jobs? Michigan gov GOP Rick Snyder poisoned us with lead and he still has his job.

Bush has zero to do with this economic recovery. For once Republicans can't try to credit the previous administration for a Democrats success[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think they will try.  Because we have so many stupid people out there.  And con trolls like Oldstyle simply blatantly lying all the time.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




No, an idiot is someone that believes that a VERY low 62.7 percent of the work eligible population with jobs equals less the 5 percent real unemployment. But keep believing that if it gives you the warm fuzzies about the Barrypuppet and the shitheads that make up the leftard clown posse of sniveling fools.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> No, an idiot is someone that believes that a VERY low 62.7 percent of the work eligible population with jobs equals less the 5 percent real unemployment. But keep believing that if it gives you the warm fuzzies about the Barrypuppet and the shitheads that make up the leftard clown posse of sniveling fools.



Labor Force is COMPOSED of employed+unemployed people, so what you just said is complete nonsense...so what was it about Idiots?

Tell me, are people who retire or go to school and are not looking for a job classify as "work eligible" to you?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> So you can't name them...but it's a FACT that Obama did have policies that created jobs?  I'm curious, Anton...when you make arguments like that...is there anyone that doesn't laugh?



I've named what I consider reasonable numbers. I can't name FOR YOU what YOU consider good numbers, because...well there doesn't seem to be any numbers more than ZERO that you'll accept due to your deep rooted politico needs. But on the other hand you ALSO know such numbers are moronic and so you dis-honestly abstain from naming it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It was lower than that until the late 70's. So what?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So you can't name them...but it's a FACT that Obama did have policies that created jobs?  I'm curious, Anton...when you make arguments like that...is there anyone that doesn't laugh?
> ...



When did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton?  You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!

What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> When did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton?  You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
> 
> What I consider to be "reasonable" numbers are the jobs created numbers that had always been used as a barometer of job growth...not some fictional estimates based on political need.



I specifically said you didn't say ZERO because it is moronic, but you can't stand to admit more either, so you keep posting deflecting bullshit.

Now go ahead and reply with something non-stupid, like some numbers YOU think are reasonable and explain based on what. OR just honestly admit that you got no clue how many jobs the policy created and that you simply don't like it.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Actually, I think they will try.  Because we have so many stupid people out there.  And con trolls like Oldstyle simply blatantly lying all the time.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't Bush responsible for TARP?

Oh, I'm sorry...I keep forgetting in "Georgie World" Bush gets all of the blame and none of the credit...while Barry gets none of the blame and all of the credit!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

But you don't push left wing talking points...not you, Rshermr!  (eye roll)


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > When did I ever claim ZERO jobs were created, Anton?  You've been hanging out with Georgie too much...you're starting to play fast and loose with the truth just like him!
> ...


http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txt

Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txt
> 
> Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!



Idiot, those are actual job counts not estimate of policy effects...I don't even know why I keep replying to you, may as well talk to a carpet.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txt
> ...



How would you accurately assess policy effects if you don't count the actual jobs?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

What's laughable is that you think "jobs saved" gives you a more accurate estimate of policy effects than the CES numbers!


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That chart show "employed"...

How do you that number of employed folks doesn't include workers who would have been laid off but weren't because their company made additional revenue (i.e., jobs saved)?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 14, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...



You have no clue what the Current Employment Statistics consist of...do you, Faun?


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Idiot (I'm not trying to be too redundant on that point, but you get what you earn), policy effects CANNOT be extracted out of actuals because there is no way to isolate those policy effects from a sea of other factors in economy. For that reason, actuals are not helpful to the estimation. We've been over that - right?

But what if we take idiotic things you say and run with it, meaning to go ahead and assume *correlation* of policy to actuals, *as causation*..what then?

Well then you've just talked yourself into admitting that Obama is nothing short of an economic savior of America:






To be wrong, on so many levels, so often...


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What's laughable is that you think "jobs saved" gives you a more accurate estimate of policy effects than the CES numbers!



Jobs saved is a description of numbers in an estimate, not a source of estimate silly. The SOURCE of estimate is consideration of how tax-cuts, spending, transfers etc, convert to changes in jobs number.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*Translation:* you don't know. You can't tell the difference between a company who lost an employee but gained one back ... from a company who didn't layoff an employee as planned due to an infusion of money.

Thanks for admitting what I knew you already didn't know.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 14, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > No, an idiot is someone that believes that a VERY low 62.7 percent of the work eligible population with jobs equals less the 5 percent real unemployment. But keep believing that if it gives you the warm fuzzies about the Barrypuppet and the shitheads that make up the leftard clown posse of sniveling fools.
> ...



I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.



Does an 80 year old gramps or 18 year old student "living a life of leisure and not looking for work" surprise you??

You are too ignorant to argue this with me and you are too ignorant to have any basis to reject official numbers. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not a fact.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





antontoo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the idiot that believes 37 percent of the work eligible participants are living a life of leisure and that only 4.9 percent are looking for work. That's were idiots like you come into play. There is some bad shit coming down the pike and I will be absolutely stunned as well as elated if we make it to the end of the year without a financial collapse of monumental proportions.
> ...



No, dumb ass...but they are counting those that are working part-time as being "employed". The numbers are being fudged and if you can't see that, then YOU are the ignorant one. 51 percent of those that even have a job make less than 30K a year and over 35 percent of those that have a job make less than 20K a year. The dollar doesn't buy shit anymore. This fiat currency has been devalued even more by the QE program. You can put lipstick on this pig all you want...put some eye-liner on it but at the end of the day, it's still a pig and with Barrypuppet pushing the TPP, it will make decent paying jobs even harder to find. There isn't one "Fair Trade Agreement" that has benefited the middle class because that's the goal....to tear down the middle class. The neocons working in conjunction with the leftard clown posse have done their part. Ignorant? As if....I am a walking, talking encyclopedia of information. The decimation of the middle class is no accident at all. You cannot win this debate or argument. You like having sunshine pounded up your ass? Enjoy...I prefer to live in this thing we call "reality".


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What's laughable is that you think "jobs saved" gives you a more accurate estimate of policy effects than the CES numbers!
> ...



"Jobs saved" is a smoke screen to obscure the lack of job creation...no matter how you try to dress it up, Anton!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Pray tell, Faun...how do you quantify the number of people who didn't lose jobs due to stimulus money?  Do you not grasp how the Obama Administration realized that it was indeed impossible to estimate that number and used that to hide pathetic job creation numbers?

Jobs Created is an actual number...created from data collected through the CES...jobs saved is fiction...a number created out of thin air...usually for political cover.


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Your insanity persists. Part timers have always been included in the U-3. Most part timers want to be part timers. The ones who don't are counted in the U-6.

I've never heard so much whining in my life about how the BLS measures unemployment until Obama became president.


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


By surveying the companies receiving ARRA funds.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dude, I don't give a flying fuck about political parties. because they are nothing but corporate officers of USA.INC, a foreign owned corporate entity that was the "successor to contract" to provide the 19 essential/enumerated services as described in their corporate charter that was the Act of 1871 and it's a "for profit venture". They enact Acts, Statutes and Codes because as a corporate entity, they cannot pass laws because laws can only be established on the land. We are under admiralty law which was brought up on the land in 1868 and we went from being a sovereign citizen to that of being a subject....and the story behind that would be another long ass post and I have already covered this before and I tire of repeating myself. We have lost MILLIONS upon millions of jobs because of unfair "Fair trade agreements". Neocons and the Barrypuppet have been trying shove the TPP down our throat. I salute the patriotic democrats and Tea Party republicans that are not bought and paid for as they tied to stand against it. You have got to take off the blinders.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




No, an idiot is someone that believes that a VERY low 62.7 percent of the work eligible population with jobs equals less the 5 percent real unemployment. But keep believing that if it gives you the warm fuzzies about the Barrypuppet and the shitheads that make up the leftard clown posse of sniveling fools.


Did someone just hear a dipshit speaking in the woods, all to himself.  You know, a con troll blathering, thinking that anyone cares what he is trying to say.  A butt stupid conspiracy theorist,  speaking nonsense that only he believes?  
Oh, yeah. It is Smith, the nut case, totally irrelevant clown.  Smith, the guy who everyone laughs at.  Thinking that anyone cares what he says.  Poor guy is a congenital idiot, unable to make sense of any kind or ever prove his accusations.  The clown who listens to paid hacks and jokes that he thinks are prophets.  Poor guy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Dude, you don't get it.  No one gives a flying fuck about you.  You are, me boy, irrelevant.  Plain and simple.  Particularly SIMPLE.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You "consider" nothing.  Posting con talking points does not constitute considering.  Posting talking points fed to you by those paid to write them is simply proving that you are incapable of independent thought.  
You lost the battle big time, dipshit.  No one thinks that a food services employee would be a rational sources.  But, five independent organizations with teams of economists and researchers would for sure be GREAT rational sources.  So, again, you lost, FIVE for the rational sources, ZERO for you, the food services employee.  But you just keep on lying, and lying and lying.  And making personal attacks with no earthly proof.  Because, again, you are a ignorant conservative troll just posting lies that you have been told to believe, so you do as told.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Wasn't Bush responsible for TARP?

Oh, I'm sorry...I keep forgetting in "Georgie World" Bush gets all of the blame and none of the credit...while Barry gets none of the blame and all of the credit![/QUOTE]

Georgie?  Barry?  You always come along to cement what I say.  Using your little childish names based on your juvenile brain to prove you are an agenda driven con troll.
Thanks again for proving you have no class.  No integrity.  Nothing but anger.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Actually, the only thing left to answer is whether ou are delusional, or simply stupid.  You lost by a score of 5 impartial well respected sources with teams of economists, to yourself.  Yourself being a con troll with nearly no economic background and no economists working for or with you, and as a bonus, being nothing but a simple food services worker.  Do you yet understand why you are *IRRELIVENT.  AND A DIPSHIT.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



THAT WOULD BE TOO SIMPLE.  POOR CLOWN WOULD PREFER TO LIE, AND SAY THAT JOBS SAVED IS FICTION.  AND DENY THE FIVE TEAMS OF ECONOMISTS WHO SAY HE IS *WRONG.*


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/tab4.txt
> 
> Employment created or lost...with no "jobs saved" bullshit!


According to OMB, a job saved is defined as any existing position funded by the Recovery Act during the previous reporting quarter. Jobs funded partially with stimulus funds will be counted based on the proportion funded by the Recovery Act.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> No, dumb ass...but they are counting those that are working part-time as being "employed". The numbers are being fudged and if you can't see that, then YOU are the ignorant one.



Why do you call people dumb ass when you say dumb ass things?

Part time jobs are in fact jobs and are appropriately reflected in unemployment called U3 measure (official unemployment most commonly used).

Underemployment, which counts those that have part time but WANT full time is called U6, which is also way down to normal levels.

Numbers are not being fudged and I'm quite proficient in these statistics...the problem here is that YOU, like most I conservatives I see on the Internets are more interested Obama bitching than educating yourself in these matters.



Dale Smith said:


> 51 percent of those that even have a job make less than 30K a year and over 35 percent of those that have a job make less than 20K a year.



Ok and whats your point? Is that good? Is that bad? How does that compare to pre-recession numbers?



Dale Smith said:


> The dollar doesn't buy shit anymore. This fiat currency has been devalued even more by the QE program. You can put lipstick on this pig all you want...put some eye-liner on it but at the end of the day, it's still a pig and with Barrypuppet pushing the TPP, it will make decent paying jobs even harder to find.



You are again deeply misinformed.

Inflation has been VERY LOW, and in fact during recession our problem was threat of much more serious problem of DEFLATION. So if QE did cause inflation that is actually a comment on the success of that monetary policy in keeping the interest rates at healthy level.







Compared to other currencies dollar is now more solid than I ever remember.



Dale Smith said:


> Ignorant? As if....I am a walking, talking encyclopedia of information. The decimation of the middle class is no accident at all. You cannot win this debate or argument. You like having sunshine pounded up your ass? Enjoy...I prefer to live in this thing we call "reality".



 Thanks for the comedic relief mr.Empty-encyclopedia.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

It has been explained to you multiple times.  Pray tell, why would anyone want to explain it to you again.  You argued that it was a bad number, but five organizations well respected and with teams of economists and researchers all say the same thing.  Which is that the numbers of jobs saved are VALID, and that  your argument is stupid and wrong.  But no matter how many times it is explained to you, it will make no difference.  Because you have taken on the job of laing out the con troll talking point that jobs saved is not valid.  So, lets consider:
You, oldstyle:
1.  Are a food services employee who does not work with unemployment in any way.
2.  Have no economics background.
3.  Are a con troll, well proven.
4.  Lie continuously.
5.  Have NO sources to back you up and that you have linked to.
So, there is no reason for anyone to believe what you say.  And for that reason, no one does believe what you say.
On the other hand, each of the five sources which you lost the argument to:
1.  Have professional economic teams.
2.  Have Researchers.
3.  Are proudly impartial always.
4.  As a result have respected records for their statements.
5.  Never, ever lie under any circumstances.
6. Have NO agenda.
7.  Provide valid reasons for what they say.
So, there is every reason to believe what these organization say.  And for that reason, all rational people believe what they say.
So, again, you are, technically, FULL OF SHIT.  Found to be pushing con talking points.  Are LYING.   Are a waste of space.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > No, dumb ass...but they are counting those that are working part-time as being "employed". The numbers are being fudged and if you can't see that, then YOU are the ignorant one.
> ...




What a brain dead motherfucker you are....but then again I have yet to meet a leftard that wasn't. When leftards are in charge of something, things can't be any other thing but good and love to wear them rose colored glasses..  This fiat currency has lost 98 percent of it's purchasing power since  that leftist POOS Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. Jobs are hard to come by and what jobs there are don't pay shit....but stupid leftist fucks believe the border should be left wide open. That's why I seldom miss an opportunity to take a piss on them.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It has been explained to you multiple times.  Pray tell, why would anyone want to explain it to you again.  You argued that it was a bad number, but five organizations well respected and with teams of economists and researchers all say the same thing.  Which is that the numbers of jobs saved are VALID, and that  your argument is stupid and wrong.  But no matter how many times it is explained to you, it will make no difference.  Because you have taken on the job of laing out the con troll talking point that jobs saved is not valid.  So, lets consider:
You, oldstyle:
1.  Are a food services employee who does not work with unemployment in any way.
2.  Have no economics background.
3.  Are a con troll, well proven.
4.  Lie continuously.
5.  Have NO sources to back you up and that you have linked to.
So, there is no reason for anyone to believe what you say.  And for that reason, no one does believe what you say.
On the other hand, each of the five sources which you lost the argument to:
1.  Have professional economic teams.
2.  Have Researchers.
3.  Are proudly impartial always.
4.  As a result have respected records for their statements.
5.  Never, ever lie under any circumstances.
6. Have NO agenda.
7.  Provide valid reasons for what they say.
So, there is every reason to believe what these organization say.  And for that reason, all rational people believe what they say.
So, again, you are, technically, FULL OF SHIT.  Found to be pushing con talking points.  Are LYING.   Are a waste of space.[/QUOTE]



Awwwww, "me leftard" seems to be a tad butthurt this mornimgh.....(snicker)


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> What a brain dead motherfucker you are....but then again I have yet to meet a leftard that wasn't. When leftards are in charge of something, things can't be any other thing but good and love to wear them rose colored glasses..  This fiat currency has lost 98 percent of it's purchasing power since  that leftist POOS Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. Jobs are hard to come by and what jobs there are don't pay shit....but stupid leftist fucks believe the border should be left wide open. That's why I seldom miss an opportunity to take a piss on them.



insult, assert, assert, insult, assert, substantiate nothing. Not impressive, not at all.

Btw since Woodrow Wilson, America became worlds top economic superpower. Did you know that?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > What a brain dead motherfucker you are....but then again I have yet to meet a leftard that wasn't. When leftards are in charge of something, things can't be any other thing but good and love to wear them rose colored glasses..  This fiat currency has lost 98 percent of it's purchasing power since  that leftist POOS Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. Jobs are hard to come by and what jobs there are don't pay shit....but stupid leftist fucks believe the border should be left wide open. That's why I seldom miss an opportunity to take a piss on them.
> ...



Because they have a printing press that never stops? The dollar is about to lose it's place as the world's reserve currency and stupid fucks like you are going to be scratching your head trying to figure out what happened....but I am sure you will find someone to blame other than a leftard. There is going to be a huge crash and it could be any day. BTW,your beloved "gubermint" is incorporated.


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Because they have a printing press that never stops? The dollar is about to lose it's place as the world's reserve currency and stupid fucks like you are going to be scratching your head trying to figure out what happened....but I am sure you will find someone to blame other than a leftard. There is going to be a huge crash and it could be any day. BTW,your beloved "gubermint" is incorporated.



Could be any day, could be never, right Dale? You just don't know much of anything to say either way.

Say, were you predicting that in years 2001-2007 too? because in 2008 there actually was a huge crash. So you can go ahead and gloat to us about how you were the smart cookie that totally called it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


 *[/QUOTE]
*
So, the congenital idiot Smith makes a bunch of half baked statements:
What a brain dead motherfucker you are.
*Dale, looking in  a mirror, accurately calling himself a brain dead motherfucker.
*
but then again I have yet to meet a leftard that wasn't. 
*So, Dale has never et a leftard.  Which makes sense, since there is no such thing.  Poor clown.
*
When leftards are in charge of something, things can't be any other thing but good and love to wear them rose colored glasses..
*The poor congenital idiot here simply proved that he can not form a sentence.  He needs a remedial english class, poor clown.
*
This fiat currency has lost 98 percent of it's purchasing power since  that leftist POOS Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.
*And here we get his talking point that he got from one of the delusional nut case heroes of his, and making no logical sense.
*
*J*obs are hard to come by and what jobs there are don't pay shit.
*Here, we have two "thoughts" from poor Dale's clouded mind.  One, that jobs are hard to find.  Though he has not noticed that at 5% jobs are not that hard.  But then, he thinks the ue rate is 600% or something.    Second, he has noticed that the jobs pay in money and not shit, which is a good thing.
*
but stupid leftist fucks believe the border should be left wide open. 
*Here he looses concentration and changes subjects.  He now mistakenly thinks one of our borders, god knows which one, is wide open.  Poor delusional idiot.

*
That's why I seldom miss an opportunity to take a piss on them.  
*And here he shows himself suffering from a delusion about pissing on leftists.  But, of course, he has never done so, or he would have had his ass kicked.  For good reason.

So, there we have it, the delusional mind of a brain dead con troll with no ability to make rational thoughts and post them.  Just another congenital idiot.




*


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Because they have a printing press that never stops? The dollar is about to lose it's place as the world's reserve currency and stupid fucks like you are going to be scratching your head trying to figure out what happened....but I am sure you will find someone to blame other than a leftard. There is going to be a huge crash and it could be any day. BTW,your beloved "gubermint" is incorporated.
> ...




Political parties don't mean shit....both bought and paid for because the American "gubermint" is incorporated. USA.INC has around 185,000 subsidiaries./ How can you not know this???


----------



## AntonToo (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



But yet you do not deny that your dire predictions didn't begin until certain someone got into White House.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Georgie?  Barry?  You always come along to cement what I say.  Using your little childish names based on your juvenile brain to prove you are an agenda driven con troll.
Thanks again for proving you have no class.  No integrity.  Nothing but anger.[/QUOTE]

I point out that you've once again lied when you say that Bush had zero to do with this economic recovery...and your "comeback" rebuttal is that I'm childish for calling you Georgie?  LOL  I call you Georgie...you putz...because you pretend to be something you're obviously not.  Every single time you post here pretending to have a degree in economics you prove that you have no integrity yet here you are spouting off about others not having it?  You're a joke.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...





Awwwww, "me leftard" seems to be a tad butthurt this mornimgh.....(snicker)[/QUOTE]

Rshermr posts in blue because he thinks it makes his arguments more convincing.  The more blue you see...the more bullshit the board's biggest bullshit artist is shoveling!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Wasn't Bush responsible for TARP?

Oh, I'm sorry...I keep forgetting in "Georgie World" Bush gets all of the blame and none of the credit...while Barry gets none of the blame and all of the credit![/QUOTE]
You think tarp was a good thing? It was what the bankers said we must do or else. And that's what you give credit for? That's like crediting the bank robber for the robbery. Omg!

And btw bush wanted to give the money to the banks no strings attached. That's why Elizabeth Warren is so popular. She put an end to that bs


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2016)

antontoo said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > antontoo said:
> ...




LIKE I said earlier....political parties don't matter.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ah yes...the survey of companies receiving ARRA funds!  That would be the survey that the Associated Press did a scathing report on for it's inaccuracies?  "Jobs Saved" is one example of dishonesty by the Obama Administration.  The numbers reported in the ARRA survey is another example of dishonesty by both the Obama Administration and many of the people who received stimulus monies.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


You think tarp was a good thing? It was what the bankers said we must do or else. And that's what you give credit for? That's like crediting the bank robber for the robbery. Omg!

And btw bush wanted to give the money to the banks no strings attached. That's why Elizabeth Warren is so popular. She put an end to that bs[/QUOTE]

The money that Bush "gave" to the banks was paid back with interest.  The money that Obama gave to his pet "green energy" companies and General Motors we're still missing.  Funny how Elizabeth isn't up in arms about THAT!


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


The report said errors would have resulted from complexity of the surveys and not from dishonest reporting, so that is just another lie from a lying con tool like you. It also appears that if anything, the number of saved jobs would have been under-reported in the surveys as they don't include indirect jobs and the surveys themselves were cumbersome to fill.

That's why the CBO double checked the numbers and came up with the range of jobs saved/created that they found.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The CBO double checked the ARRA survey numbers?  When did that take place?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

What happened was some reporters started double checking the ARRA survey numbers and found them to be a complete sham.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What happened was some reporters started double checking the ARRA survey numbers and found them to be a complete sham.


And the food services worker and known liar makes another unsubstantiated claim.  Next.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



If you knew anything at all, which you do not, you would know that the CBO pretty much double checks everything, dipshit.  It is not like washing dishes, so probably too complex for you.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



So show me where they double checked the ARRA survey numbers, Georgie!

As for what "I" know...I know you're posting in blue again...so it's a good bet you're talking out of your ass!


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Here's a report by the CBO where it talks about the surveys under a section titled, *Measuring ARRA’s Impact Using Recipients’ Reports*

You see, ya lying con tool ... this exemplifies what a liar you are.

That you had to ask for this indicates *you've been making shit up all along*. You had no idea that the government surveyed ARRA recipients. You had no idea the CBO reviewed the results from those surveys to double check the numbers. Everything you've said has been complete and utter bullshit (i.e., the very definition of a lying con tool) and you prove it here with your ignorance.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The money that Bush "gave" to the banks was paid back with interest.  The money that Obama gave to his pet "green energy" companies and General Motors we're still missing.  Funny how Elizabeth isn't up in arms about THAT![/QUOTE]

Funny, Oldstyle.  Out and about and lying like a rug.  Where is that link, me boy.  I know you hate those green energy companies.  Your favorite was always drill baby drill.  Because you are a con troll.  How any times have you mentioned Solyndra, me boy.  My guess it was about 1000.  Used to be you Tesla.  But that one worked out. really well, as have many others.    The green car money is doing just fine.  We all know you would rather build more gas powered cars, and help the oil companies.  Best of luck with that idea.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



What, you didn't think I'd read it, Faun?  LOL  Show me where in that report the CBO double checks the ARRA numbers!  You lied the first time and then you tried to bluff your way out of that lie with yet another one!  You've been hanging out with Georgie too much as well!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Funny, Oldstyle.  Out and about and lying like a rug.  Where is that link, me boy.  I know you hate those green energy companies.  Your favorite was always drill baby drill.  Because you are a con troll.  How any times have you mentioned Solyndra, me boy.  My guess it was about 1000.  Used to be you Tesla.  But that one worked out. really well, as have many others.    The green car money is doing just fine.  We all know you would rather build more gas powered cars, and help the oil companies.  Best of luck with that idea.[/QUOTE]

I'm lying?  Really?  So the banks didn't pay back the money they got through TARP under Bush...with interest no less?  So Solyndra did pay back their loans?


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I know you didn't read it. Hell, you didn't even know the survey existed until I informed you.

Remember ...and this is the salient point ... you've been contending all along that the Obama administration just made up their numbers from whole cloth. Not something you could have believed had you known about the survey.

You poor, lying con tool. _<smh>_


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Again,  you make me nervous when you keep talking about my ass.  And fuck off.  I try to do nothing at all for you.  Because I do not like you.
So, you are limited in knowing anything to the fact that I am posting in blue.  Makes sense, and thanks for the admission, stupid shit.  Though I was already certain that you know nothing.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'm lying?  Really?  So the banks didn't pay back the money they got through TARP under Bush...with interest no less?  So Solyndra did pay back their loans?[/QUOTE]
Of course the banks paid their loans back.  But overall the green energy money was paid back also.  So, yes, you were lying.  Which I always assume, anyway.  Some $2.1 Billion will be the net cost, which will be paid back in spades over the years.
Relative to green energy, you mention Solyndra which failed.  But over half of the companies are still going.  and promise jobs and revenues for decades to come.  The fact is, without government stimulus to green energy it would take much, much longer for those technologies to work.  If we listened to conservatives, we would still be riding horses.
So, con trolls have their talking points paid for by energy companies, and as a result can not stand money being spent on new technology.  Back to drill baby drill, and to hell with science.  Just make those oil companies healthy, happy and wise, and rich as hell.  And cons are happy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That is true.  The con troll only sees what the con bosses who write the talking points want him to see.  And he prefers to believe what he is told.  Which works well among the other cons and tea party idiots, all of whom prefer being fed "facts" like a baby bird being fed worms.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I'm lying?  Really?  So the banks didn't pay back the money they got through TARP under Bush...with interest no less?  So Solyndra did pay back their loans?[/QUOTE]

What is really sad is that the small amount not paid back by the auto companies paled in comparison with what we would have lost had GM gone out of business.  While they came short of a complete payback by $12B, other areas of TARP covered that shortfall.  Because you are a con troll, you do not consider GM and Chrysler going out of business a bad thing,  nor the human suffering it would have caused.  What we ended up with was over a million jobs we would have lost had we taken the con rout to ending the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Because conservatives just do not care about the middle class. To a rational mind, that was a real success.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The money that Bush "gave" to the banks was paid back with interest.  The money that Obama gave to his pet "green energy" companies and General Motors we're still missing.  Funny how Elizabeth isn't up in arms about THAT![/QUOTE]

You're such a fool who HAD his head buried in the sand back when Bush was ruining America.  I remember Bush's TARP was NO QUESTIONS ASKED!  Obama and Elizabeth Warren came in and said fuck that you have to pay the money back.  Probably why the bankers aren't as happy with Democrats as they are Republicans.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Funny, Oldstyle.  Out and about and lying like a rug.  Where is that link, me boy.  I know you hate those green energy companies.  Your favorite was always drill baby drill.  Because you are a con troll.  How any times have you mentioned Solyndra, me boy.  My guess it was about 1000.  Used to be you Tesla.  But that one worked out. really well, as have many others.    The green car money is doing just fine.  We all know you would rather build more gas powered cars, and help the oil companies.  Best of luck with that idea.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what kind of person you have to be to be anti green technology.  Fucking dopes.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What is really sad is that the small amount not paid back by the auto companies paled in comparison with what we would have lost had GM gone out of business.  While they came short of a complete payback by $12B, other areas of TARP covered that shortfall.  Because you are a con troll, you do not consider GM and Chrysler going out of business a bad thing,  nor the human suffering it would have caused.  What we ended up with was over a million jobs we would have lost had we taken the con rout to ending the Great Republican Recession of 2008.  Because conservatives just do not care about the middle class. To a rational mind, that was a real success. [/QUOTE]
Cons say they want good paying jobs but that's a lie.  They wanted to destroy the unions and the Big 3 and what kind of good paying jobs are going to replace those great paying jobs?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 15, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I don't know what kind of person you have to be to be anti green technology.  Fucking dopes.[/QUOTE]
Technically, they are called stupid, brainwashed, con trolls.  Like Oldstyle.  They do what is best for the wealthy few who pay their favorite politicians to get them what they want and tell con trolls what to believe.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 15, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Actually it was the OMB in Dec 2009.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Technically, they are called stupid, brainwashed, con trolls.  Like Oldstyle.  They do what is best for the wealthy few who pay their favorite politicians to get them what they want and tell con trolls what to believe. [/QUOTE]
Or they are coal miners.

Do you know how they get away with it? The media isn't really liberal anymore. It only appears to be when it wants to use God gays and guns to divide us but where it matters the media is corporate.

Great example is how little a deal they made out of GOP governor Rick Snyder giving us lead poisoning. If the media stops talking about something Americans stop caring.

I used to worry that they controlled con fools with religion but they control us all with the media. Even you and I talk about what they want to talk about. Immigration, race, gun control, gays, islam, cops,


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Of course the banks paid their loans back.  But overall the green energy money was paid back also.  So, yes, you were lying.  Which I always assume, anyway.  Some $2.1 Billion will be the net cost, which will be paid back in spades over the years.
Relative to green energy, you mention Solyndra which failed.  But over half of the companies are still going.  and promise jobs and revenues for decades to come.  The fact is, without government stimulus to green energy it would take much, much longer for those technologies to work.  If we listened to conservatives, we would still be riding horses.
So, con trolls have their talking points paid for by energy companies, and as a result can not stand money being spent on new technology.  Back to drill baby drill, and to hell with science.  Just make those oil companies healthy, happy and wise, and rich as hell.  And cons are happy.[/QUOTE]

So you admit that all of the loans that Bush made to the banks were repaid with interest and only a little more than half of the green energy are still going?  I'm curious, Georgie...do you think we'll be seeing the money we loaned to the green energy companies that AREN'T still going any time soon?

So the bottom line is that Bush made loans that the US taxpayer didn't get screwed on...Barry not so much?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're such a fool who HAD his head buried in the sand back when Bush was ruining America.  I remember Bush's TARP was NO QUESTIONS ASKED!  Obama and Elizabeth Warren came in and said fuck that you have to pay the money back.  Probably why the bankers aren't as happy with Democrats as they are Republicans.[/QUOTE]

The TARP loans to the banks were set up well in advance of Barack Obama taking office and Pocahontas was still at Harvard.  That deal was made by Bush.  Give him the credit he deserves.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I don't know what kind of person you have to be to be anti green technology.  Fucking dopes.[/QUOTE]

I'm not anti any type of technology, Sealy...what I *AM* anti is getting scammed by companies like Solyndra who took millions in taxpayer money and then declared bankruptcy months later.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So you admit that all of the loans that Bush made to the banks were repaid with interest and only a little more than half of the green energy are still going?  I'm curious, Georgie...do you think we'll be seeing the money we loaned to the green energy companies that AREN'T still going any time soon?

So the bottom line is that Bush made loans that the US taxpayer didn't get screwed on...Barry not so much?[/QUOTE]
Because Obama made them pay it back! Elizabeth Warren baby!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I'm not anti any type of technology, Sealy...what I *AM* anti is getting scammed by companies like Solyndra who took millions in taxpayer money and then declared bankruptcy months later.[/QUOTE]
When you invest in new technology and r&d you don't always return a profit.

In fact, government often invests in things corporations won't because they don't see a roi or profit in it. But as soon as government research figures shit out corporations jump all over it. 

We need to go green but we haven't completely figured out green technology. Sounds like Republicans are against even trying


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> I'm curious, Georgie...do you think we'll be seeing the money we loaned to the green energy companies that AREN'T still going any time soon?


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...m-vilified-by-republicans-turns-a-profit.html

NEW YORK -- The U.S. expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from a federal loan program, bolstering President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.

It’s the first time the Energy Department has released an estimate of the potential gains for the loan guarantee program, designed to back clean-energy projects when venture capital or financing from banks and other investors is unavailable. The department expects a loss rate of about 2 percent on $32.4 billion set aside for loans to spur energy innovation, according to a report today.
The loan program, which opened in 2009, was targeted by Congressional Republicans who charged taxpayer money was wasted on startups including Solyndra, the solar manufacturer that closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million. Jonathan Silver resigned as director in 2011 after repeated congressional inquires.

“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Michael Morosi, an analyst at Brentwood, Tennessee-based Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy, said in an interview. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”

The program’s biggest success story has been Tesla Motors Inc. The Elon Musk-backed electric carmaker paid back its $465 million federal loan nine years early. Abengoa SA, which received a $132.4 million guarantee, opened in October a biofuels plant in Kansas.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Technically, they are called stupid, brainwashed, con trolls.  Like Oldstyle.  They do what is best for the wealthy few who pay their favorite politicians to get them what they want and tell con trolls what to believe. [/QUOTE]
Donald Trump just did what I accuse all Republicans of doing!!! He gave Mike pence credit for the economic recovery Republicans deny happened when they discuss Obama.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Donald Trump just did what I accuse all Republicans of doing!!! He gave Mike pence credit for the economic recovery Republicans deny happened when they discuss Obama.[/QUOTE]
That is the cool thing about being a Republican.  You can cause a major economic catastrophe and then blame the other party for it.  Sad clowns.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Donald Trump just did what I accuse all Republicans of doing!!! He gave Mike pence credit for the economic recovery Republicans deny happened when they discuss Obama.[/QUOTE]
And he brought on a VP candidate who voted for the Iraq war that he criticizes hillary big time for.  Guy makes you head swim.  But then, he is the biggest liar according to fact check, period.  No one else even close.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious, Georgie...do you think we'll be seeing the money we loaned to the green energy companies that AREN'T still going any time soon?
> ...



They "expect" to earn a profit, Ed?  Get back to me when they actually DO make a profit!  Until then it's just another Federal Government agency trying their best to make themselves look like they aren't complete idiots.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


When you invest in new technology and r&d you don't always return a profit.

In fact, government often invests in things corporations won't because they don't see a roi or profit in it. But as soon as government research figures shit out corporations jump all over it.

We need to go green but we haven't completely figured out green technology. Sounds like Republicans are against even trying[/QUOTE]

What did we figure out with Solyndra?  That we should put more emphasis on whether the technology that companies are developing makes sense and less emphasis on how much money the people that run them contribute to political campaigns?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


And he brought on a VP candidate who voted for the Iraq war that he criticizes hillary big time for.  Guy makes you head swim.  But then, he is the biggest liar according to fact check, period.  No one else even close.[/QUOTE]

Speaking of liars...did you and the other liar want to show me that CBO report  you said existed?  Think I forgot about that?  Another day...another Rshermr lie!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> They "expect" to earn a profit, Ed?  *Get back to me when they actually DO make a profit! * Until then it's just another Federal Government agency trying their best to make themselves look like they aren't complete idiots.


LIAR!
The program has already made more in profit than all the losses combined!

Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think

The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to Solyndra.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > They "expect" to earn a profit, Ed?  *Get back to me when they actually DO make a profit! * Until then it's just another Federal Government agency trying their best to make themselves look like they aren't complete idiots.
> ...



Amazing, Ed...according to your source the program turned a "profit" of nearly a billion dollars yet an audit done just months before that was written showed the program still losing 2.2 billion of taxpayer monies.  Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with $2.2 billion tab, audit finds


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


From your own outdated link:

The Energy Department said it considers the loan program a success.

“We believe that the data presented demonstrates that the department’s Loan Programs Office is achieving its statutory mission to accelerate the deployment of innovative clean energy projects and advanced vehicle manufacturing facilities in the U.S., while being a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars,” Peter W. Davidson, executive director of the loan programs, said in an official reply to the GAO.

Mr. Davidson said the expected loss to taxpayers has dropped some $2.28 billion since the initial estimates, and he predicted that *the cost will continue to drop as projects mature and repay their loans.*

But most of that improvement came from one green vehicle loan where the project’s credit rating improved dramatically, *making it far less likely the project would default.* Another green vehicle program, Tesla Motors Inc., has already repaid its loan in full, helping the government’s balance sheet.


----------



## Faun (Jul 16, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Oldstyle is nothing but a monkey; flinging shit, hoping some of it will stick. Invariably, it ends up on him because he's just talking out of his ass to begin with.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



well if you have discovered a flaw in the 2000 year old  conservative /libertarian philosophy why not tell us what it is??


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What did we figure out with Solyndra?  
1.  That Solyndra was not a good deal.  
2,  That Solyndra failed.

That we should put more emphasis on whether the technology that companies are developing makes sense and less emphasis on how much money the people that run them contribute to political campaigns?
What did we figure out with:
*Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.*

Solyndra was a bad bet.  But the latter, along with a number of new energy companies that did well, taught most a lot.  And we have seen how much money the traditional energy companies put in to stopping the green energy companies.  And encouraging idiots like Oldstyle.  But trolls like oldstyle mentions Solyndra every time he gets a chance, because Solyndra failed.  But he never mentions the great success of Tesla.  Why is that, Oldstyle.  Cat have your tongue again, dipshit.
While all of the impartial sources looking at the stimulus spending on green energy are generally positive, all of a hundred or so bat shit crazy con web sites are attacking those efforts.  Because they are financed largely by energy companies who live on carbon based energy sales.  True money in politics.  Which ALL republicans support.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Speaking of liars...did you and the other liar want to show me that CBO report  you said existed?  Think I forgot about that?  Another day...another Rshermr lie![/QUOTE]

Already been proven to you.  that you say it was not is simply you lying, which is normal for you.  And, you have become voiceless on the latest trump turn from hating anyone who supported the Iraq war to bringing a VP on board who did exactly that, voting for and fully supporting W's war on Iraq.  Suddenly, oldstyle has no answer, and has to try another unrelated lie.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Poor Oldstyle.  He well understands that the only sources that mean anything are impartial sources.  So, off he goes to use another bat shit crazy con source, The Washington Times.  Source Watch says:

"The *Washington Times* is a newspaper* owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon'sUnification Church, *through its company News World Communications. The paper was first published on May 17, 1982.

*Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council*
*The Washington Times has been a corporate funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)*.[1] See ALEC Corporations for more.
Washington Times - SourceWatch
And much much more.  Talking about a nut case, Oldstyle sinks so low as to use a Sun Myung Moon rag as a source.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It always amazes me, that after hundreds of threads by left-wingers, complaining about Corporate Welfare, you turn right around and defend the practice.

Which "impartial" sources are you referring to?  I've been following green energy funding for over a decade.  Haven't seen an impartial source yet that was positively viewing the waste of money known as green-energy grants.

770,000 homes that have been weatherized?   You do realize that the weatherization program has been running for 30 plus years?   You do also realize that big corporations with million of shareholders, are the primary beneficiary of this program?

How can you complain about the rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer, and then justify every possible way of taxing the poor, to pay the rich, so you can have a new window at tax payer expense, that saves $20 a year in heating?

See, the reason us "bat sh*1 crazy cons" oppose your programs, is because we actually do the research to see how they work, and not just buy left-wing propaganda that they are wonderful.

When you actually look at how they work, it's not that great.

And doubling energy from Wind and Solar, doesn't matter, if it's not sustainable, and it isn't.  If you doubt that, just end the subsidies for Wind and Solar, and let's see how long they last in a free market.    Of course you and I both know, or at least you should know, that Wind and Solar without subsidies is doomed.    We know this because when the UK merely reduced their subsidies.... without eliminating them, the market for wind and solar crashed.

So if simply reducing the subsidy a little bit will crash the market, clearly eliminating the subsidy would utterly eliminate the market.   Which ironically the Wind power industry has openly said this is so, which is why they spend hundreds of millions every single year, lobbying government officials to keep the tax dollars flowing.

Once again, it's amazing to watch leftists run around complaining about corporate influence on government, and then act like bought and paid for pawns of the corporate interests.

I was reading the story of a solar power corporate CEO.  The article actually showed the CEO in his bran new sports car.    In the middle of the story, they mention that the company has not yet had even a single quarter of actual profit.  They have lost money every single month since the founding of the company.   How do they stay open?   Government subsidies have kept the company in operation, which the CEO's new sports car, is very grateful for your sacrifice.   He couldn't have bought it without your tax dollars.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Poor Rshermr.  He hasn't been able to post an impartial source yet, but claims others should.  Nor can he argue with the evidence given.   He well understands that the only argument that means anything, is one based on the facts, and no empty claims of biased reporting.

When all you can do, is claim the other side is biased, without any evidence the information is wrong....  that just means you don't have an argument.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Gee, Ed...a Federal Government agency says that their program was a success and you think that somehow proves the program WAS a success?  What exactly did you expect Peter W. Davidson, executive director of the loan programs to say...that they blew a ton of taxpayer dollars on loans to  companies that were bad risks...and that those loans were based more on politics than on a sound business plan?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

Faun said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Speaking of "flinging shit", Faun...did you want to show me the CBO report you said existed?  Or did you think you could float that lie and I'd somehow buy it?  Haven't the two of you figured out yet that I actually read the crap you try and pass off as proof?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



When Rshermr has no credible argument...he posts in blue.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 16, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What did we figure out with Solyndra?  That we should put more emphasis on whether the technology that companies are developing makes sense and less emphasis on how much money the people that run them contribute to political campaigns?[/QUOTE]
How about that bush stimulus check bush sent you. I think the 2008 stimulus cost us $152 billion. And still he caused the great recession.

Did you just complain about 2 billion?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Already been proven to you.  that you say it was not is simply you lying, which is normal for you.  And, you have become voiceless on the latest trump turn from hating anyone who supported the Iraq war to bringing a VP on board who did exactly that, voting for and fully supporting W's war on Iraq.  Suddenly, oldstyle has no answer, and has to try another unrelated lie.  Dipshit.[/QUOTE]

The fact that I don't want to be diverted into some other topic than the one this string is about doesn't mean anything except I'm not going to let you off the hook when you've been caught telling yet ANOTHER lie, Georgie!  Show me the CBO report you said existed.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


How about that bush stimulus check bush sent you. I think the 2008 stimulus cost us $152 billion. And still he caused the great recession.

Did you just complain about 2 billion?[/QUOTE]

What's amusing, Sealy is you seem to think the government letting tax payers keep some of their own money is the same as giving tax payer money to politically connected CEO's of "green energy" companies who then turn around and declare bankruptcy.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 16, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> How about that bush stimulus check bush sent you. I think the 2008 stimulus cost us $152 billion. And still he caused the great recession.
> 
> Did you just complain about 2 billion?



Some of it I did.    When you return money to the tax payers, that's not really the kind of stimulus that I oppose.

Now I would be more interested in a tax cut, rather than a one time check.  I don't think those help much.

But giving people back, the money they themselves rightfully earned is not a stimulus, anymore than a thief giving you back the $20 he removed from your wallet is "a stimulus program for victimized citizens".  

The entire concept is bonkers.

It's *MY* money.  You allowing me to keep MY OWN MONEY... .is not a stimulus program.   So, no I don't have as much of a problem with that.

Taking money from me in taxes, and giving it to some idiotic green-energy company.... that I have a problem with.   All these "stimulus programs" seem to ignore how taking money from tax payers, would seem to counter act any possible "stimulus".


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The fact that I don't want to be diverted into some other topic than the one this string is about doesn't mean anything except I'm not going to let you off the hook when you've been caught telling yet ANOTHER lie, Georgie!  Show me the CBO report you said existed.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The fact that I don't want to be diverted into some other topic than the one this string is about doesn't mean anything except I'm not going to let you off the hook when you've been caught telling yet ANOTHER lie, Georgie!  Show me the CBO report you said existed.[/QUOTE]

just the same oldstyle.  Diverting the thread from the subject it is about and saying he does not want things to be diverted. Which proves that he is an idiot.  And a lying con troll.  You prove it once, he lies, says he needs it proven, though it already has.  Lie, repeat, lie, repeat.  
Your turn.  Show me the post I made and why it was wrong.  But you can not, because you are lying again.  And wasting time.    And personal attacks.  But, as usual, Oldstyle is unable to make a rational argument.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What's amusing, Sealy is you seem to think the government letting tax payers keep some of their own money is the same as giving tax payer money to politically connected CEO's of "green energy" companies who then turn around and declare bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

What is amazing is how ignorant you are of the fate of new businesses.  Like all con trolls, Oldstyle falls right in place and criticizes the fact that over 50% of the stimulus businesses, like Solyndra, failed.  But, that is a proven lie.  
So, what % of new businesses fail.  Here, take INC's statement:
"Why 96 Percent of Businesses Fail Within 10 Years"
Why 96 Percent of Businesses Fail Within 10 Years

Then, there was the republican claim that well over 50% of the companies that received stimulus failed.  So, what does factcheck say?
Here is the claim by republicans:
*Fact check: Are half of 'green' energy firms helped by stimulus out of business?*
*Here is the finding by FactCheck.org:*
*"Most of the large projects that benefited from the Department of Energy loan program remain in operation* -- contrary to Romney's assertion that "almost half" of them had closed."
Fact check: Are half of 'green' energy firms helped by stimulus out of business? - CNNPolitics.com

*Over half are still in operation.  So, over 50%.  Way better than 4% per INC.  So, no question that the project has succeeded.  Per scientists, things are going well.  It seems that only con tools are suggesting that the project failed.  Like oldstyle, the food services employee.  Journalists say the stimulus has succeeded, nut case crazy con web sites and a food services employee say it failed. *
*So, Oldstyle lied again.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



just the same oldstyle.  Diverting the thread from the subject it is about and saying he does not want things to be diverted. Which proves that he is an idiot.  And a lying con troll.  You prove it once, he lies, says he needs it proven, though it already has.  Lie, repeat, lie, repeat.  
Your turn.  Show me the post I made and why it was wrong.  But you can not, because you are lying again.  And wasting time.    And personal attacks.  But, as usual, Oldstyle is unable to make a rational argument.[/QUOTE]

Show me the CBO report, Georgie.  Or did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie?
LOL...you can't help yourself...can you?  When you DO get caught...you respond as you always do...by whining about "personal attacks"!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I never post anything with out a credible argument.  That is your style, me lying con troll.  You are the only person that ever posts here with either no source, or a bat shit crazy con source.  Me lying dipshit.
Thing is, you post non credible arguments all the time.  In any color you choose.  And you post personal attacks in any color you choose.  Color is really not an issue, except in your lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]
How about that bush stimulus check bush sent you. I think the 2008 stimulus cost us $152 billion. And still he caused the great recession.

Did you just complain about 2 billion?

Yes, you have it correct.  Con trolls like oldstyle never notice the great republican recession, because it was caused by cons.  And it was ignored by cons.  They simply try to attack Obama, because that is all they are any good at.  Poor un-american trolls.  What they really want is "drill, baby, drill."  Because they believe what they are told to believe, and that includes that Global Warming is not fact.  Because that is what they are told to believe, and they certainly are not going to believe science.  Ignorant clowns.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Show me the CBO report, Georgie.  Or did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie?
LOL...you can't help yourself...can you?  When you DO get caught...you respond as you always do...by whining about "personal attacks"![/QUOTE]
Nothing and no one was caught by anyone.  Period.  I proved what I stated, gave you the link, and still you lie.  It just kills you that I never, ever lie.  Which is why all you can do is make accusations.  No proof because there were no lies, ever.
Apparently you did not notice, but no one believes you any more.  No one, me boy.  It is simply oldstyle playing games again.  And posting lies.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Show me the CBO report, Georgie.  Or did you get caught telling ANOTHER lie?
LOL...you can't help yourself...can you?  When you DO get caught...you respond as you always do...by whining about "personal attacks"![/QUOTE]
It just kills you that I have integrity, and never ever lie.  And you have no integrity, and lie continuously.  Everyone says the same thing when they argue with you.  Everyone.  That you are a LIAR.  Not others.  Just you.   Yet no one but you tries to say others lie.  Just you.  
You have lost the argument, long ago.  
By the way, what cbo report do you have in mind.  I know of many, many cbo reports.  And have shown you many, many cbo reports.  Always proving you to be a liar.  Did I do so again?  Yeah, no doubt.  

By the way, there is no Georgie here  Sorry, but if you are looking for a response try a name that actually exists, instead of playing around in your delusional mind.
You are the clown saying you know so much about economics, but you can not post economic arguments that are true.  Which causes you to loose your arguments, always.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2016)

You're the biggest Georgie on the planet, Rshermr!  You're Blue Georgie!  The guy who posts in blue because he thinks it makes his evasions look less evasive!

What CBO report?  The one that the CBO did on the validity of job creation reports for the ARRA?  The one that you and Faun insisted existed?  Show me the link you provided to THAT, Georgie!  You can't because like your formula for "Jobs Saved"...it doesn't exist!  Another day...another Rshermr lie!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You're the biggest Georgie on the planet, Rshermr!  You're Blue Georgie!  The guy who posts in blue because he thinks it makes his evasions look less evasive!
> 
> What CBO report?  The one that the CBO did on the validity of job creation reports for the ARRA?  The one that you and Faun insisted existed?  Show me the link you provided to THAT, Georgie!  You can't because like your formula for "Jobs Saved"...it doesn't exist!  Another day...another Rshermr lie!



Sorry, me boy.  No blue georgie, no red georgie, no georgie at all here. Just some dipshit named oldstyle trying to play little immature games.  But Oldstyle is a congenital idiot, and no one pays attention to him.

Now, I would be glad to provide the info on the cbo and arra, if you asked for a specific subject.  But there are many cbo reports on the arra employment issues.  I could provide that to you if you would be specific.  But, since you are looking for Georgie, I will keep my eyes open.  And if I find him, which I won't because it is simply part of your delusion, I will tell him you want cbo information.  
Otherwise, I would suggest you look for it where you stuck it.  Up your ass, dipshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You're the biggest Georgie on the planet, Rshermr!  You're Blue Georgie!  The guy who posts in blue because he thinks it makes his evasions look less evasive!
> ...



Ah, yes...more evasions by Rshermr!  How much more "specific" do I have to be?  You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey.  So provide that report.

Or keep on lying...your choice, Blue Georgie!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> What CBO report? The one that the CBO did on the validity of job creation reports for the ARRA?


I already corrected you on this, it is the OMB not the CBO that both defines jobs retained/saved and created as well as tracks them. I have already posted the formula much earlier in this thread. Why are you ignoring it?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ah, yes...more evasions by Rshermr!  How much more "specific" do I have to be?
*What is it you think I am being evasive about?
Are you unable to suggest which of many, many cbo reports you want to discus?
Do you think that we are mind readers and know what subject within  a cbo report you want to discus?*

You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey*. 
Do you know what the ARRA is?
If so, do you really think that an act does a jobs survey?
Are you just trying to prove you are stupid?
You win.   You are indeed stupid.
*
So provide that report.
*Obviously, you are stupid.  Since acts do not make reports, then it should be obvious to those not brain dead that there is no report. Are you brain dead, Oldstyle?
Are you simply lying because you like playing games?*

Blue Georgie?
*No blue georgie here.  So, unless you relent on the name calling and use my name, you loose.  Since Georgie is a figment of your demented mind, there will be no further responses from me.  I do not like your little immature game, and I do not like you.  Dipshit.*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > What CBO report? The one that the CBO did on the validity of job creation reports for the ARRA?
> ...



You're not correcting me...Ed...you're correcting Rshrmr and Faun.  They are the ones who have stated that a CBO report shows that the job estimates for the ARRA are legitimate...I stated that the CBO never provided any report like that!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Wow, out to prove how ignorant you are beyond a shadow of a doubt...aren't you, Rshermr!  For your information, part of the ARRA act included a provision that required people who took money to fill out forms stating how many jobs were created with the money they received.

*"Standard Terms and Conditions: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009; Division A Funds*
*HHS Standard Terms and Conditions*
HHS grant recipients must comply with all terms and conditions outlined in their grant award, including grant policy terms and conditions contained in applicable U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Grant Policy Statements, and requirements imposed by program statutes and regulations and HHS grant administration regulations, as applicable, unless they conflict or are superseded by the following terms and conditions implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requirements below.

In addition to the standard terms and conditions of award, grant recipients receiving funds under Division A of ARRA must abide by the terms and conditions set out below. The terms and conditions below concerning civil rights obligations and disclosure of fraud and misconduct are reminders rather than new requirements, but the other requirements are new and are specifically imposed for awards funded under ARRA. Recipients are responsible for contacting their HHS grant/program managers for any needed clarifications.

*Recipient Reporting*
Reporting and Registration Requirements under Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5

This award requires the grant recipient to complete projects or activities which are funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act”) and to report on use of Recovery Act funds provided through this award. Information from these reports will be made available to the public.

The reports are due no later than ten calendar days after each calendar quarter in which the recipient receives the assistance award funded in whole or in part by the Recovery Act.

Recipients and their first-tier recipients must maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor Registration (www.ccr.gov) at all times during which they have active federal awards funded with Recovery Act funds. A Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number (www.dnb.com ) is one of the requirements for registration in the Central Contractor Registration.

The grant recipient shall report the information described in section 1512(c) using the reporting instructions and data elements that will be provided online at www.FederalReporting.gov and ensure that any information that is pre-filled is corrected or updated as needed."

ARRA Requirements: Grant Recipient Reporting and Disclosure | Policy Researchers & Implementers | HealthIT.gov


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ah, yes...more evasions by Rshermr!  How much more "specific" do I have to be?  You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey.  So provide that report.

Or keep on lying...your choice, Blue Georgie!

Ah, yes...more evasions by Rshermr! How much more "specific" do I have to be?
*What is it you think I am being evasive about?
Are you unable to suggest which of many, many cbo reports you want to discus?
Do you think that we are mind readers and know what subject within a cbo report you want to discus?*

You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey*. 
Do you know what the ARRA is?
If so, do you really think that an act does a jobs survey?
Are you just trying to prove you are stupid?
You win. You are indeed stupid.*

So provide that report.
*Obviously, you are stupid. Since acts do not make reports, then it should be obvious to those not brain dead that there is no report. Are you brain dead, Oldstyle?
Are you simply lying because you like playing games?*

Blue Georgie?
*No blue georgie here. So, unless you relent on the name calling and use my name, you loose. Since Georgie is a figment of your demented mind, there will be no further responses from me. I do not like your little immature game, and I do not like you. Dipshit.*

So, let's see:
1. You think I am being evasive but can not mention what about.
2. It is a CBO report you want a link too but can not tell me what the report is about. 
3. You say the ARRA, which is an ACT, does surveys.
4. You think the CBO grades the survey by an act, though the survey obviously does not exist.
5. You are obviously lying again.
6. You do not choose to use my name, but want my cooperation.
Got it.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot me stupid con troll, but it is for not.  You just posted what we all know, which is that recipients of stimulus money are required to survey the results of that money.  Not the ARRA,  Each of thousands of individual recipients.  
Sorry to deflate your high hopes.  But you are too stupid.
So, Oldstyle, being a congenital idiot, says:
"Wow, out to prove how ignorant you are beyond a shadow of a doubt...aren't you, Rshermr! For your information, part of the ARRA act included a provision that required people who took money to fill out forms stating how many jobs were created with the money they received.  In response to his earlier post:
"You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey."

So, as I have stated, and you appear too stupid to understand, you claimed I had said the cbo had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's Job survey.  Now, pay attention, me boy.  What I just said is that the ARRA is an AGREEMENT  The ARRA can not and does not and is not required to issue a survey.  Get it yet. .  
So, no way for the cbo to issue a report about a ARRA survey because such a survey does not exist.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 17, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Oldstyle is very, very confused.  He first thought that the estimates from the arra came from the arra.  That has been proven not just wrong, but impossible.  Then he tried to conflate it with recipients of the ARRA money and that proved wrong.  Now he has no clue.  We are all waiting breathlessly to see what he tries next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 17, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Thanks a lot me stupid con troll, but it is for not.  You just posted what we all know, which is that recipients of stimulus money are required to survey the results of that money.  Not the ARRA,  Each of thousands of individual recipients.  
Sorry to deflate your high hopes.  But you are too stupid.
So, Oldstyle, being a congenital idiot, says:
"Wow, out to prove how ignorant you are beyond a shadow of a doubt...aren't you, Rshermr! For your information, part of the ARRA act included a provision that required people who took money to fill out forms stating how many jobs were created with the money they received.  In response to his earlier post:
"You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey."

So, as I have stated, and you appear too stupid to understand, you claimed I had said the cbo had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's Job survey.  Now, pay attention, me boy.  What I just said is that the ARRA is an AGREEMENT  The ARRA can not and does not and is not required to issue a survey.  Get it yet. .  
So, no way for the cbo to issue a report about a ARRA survey because such a survey does not exist.  Dipshit.[/QUOTE]

*"Do you know what the ARRA is?
If so, do you really think that an act does a jobs survey?
Are you just trying to prove you are stupid?
You win. You are indeed stupid.
Obviously, you are stupid. Since acts do not make reports, then it should be obvious to those not brain dead that there is no report. Are you brain dead, Oldstyle?
Are you simply lying because you like playing games?"
*

You really don't get tired of telling your bullshit lies, do you Georgie?  You claim the ARRA didnt' require recipients to fill out a report showing how many jobs they created with the money they received...I QUOTE THE ARRA REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT RECIPIENT REPORTING and you're too much of a sleaze to admit that YOU WERE DEAD WRONG!

So what are you doing?  You're right back here shoveling the same bullshit!  First you claim the ARRA is an "act" and that acts don't have reports...then you claim the ARRA is an "AGREEMENT" and doesn't have a required survey! 

At this point why would ANYONE believe a word that comes out of your mouth?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Thanks a lot me stupid con troll, but it is for not.  You just posted what we all know, which is that recipients of stimulus money are required to survey the results of that money.  Not the ARRA,  Each of thousands of individual recipients.  
Sorry to deflate your high hopes.  But you are too stupid.
So, Oldstyle, being a congenital idiot, says:
"Wow, out to prove how ignorant you are beyond a shadow of a doubt...aren't you, Rshermr! For your information, part of the ARRA act included a provision that required people who took money to fill out forms stating how many jobs were created with the money they received.  In response to his earlier post:
"You and Faun both stated that the CBO had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey."

So, as I have stated, and you appear too stupid to understand, you claimed I had said the cbo had issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's Job survey.  Now, pay attention, me boy.  What I just said is that the ARRA is an AGREEMENT  The ARRA can not and does not and is not required to issue a survey.  Get it yet. .  
So, no way for the cbo to issue a report about a ARRA survey because such a survey does not exist.  Dipshit.[/QUOTE]

*"Do you know what the ARRA is?
If so, do you really think that an act does a jobs survey?
Are you just trying to prove you are stupid?
You win. You are indeed stupid.
Obviously, you are stupid. Since acts do not make reports, then it should be obvious to those not brain dead that there is no report. Are you brain dead, Oldstyle?
Are you simply lying because you like playing games?"
Oldstyle, you are playing stupid games.  You just removed half of the post above, leaving only my questions without your statements.  Very bad form, me boy.  And dishonest.
[/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]
*

You really don't get tired of telling your bullshit lies, do you Georgie?  
*First, a personal attack without any proof of your accusation.  And you know I never, ever lie.*

You claim the ARRA didnt' require recipients to fill out a report showing how many jobs they created with the money they received...*That is an outright lie.  I did no such thing, as you know.  What I said was that the ARRA did not produce a survey as you stated it did.  It produces no such survey because it can not.  Dipshit.  *

QUOTE THE ARRA REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANT RECIPIENT REPORTING and you're too much of a sleaze to admit that YOU WERE DEAD WRONG!\
Wow.  Lets see what you said, dipshit.  You are not going to like it, but you stated:
You and Faun both stated that the CBO had *issued a report on the validity of the ARRA's jobs survey.*"
But since there is no ARRA Jobs Report, you are lying.  
And what I said was that there were thousands of recipients of stimulus money that were required to fill out a survey.  But no single survey.  And, your statement that the ARRA's jobs survey was checked for validity is a LIE.  Because there is no ARRA jobs survey.  None at all.   So, no I am not wrong.  You, of course, are wrong.  Because you are trying to say that the thousands of surveys created by recipients of
stimulus money is a survey itself.  Which is simply you lying again.  There is no ARRA jobs survey, never has been, and can not be.   


So what are you doing?  You're right back here shoveling the same bullshit! No bullshit from me.  Just truth.  As I keep saying, there is no ARRA jobs survey.   First you claim the ARRA is an "act" and that acts don't have reports..Actually, me lying con troll, I did say the ARRA is an act.  And no act is capable of producing a survey.  That requires a group of people.  .then you claim the ARRA is an "AGREEMENT" and doesn't have a required survey!  Sort of.  I claimed that the ARRA can not produce a survey, and is not required to do so.  Which is the truth.  
Individual recipients of the stimulus money are required to produce a survey on the outcome of the money they received.  So, several thousand surveys of individual recipients tell nothing except how each recipient did.  We were talkig about the aggregate, not any specific recipient.  Which is obvious.  
So, where are your lies?
1.  ARRA does not produce a survey.  
2.  The ARRA is not required to produce a survey as you indicate it is. 
3.  I did not say the cbo had issued a report on the ARRA jobs survey.  Because there is no ARRA Jobs Survey, and as such nothing for the cbo to report on.  As you can see if you actually read my posts.  You are lying, me boy.

I am not in the habit of suggesting that the cbo has a report out there about something it did not do.  Want to try a little truth, me boy.  Or do you just intend to keep lying.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Not so fact there Slick, they might have confused the CBO with the OMB, letter abbreviations are easily confused, but YOU said there was no formula for saved jobs when there is and I posted the OMB formula for saved jobs for you.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 18, 2016)

Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Would you like to comment on Rshermr's claim that forms were not required detailing how many jobs were created from those who received ARRA money?

Rshermr isn't confused...he's just plain ignorant!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Did you post a formula for Jobs Saved, Ed...or did you post the general guidelines that they were working under when they created those jobs saved numbers out of thin air?  A guess based on an assumption isn't really an economic formula...is it?  Rshermr has claimed for months now that the CBO had an economic formula for determining jobs saved.  Would you care to comment on that?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> *Blacks at 20 percent unemployment.* Black OP proud though.


You worthless lying POS, Black unemployment is 8.6%.
Watch the lying POS move the goalposts next!

Employment Situation Summary

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult women (4.5 percent)
and Whites (4.4 percent) rose in June. The rates for adult men (4.5 percent),
teenagers (16.0 percent), *Blacks (8.6 percent)*, Asians (3.5 percent), and Hispanics
(5.8 percent) showed little or no change.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > *Blacks at 20 percent unemployment.* Black OP proud though.
> ...



I haven't looked at unemployment numbers in quite some time, Ed but for years the unemployment rates for blacks was generally twice that of whites and had remained that way even through the recession and the recovery.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > *Blacks at 20 percent unemployment.* Black OP proud though.
> ...



Oh, thanks for the bull shit govt. stats. I was talking the real stats, you lying POS.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Did you post a formula for Jobs Saved, Ed...or did you post the general guidelines that they were working under when they created those jobs saved numbers out of thin air?  A guess based on an assumption isn't really an economic formula...is it?  Rshermr has claimed for months now that the CBO had an economic formula for determining jobs saved.  Would you care to comment on that?


I posted the OMB formula for jobs saved, as you well know.
Here it is again:

A job retained/saved is defined as *any existing position funded by the Recovery Act* during the previous reporting quarter. *Jobs funded partially with stimulus funds will be counted based on the proportion funded by the Recovery Act.*


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Well they are still about twice that of whites, but they were never 20% under Obama and certainly not 20% now.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Would you like to comment on Rshermr's claim that forms were not required detailing how many jobs were created from those who received ARRA money?
I would like to comment on your lie, me lying con troll.  I did not make any such claim.  I said only the following.  Recipients of the stimulus money were required to produce a survey for their specific company.  You will find that statement, as you know, in post 2693 earlier today, this thread.:  Specifically, I said: * And what I said was that there were thousands of recipients of stimulus money that were required to fill out a survey. But no single survey. And, your statement that the ARRA's jobs survey was checked for validity is a LIE. Because there is no ARRA jobs survey. None at all. *
So, there you go.  Another lie by Oldstyle.  Caught plain as day.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

I already corrected you on this, it is the OMB not the CBO that both defines jobs retained/saved and created as well as tracks them. I have already posted the formula much earlier in this thread. Why are you ignoring it?   [/QUOTE]   [/QUOTE]

You're not correcting me...Ed...you're correcting Rshrmr and Faun.  They are the ones who have stated that a CBO report shows that the job estimates for the ARRA are legitimate...I stated that the CBO never provided any report like that![/QUOTE]
Not so fact there Slick, they might have confused the CBO with the OMB, letter abbreviations are easily confused, but YOU said there was no formula for saved jobs when there is and I posted the OMB formula for saved jobs for you.[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]

Would you like to comment on Rshermr's claim that forms were not required detailing how many jobs were created from those who received ARRA money?
I would like to comment on your lie, me lying con troll.  I did not make any such claim.  I said only the following.  Recipients of the stimulus money were required to produce a survey for their specific company.  You will find that statement, as you know, in post 2693 earlier today, this thread.:  Specifically, I said: * And what I said was that there were thousands of recipients of stimulus money that were required to fill out a survey. But no single survey. And, your statement that the ARRA's jobs survey was checked for validity is a LIE. Because there is no ARRA jobs survey. None at all. *
So, there you go.  Another lie by Oldstyle.  Caught plain as day. The odd thing is that most people do not lie, because they have some level of class.  Which is important to them.  To con trolls, like Oldstyle, class is of no importance at all.  Go figure.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Did you post a formula for Jobs Saved, Ed...or did you post the general guidelines that they were working under when they created those jobs saved numbers out of thin air?  A guess based on an assumption isn't really an economic formula...is it?  Rshermr has claimed for months now that the CBO had an economic formula for determining jobs saved.  Would you care to comment on that?
> ...



With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I showed it to you. Is it my responsibility to make you understand it too?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> I already corrected you on this, it is the OMB not the CBO that both defines jobs retained/saved and created as well as tracks them. I have already posted the formula much earlier in this thread. Why are you ignoring it?


   [/QUOTE]

You're not correcting me...Ed...you're correcting Rshrmr and Faun.  They are the ones who have stated that a CBO report shows that the job estimates for the ARRA are legitimate...I stated that the CBO never provided any report like that![/QUOTE]
Not so fact there Slick, they might have confused the CBO with the OMB, letter abbreviations are easily confused, but YOU said there was no formula for saved jobs when there is and I posted the OMB formula for saved jobs for you.[/QUOTE]    [/QUOTE]

Would you like to comment on Rshermr's claim that forms were not required detailing how many jobs were created from those who received ARRA money?
I would like to comment on your lie, me lying con troll.  I did not make any such claim.  I said only the following.  Recipients of the stimulus money were required to produce a survey for their specific company.  You will find that statement, as you know, in post 2693 earlier today, this thread.:  Specifically, I said: * And what I said was that there were thousands of recipients of stimulus money that were required to fill out a survey. But no single survey. And, your statement that the ARRA's jobs survey was checked for validity is a LIE. Because there is no ARRA jobs survey. None at all. *
So, there you go.  Another lie by Oldstyle.  Caught plain as day. The odd thing is that most people do not lie, because they have some level of class.  Which is important to them.  To con trolls, like Oldstyle, class is of no importance at all.  Go figure.[/QUOTE]

*
Do you know what the ARRA is?
If so, do you really think that an act does a jobs survey?
Are you just trying to prove you are stupid?
You win. You are indeed stupid.*

So provide that report.
*Obviously, you are stupid. Since acts do not make reports, then it should be obvious to those not brain dead that there is no report. Are you brain dead, Oldstyle?
Are you simply lying because you like playing games?
*
That's what you said, Georgie!  You claimed that since the ARRA was an "act" that acts do not make reports so therefore there was no report!  Then I showed you the actual statute from the ARRA regulations that require recipients file a report on how many jobs were created you posted that gibberish about there not being a single survey!  You're so full of shit it's laughable!  "Mr. I Never Lie!"


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.


Why do you lie?

 (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

*8.6%*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You showed me a CBO report validating the ARRA job creation numbers?  Show it to me again, Faun...I dare ya'!


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


That is the "real stats." You have no other except those made up from whole cloth.


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Show it to you again?? Why? You obviously didn't understand it the first time.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Yes it is.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Mostly because as Ed has pointed out the CBO never did such a report.  I didn't "understand" it the first time because it was bullshit and it remains bullshit.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with *verified* numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


No, I only pointed out that the OMB defined and tracked jobs created or saved. I know nothing about what the CBO did or didn't do, I only speculated they might have confused the two.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Apparently they were required to report the numbers quarterly according to the CBO, the OMB and the GAO.

Here is a CBO report for the 3rd quarter of 2009:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/11-30-arra.pdf

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, certain recipients of funds appropriated in ARRA (most grant and loan recipients, contractors, and subcontractors) are required to report the number of jobs they have created or retained with ARRA funding since the law’s enactment in February 2009. The law also requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to comment on that reported number.1


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

You claimed the report I showed you didn't check the recipients' reports *before* Ed chimed in.

Blaming your deficiencies now on Ed is just you lying again. Meanwhile, that report demonstrates exactly what I said it does. Showing ti you again is an exercise in futility since there is nothing to convince me you will understand it a second time when your feeble brain failed you the first time.

Of course, you're always welcome to re-read the report I linked. Not that that will do either of us any good, but it is an option since I'm certainly not wasting any time showing it again to a *lying con tool.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided.  I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Faun and Georgie can't come up with a CBO report on the same because the CBO never did such a report.  Their claims to have provided it are a flat out lie.


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

I showed you a CBO report which estimated the number of jobs gained and/or saved for the previous quarter *based on ARRA* *recipient reports. *

Thar you're too fucking retarded conservative to understand it is not my problem.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.


Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said *the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained.* For example, *Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.
*
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, you saw a report that was bullshit in your food services mind.  Got it.  So, you were lying when you said you did not see it.  Which we know.  
You made accusations, but it is a case of lying again.  Says the proven liar, who is a food services employee with no source proving his statements.  Lets see, with the value of what OS says and a buck you could buy a candy bar.  
You see, Oldstyle, the only bullshit on this board the last couple of days has been yours.  Just you lying, and lying, and lying.
So, Oldstyle, you have proven the point that you are a lier.  You have proven nothing else, because you lie about what people have said.  Then you lie about what the reports say.  Then you lie about what reports were ever done or were possible.  You lie and lie and lie.  Dipshit.  Your biggest malfunction, though far from the only malfunction, is that you think you can establish yourself as a liar and then expect anyone to take you seriously.   Once a liar, always a liar.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof.  Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe.  But what you say is never backed with anything.  Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker.  And worth every bit of ......NOTHING.  So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No backup?  Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed!  You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults.  It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, Oldstyle, still lying, says:
"No backup?  Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! "

No, me poor lying con troll.  You first said there was a report by the acca.  Which there was not.  *So, Lie number 1.  *You then showed that individual reporting recipients were required to produce surveys on their own experience.  Which we all knew.  And which you tried to conflate into a report of the overall effects of ACCA.  *Which it was not.  so, Lie number 2.*
Then you said that I asserted that no such individual surveys that were required did not exist.  I never, ever made such an accusation.  *Which I did not ever say, so Lie number 3.*
You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults.  I never, ever lie, and did not lie here.  But you did.  Saying that I was lying is *Lie number 4.*
It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board
uh, let me suggest that you are a joke.  Personal attacks and lies.  Thanks for proving who and what you are, me food services worker.
While a normal and rational person could not lie in the way that con trolls like Oldstyle does, Oldstyle has no problem at all lying.  He simply does so over and over and over.  Because he has no honor, no integrity of any kind.


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Let's not forget, the lying con tool started with the lie that the Obama administration merely made up the numbers. That was before he was shown how ARRA recipients had to fill out a survey to indicate how many jobs the funds contributed to saving or creating. That was a lie he told after telling another lie that the Obama administration was the first to use the term, _jobs saved_, which he also lied about when he claimed the Obama administration began using that term because their were too few jobs saved and/or created. That was before he was shown they started using that term before ARRA was implemented. 

He basically muddles through from one lie to the next.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Yes, as you know, you provided no backup.  You stated that there was a survey created by the acca.  Your source said no such thing.  It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients.  Just another lie from the king of Liars.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Faun said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Let's not forget, the lying con tool started with the lie that the Obama administration merely made up the numbers. That was before he was shown how ARRA recipients had to fill out a survey to indicate how many jobs the funds contributed to saving or creating. That was a lie he told after telling another lie that the Obama administration was the first to use the term, _jobs saved_, which he also lied about when he claimed the Obama administration began using that term because their were too few jobs saved and/or created. That was before he was shown they started using that term before ARRA was implemented.

He basically muddles through from one lie to the next.

He relies on the fact that no one looks for lies, because they do not lie themselves.  So they can not believe that someone would lie, time after time.  It takes a while to understand that Oldstyle has no problem at all lying.  It is part and parcel of his nonsense.  His lying ways.  
Oldstyle relies on that advantage, that people will not expect lies.  So they will start out believing him.  His problem is that he has developed a reputation as a liar, and is seeing that reputation understood by more and more people.  So, he becomes more and more impertinent.  And trivial.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.
> ...



Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting.  The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence.  To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



So when I provided the actual regulation in the ACCA requiring recipients file reports on how many jobs were created by the ACCA money they were granted...that didn't count as "backup"?  What would...you blathering idiot?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The food services worker is looking at economic reports, he says.  But in reality, he is simply posting con talking points.  But relative to your post, there was a laughingstock.  YOU.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



The subject of what you were attempting to prove with your lies matters.  As you know,  dipshit, you were saying that I had suggested that there was a cbo report about the ACCA report on jobs.  Which you stated.  But which was untrue.  There was no such ACCA report.  You provided proof of recipients surveys.  Those surveys only showed what an individual recipient of stimulus funds stated had occurred as a result of those funds.  Not an ACCA report of overall results.  Because such an ACCA report did not and could not exist.
What would???  Really, nothing, because you lied when you said there was an ACCA report.  All you showed was that individual recipients had made surveys of their own, individual results.  You blathering idiot.  Actually, blathering lying idiot.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to *have made good faith efforts to 
ensure complete and accurate reporting*, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



You really are one of the more CLUELESS people I've ever run across, Georgie!  I asked you for the CBO report that you and Faun insisted existed because I knew that it DIDN'T exist!  

Your claim that there was no ACCA report on jobs created with stimulus funds is obviously false.  I showed you the statute in the ACCA that REQUIRES such a report be filed.

That you are here still trying to argue that report doesn't exist is laughable!

You really can't admit you're wrong...can you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You know what, Georgie?  I'm having some nice give and take with Ed.  He's making valid points.  He's making points that I don't agree with.  I'm making valid points.  I'm making points HE doesn't agree with!  Both of us happen to be backing up our points with economic reports.  The only person that ISN'T doing that is you!  When's the last time you posted something that wasn't either an accusation that I lie...or your usual drivel about "con talking points"?  For all of your whining about "personal attacks" and "talking points'...THAT'S ALL YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAJORITY OF THE THREADS YOU ARE IN!


----------



## Faun (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

I already gave you a link to a CBO report which utilized ARRA recipient reports to calculate the number of jobs saved and created for the previous quarter as well as the title of the section for where to find it in that CBO report.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable.  As for that first quarter?  The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You really are one of the more CLUELESS people I've ever run across, Georgie!  Which is code for more lies coming.  With no doubt at all.
I asked you for the CBO report that you and Faun insisted existed because I knew that it DIDN'T exist!
Actually, all sorts of cbo reports exist.  The fact that you can not enumerate what the report is about is your problem, and no other persons, me lying con troll.

Your claim that there was no ACCA report on jobs created with stimulus funds is obviously false.The acca, as I said, makes no report.    I showed you the statute in the ACCA that REQUIRES such a report be filed.  And you forgot to end your sentence, eh, Oldstyle.  The report is required of companies getting the money from stimulus.  Not from the ACCA itself.  Which is what I said from the beginning.  And have said multiple times.  And which you can not dispute, because it is the truth, and what your source stated, me lying con troll.

That you are here still trying to argue that report doesn't exist is laughable!
That you are here and still trying to argue that a Acca report exists is laughable.  As I have said multiple times.  Here is the deal, me poor lying con troll.  If the report exists, pleas show a report made by the acca (which is an act, dipshit).  There are NO reports made by recipients except that tell you what they believe has been their results, for their company only.  The CBO would never analyze single reports.  So, you are lying again.  And caught again.  

You really can't admit you're wrong...can you?[

1.  Yes I can, if I were wrong I would admit it quickly.
2.  Since there is no ACCA report it is you that is wrong, which you will not admit.
3.  You have been shown this multiple times, and still you come back and lie.  
4.  You are a total game player, and have no earthly value as a human being.
5.  If you actually kew what the ACCA is, you would know that it is not possible for it to issue a report.
6.  That you say that the ACCA does issue a report proves you are either butt stupid, or more likely, simply a liar.
7,  The only reports are individual company summaries.  Made by companies, not the ACCA,  And for only one company in each case, not for all companies

So, the obvious conclusion is easy enough.  You are trying to get people to believe what you want them to believe by lying, and  you get caught doing so time after time.  Then, your routine is to call others names and say you were proving something.  But you are caught, and have been, time after time.  And everyone agrees, you are just a simple con troll liar.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Except the OMB gave a specific example of how the first quarter rules underestimated the jobs and then pointed out how Obama would be attacked because the GAO  recommended changes would give higher job counts, which the GOP did, so the first quarter numbers were not understated the GAO rule change would not have given higher job counts. DUH!

Remember this?
"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "*This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts*."


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 18, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


  [/QUOTE]   One must remember that republicans and other cons simply lie as a matter of course.  Without compunction.  Without any concerns.  And then they will use their lies, which they know are lies, to try to attack you.  So, the thing is, NEVER GIVE A CON TROLL A CHANCE TO BE HONEST AND FAIR.  BECAUSE, LIKE OLDSTYLE, THEY SIMPLY LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL.  JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 19, 2016)

edthecynic said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes they did give several examples of how the first quarter rules *MIGHT* have underestimated jobs at the same time they admitted that the ACCA reporting was so flawed it was reporting jobs that didn't exist or were not created by the stimulus.

As I pointed out earlier, Ed...admitting the obvious doesn't take "braveness"...it's what the OMB was forced to do because of all the stories that were coming out about ACCA reports that were at best badly done and at worst deliberately skewed!  I'm curious...where are you getting the idea that the reports were fixed by the second quarter?  Were they fixed...or did they simply improve a little?  Between you and I, Ed...I'm more of a cynic than you are when it comes to the truthfulness of government when it reports on it's own performance!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


   [/QUOTE]

So, lets try to agree on a little logic, oldstyle.  There is only one organization in the US known broadly as the ACCA.  That is the *Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. * There is no organization related to the stimulus called the ACCA.  Period.  And since it takes actual people to make a report, and any act is incapable of making a report, your reference to an "*ACCA reports*" is nonsense.  BS, me boy.  And you seem incapable of suggesting who made the phantom reports you are referring to.

But you miss the point.  You are just a simpleton food services worker.  We are still waiting to see an example of an "*ACCA report"*, me boy.  But you do not seem capable of finding one.  All you can find is reference to a few  ARRA recipient surveys.  Individual company surveys made by individual recipient companies of their own results.  So, not ACCA reports.   Just surveys reporting on the ARRA recipient organizations.
So, lets look at facts and not Oldstyle talking points:
1.  There are no "ACCA" reports done by an entity called the ACCA.  Unless you like accountants reports.
2.  Oldstyle is a food services employee, with two classes of Econ in his far flung history.
3.  Oldstyle is not an economist, nor does he have any economists working for him.
4.  Being a food services employee, he has no staff of researchers.
5.  Oldstyle only posts concepts that line up EXACTLY with Bat Shit Crazy Con Web Sites and nut case Con sources.  
6.  Apparently Oldstyle can not find impartial sources, though the rest of us find them easily
7.  The facts prove that Oldstyle is a con troll, incapable of rational argument.  Only capable of posting con talking points.
8.  Oldstyle lies continually.

So, at any rate, since you have no impartial sources backing up your statements, why is it you think anyone should care what a food services employee who is a proven liar and can not find a source to back up his drivel?  

What your line of bullshit is all about is you trying to say that the A*RR*A failed to save and create jobs.  But you are up against several organizations that disagree with you, and have:
1. Staffs of employees working for them.
2.  Among those employees are economists and researchers.
3.  Have a solid reputation for honesty and impartiality.
4.  Have research that is available to prove their resulting statements.  

Those are all things that you have NONE of.  Which then requires you to lie like a rug to try to negate the truth that these organizations have, and that you do not.  All you have, me boy, are lies.  Which is why you have no one paying attention to you.

Are you now relying on the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants?  LOL


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



there are no acca reports.  You are living a delusion.  Though the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants does indeed support the ARRA.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 19, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


*Why, Oldstyle, do you think anyone really cares what the *Association of Chartered Certified Accountants *say?*


----------



## Markle (Jul 19, 2016)

Faun said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks at 20 percent unemployment. Black OP proud though.
> ...




White youth unemployment 16-19   14.8%
Black youth unemployment  16-19   30.0%  

E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity


----------



## Markle (Jul 19, 2016)

Does any of you actually read all this garbage?

If so, why?


----------



## Faun (Jul 19, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Why do you lie?

The poster I responded to did not say what you're saying. He said, *"blacks at 20 percent unemployment."*

Nothing about black *"youths."* You added that because his numbers are bullshit.

But your numbers are not bullshit. They are valid figures from the BLS. However, some perspective is glaring .... comparing the numbers you posted with the numbers Obama inherited...

White youth unemployment 16-19   *18.6%*
Black youth unemployment  16-19   *35.3%*

... which were growing due to Bush's Great Recession to *24.8%* and *48.8%* respectively.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 20, 2016)

Markle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well, that is the constant refrain from cons.  That the new minimum wage will kill employment and small businesses.   The fact that it never has, and never does, is of no concern to the con pushing con talking points.  Because that is what you do.  You believe what you are told to believe.  And without any reason, you think someone will believe your drivel, the drivel of a clown with no expertise.  You see, dipshit, being a con troll is not expertise.


Markle said:


> Does any of you actually read all this garbage?
> 
> If so, why?



Your garbage?  NO
Why would anyone care about the drivel of a brain dead con troll?
But you do read the posts.  All of them and make replies to nearly all, replies that are too stupid to consider.  Just to prove you are a congenital idiot.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



You don't know the first thing about business, do you?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Just a ba in Econ.  An MBA.  And over 40  years in the IT industry.  Through sr. vp of sales and marketing of an international corp.  Yeah, a fair amount actually. 
You?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I've met plenty of hack (purported) econ majors, tbh. And I'm guessing your company does not operate on strict margins. Grocery stores, restaurants, etc. cannot pay these astronomical costs; and the ones that can will be passing on major price hikes to consumers.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Here is your problem, dipshit.  I never ever lie.  So shove the purported up your ass.  I worked hard to get where I got to, and some clown saying purported is more than tacky.
But, if you are a person of any integrity of all, which I doubt, put some money down.  Make it enough to be worth the time.  If I can not provide the diplomas, and proof of my past career titles, I loose.  If I can do so, you loose.  Let's see what you have, me poor ignorant clown.
Beyond that, everything you have said is nonsense.  While it is true that at some point any minimum wage can be so high as to cause unemployment and loss of many businesses.  But based on the proposed minimum wage and it's suggested time table, when washed against the real value of prior minimum wages, it should not be a problem.  What it is, me ignorant con troll, is simply against your favorite bat shit crazy con talking points.  Nothing more.
Really, you need to get a clue.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 20, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You don't know the first thing about business, do you?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 20, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



I do. And unlike you, I actually took  economics college classes and learned about the devastating effects of extreme artificial costs. Hell, take the extreme out of it, the technical term is literally waste created from artificial costs.

BTW. Face. You tried to steal my line and I gave you some.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Right.  Says the clown who has no credentials at all.  Really, me boy, you are a simpleton clown, a conservative troll with nothing but con talking points.
If I remember, and I do, it was you that suggested I was lying.  So, put your money where your mouth is, or you can simply admit you are a coward.  No guts, just empty attacks.  
It costs to prove anything, me boy.  It costs for a referee, it costs to put money in escro.  And it would show you had some integrity if you would try to back up your accusations.  But, refusing to simply shows what we all know.  You know you are going to loose money, and you know you will look like a fool.  Unless you are correct.  Really, you are such a small time tiny minded clown.

And, me boy, despite your best efforts at personal attacks, you are out of your comfort zone.  I can prove what I say.  You can not.  All you can do is rely on totally agenda driven bat shit crazy sources.  Because no impartial sources will back you up.  
Consider:
"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, *more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."*"
Minimum Wage Mythbusters

Damn.  so, over 600 economists say the new minimum wage law is a good idea.  You say it is not.  So, 600 economists, to one con troll with absolutely no credentials.  That is 600 to zero.  You did not just loose, you were just destroyed.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Dude, you're on a message board; not a college symposium. Nobody here has "credentials," jackass. As it is, you are a sh** economist if you think you're one. You ignore the most basic of concepts while spouting wild erroneous ideas as if they were absolute truth (which is really not what non-hack economists do). 

And tell AYSO is costs (money) for their volunteer referees lmao: You're such a tool). Again though, I'm not at all interested in your stupid little scam. I don't care about getting a PDF  of someone else's economics degree (along with a virus). And if you weren't such a poor excuse for an economist, you wouldn't be worried about that sh**. Really, you're just some phony ass peddler. And in the event that you did get a degree, you're a fucking disgrace to the discipline.

Citing numbers of libtard infiltrators doesn't mean a thing, dude. You know what their economics are? Get as much money from the government to publish sh** like that. It's a glorified crime syndicate. That's basic fucking economics. This sh** goes right over your peabrain fucking head, you mother fucking country nugget.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.
Right.  Says the clown who has no credentials at all.  Really, me boy, you are a simpleton clown, a conservative troll with nothing but con talking points.
If I remember, and I do, it was you that suggested I was lying about my background.  So, put your money where your mouth is, or you can simply admit you are a coward.  No guts, just empty attacks.  Only really, really small and unimportant people who are jealous of others make personal attacks against those others.  
It costs to prove anything, me boy.  It costs for a referee, typically a financial institution.  it costs to put money in escrow.  And it would show you had some integrity if you would try to back up your accusations.  But, refusing simply shows what we all know.  You know you are going to loose money, and you know you will look like a fool.  Unless you are correct.  Really, you are such a small time tiny minded clown.

And, me boy, despite your best efforts at personal attacks, you are out of your comfort zone.  I can prove what I say.  You can not.  All you can do is rely on totally agenda driven bat shit crazy sources.  Because no impartial sources will back you up.  
Consider:
"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, *more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."*"
Minimum Wage Mythbusters
Damn.  so, over 600 economists say the new minimum wage law is a good idea.  You say it is not.  So, 600 economists, to one con troll with absolutely no credentials.  That is 600 to zero.  You did not just loose, you were just destroyed.  [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Dude, you're on a message board; not a college symposium. Nobody here has "credentials," jackass. Sorry, many do not (like you) but some do.  You have econ professors, and people with lots of business background.  Just because you have no credentials does not mean that others do not. As it is, you are a sh** economist if you think you're one. You ignore the most basic of concepts while spouting wild erroneous ideas as if they were absolute truth (which is really not what non-hack economists do).Or, if I interpret your little rant, what you are saying is that you hate it when I explain economics with expert proof of what I say.  Because you as a troll want to simply state con talking points.  Because even the small amount of searching for the truth is against your intent to simply post talking points.  Got it.  All that proves is that you are a simple minded con troll.  Which is normal for con trolls.  Cons in general prefer to have someone tell them what to believe. It is the way they want to get what they can then choose to believe.  While rational people hate that concept, cons love it.  It makes things so much easier, eh, dipshit.   No research of any kind needed.  No pesky hours of research.  Just believe what you are told.  Then, pretend you are knowledgeable and spout your con talking points.  

And tell AYSO is costs (money) for their volunteer referees lmao: You're such a tool)  Well, at least you admit it is your arrogant opinion.  Because, as a simpleton con troll, it could not be IMHO. Again though, I'm not at all interested in your stupid little scam. So, you call naming someone a liar honorable?  And proving that I never lie a scam?  Really, dipshit.   You are the tool here.  I don't care about getting a PDF  of someone else's economics degree (along with a virus). And if you weren't such a poor excuse for an economist, Really, me poor ignorant con.  Getting a ba in economics does not make me an economist.  There are economists on this board, but they are not me.  And, importantly, I never in my life claimed to be an economist.  And you are lying when you say I did.  dipshit.  And it takes no PDF copy of anything to prove a college degree.  You simply call the registrar's office, ask a few questions, and they will send  you an actual photo copy of the diploma.  And you are welcome for another little bit of education, me ignorant con troll.   you wouldn't be worried about that sh**. Really, you're just some phony ass peddler. And in the event that you did get a degree, you're a fucking disgrace to the discipline.  Funny.  You are providing the opinion you have to be that of a person who is angry at the world because you have no background that you can lean on.  You have not done the work.  You are just a simple minded con troll cutting and pasting con talking points with nothing to back you up,  Funny, but not serious.

Citing numbers of libtard infiltrators doesn't mean a thing, dude. Really, me boy, you are making a spectacle of yourself.  Calling impartial sources names means nothing.  Because you are a complete nothing yourself.   You know what their economics are? Get as much money from the government to publish sh** like that. Right, me simpleton con troll.  They spend years of effort to get advanced degrees in Economics, and some clown with no credentials and who does not know anything about economics makes ignorant comments about their expertise.  Because he is jealous of them, since he has done nothing but absorb con talking points.  And is himself nothing at all, just a lying con troll.  It's a glorified crime syndicate. That's basic fucking economics. This sh** goes right over your peabrain fucking head, you mother fucking country nugget. And as a con troll with no background or expert knowledge, you think that your opinion of people, and your base stupidity in calling people names and performing personal attacks means something.  No one cares, me boy.  You are a nothing, just capable of personal attacks, posting unsubstantiated personal attacks, and posting talking points and other drivel.  No one believes you, me boy.  You are just a joke, attacking with ignorance as hard as you can.  Sad.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Now you're letting "reality" get in the way of the liberal agenda, Gatsby!  People with zero jobs skills cost businesses big bucks to train.  They literally are a drain on the business until they learn those skills.  Liberals think a $15 an hour minimum wage will help poor people when in reality it will make things far worse because it means at that amount of money you're only going to hire those who already HAVE the skills needed to do the job.  You'll be eliminating many of the entry level jobs that are the first step for the young to be a part of the work force.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You gotta love, Rshermr!  He claims to have taught economics at the college level while he was an undergrad...yet he didn't have a clue what I was referring to when I asked him what school of economics he was basing his claim on!  The poser thought I was talking about a brick and mortar college!  I know so much more about economics than he does from taking two entry level Econ classes forty years ago that it's laughable!  Try to get him to post you something related to economics in his own words and watch the gibberish that he'll come up with!  It's hilarious.  He's got a degree in Economics like I'm a brain surgeon.

I refer to him as Georgie...short for George Costanza...because he is the board's biggest liar.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.
> Right.  Says the clown who has no credentials at all.  Really, me boy, you are a simpleton clown, a conservative troll with nothing but con talking points.
> If I remember, and I do, it was you that suggested I was lying about my background.  So, put your money where your mouth is, or you can simply admit you are a coward.  No guts, just empty attacks.  Only really, really small and unimportant people who are jealous of others make personal attacks against those others.
> It costs to prove anything, me boy.  It costs for a referee, typically a financial institution.  it costs to put money in escrow.  And it would show you had some integrity if you would try to back up your accusations.  But, refusing simply shows what we all know.  You know you are going to loose money, and you know you will look like a fool.  Unless you are correct.  Really, you are such a small time tiny minded clown.
> ...



Bla bla, dude. This thread is not about your sorry ass despite what you want to think, you stupid bloviating narcissist.

And the funny thing is what set you off (among other things) was the accurate use of the word purported. You can't handle that people don't just accept your phony sense of superiority


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.
> ...


When Georgie starts posting in blue...you know that he's in over his head and is REALLY going to start shoveling the Grade A manure!  He'll give you his usual blather about "con web sites" and "personal attacks"...all the while USING liberal web sites and nothing but personal attacks!  It's how he rolls here...

Keep after him and see if you can get him to post something about economics that's coming from him...and not a cut and paste from some site.  You want to talk about someone embarrassing themselves?  Watching Rshermr try to sound "in the know" about economics is farce of the first order!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


So, the con troll who has no backing for his statements makes an economic projection.  But, being a food services worker kind  of eliminates anyone believing what he has to say.  Poor clown.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to prove that I have ever in my life lied on this board.  Because you can not.  Now you, on the other hand, have been caught red handed many times.  Want proof, me boy.  Want to tell people how you said I had not known what you were talking about when you said Chicago School?  Remember, you said it over 20 times.  But it was untrue, and I proved you had never used the term at all, until you made that lying claim.  I can go on, but suffice it to say that I never ever lie.  Never.  And I can show several times when Oldstyle has.  Because he simply lies to get out of lies.

So, what have we this time from the food services worker and self proclaimed econ expert.  Nothing but a bunch of lies.  And a bunch of personal attacks.  I once counted the number of OS posts that I responded to and counted the number of times he touched on the subject of the thread, and the number of times he discussed any economics subject.  In both cases, it was a round number.  Zero.  Entirely personal attacks.   Filled with lies.  Cmon, oldstyle, you said how great you are at discussing econ, how much you know, and how little I know.  Want to get crushed again?  Perhaps you would like to talk about the ARRA, or the *ACCA* as you called it in post after post.  That is the *Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.*  Which Oldstyle kept referencing over and over and over, showing his vast knowledge of economics.  Or, better said, why he is simply a food services worker.
Here is one of Oldstyle's epic posts:
So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the *ACCA* that they did so with *verified* numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?
That was post 2615 this past monday in this thread.  Perhaps Oldstyle would like to regale us with more stories about theACCA.  Not sure why, your not a certified accountant even.  And there are several more of those ACCA posts by oldstyle.  Sure looks like an econ expert to me.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > It's purported. Deal with it. And look at you trying to gain money on this. If this is a point of pride, you would offer to prove it straight up. As it is, I don't care about your scam. And you spazzing doesn't prove you know sh**, tbh. You're the troll telling us that doubling wages has no negative economic impact. What a load of utter horse shit. You are a hack and a half.
> ...



If you REALLY get under Georgie's skin...he'll accuse you of being a "dishwasher" or something equally "low class"!  It hasn't dawned on Rshermr that getting your ass handed to you in a debate by someone who actually WAS a dishwasher would be infinitely more embarrassing then having it done by someone with a couple of real (as opposed to make believe!) college degrees!

What's amusing is he actually seems to have been able to convince HIMSELF that he's not an idiot by cut and pasting other people's intelligent arguments!  If and when he does try to talk about economics off the top of his head...he's so clueless it's almost painful to watch.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You know what's sad, Georgie?  You think my calling the ARRA the ACCA in a couple posts means something!  Of course you ignore the nine other posts that came before those where I correctly referred to it as the ARRA.  All done when I was repeatedly asking you to admit that you're full of it when you said the ARRA didn't require reports from it's recipients.  The fact is...if you'd show some integrity and admit when you were wrong about something...people like me wouldn't have to ask the same questions over and over again while you do your shuck and jive routine.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

So, oldstyle making more personal attacks and a few more lies.  But surprise, no discussion of the thread or economics.  Funny.
Keep after him and see if you can get him to post something about economics that's coming from him...and not a cut and paste from some site.  You want to talk about someone embarrassing themselves?  Watching Rshermr try to sound "in the know" about economics is farce of the first order![/QUOTE]
Right.  Says the food services worker who lies all the time, and thinks the ACCA is lying. It is really hard to imagine anyone looking more foolish than you posting about the ACCA.   Are you really serious, or are you simply trying to prove you are stupid.  You lie about me a bunch of times and complain about the color of the type.  Really stupid, me boy.  Sorry, but to my memory I never typed the word purported.  Lets check that out.  Turns out that the word Purported was not brought up by me,  I did respond to Gatsby who had used it.  It was, me boy, said by Gatsby, a couple times.  Through yesterday, for instance.  
Really, oldstyle, you lie too much.  Let me know if you want me to prove that for you also.  Easy, me boy.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Who is a dish washer? But I met dish washers working their way through college who were quite intelligent unlike Rshermr.

But isn't it funny how this guy uses such a blue collar job as derogatory term even as he is trying to argue for doubling their wages. Does that begin to make sense? Nay. It shows how the left uses the lower class as cogs for votes. He wants the Dems to appear heroic giving these raises; and then when people can't find jobs he will invariably blame "cons".


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That is four straight posts with no economic arguments.  Nic.e


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> That is four straight posts with no economic arguments.  Nice.



Who cares. You're a hack and a charlatan.



> But isn't it funny how this guy uses such a blue collar job (dishwasher) as derogatory term even as he is trying to argue for doubling their wages. Does that begin to make sense? Nay. It shows how the left uses the lower class as cogs for votes. He wants the Dems to appear heroic giving these raises; and then when people can't find jobs he will invariably blame "cons".


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I ran nightclubs for three decades...like the largest club in Boston...but Georgie thinks because I told him I was in the Hospitality Industry that makes me a "dishwasher".  It's his usual tact when he's losing an argument.

You'll find that Rshermr will constantly demand that you talk "economic issues" yet when you do and he has no comeback to what you point out...he will label you as a "bat shit crazy con" who spouts "talking points"...and then spam a bunch of left wing garbage that I don't think he has a clue as to what it really means!  Ask him what will happen to the wage structure of other workers if those at an entry level get $15 an hour?  Ask him how it accomplishes anything if everyone gets a pay bump which would of course mean that labor cost would have to be passed along to consumers in the form of price hikes?  He won't have a reply for either.

I understand pay scales because I've actually run large businesses where I had to determine what wages will attract the best employees...keep them long enough to justify the cost of training them...and still make a profit.  Rshermr doesn't have the faintest idea how any of those things work.  I don't have the faintest idea what he really did for a living...but I'm pretty sure he never was in charge of anything.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Funny thing is that Oldstyle has proudly corrected me saying that in fact he is not a dishwasher, so I have honored that. Truth is, if you can believe anything he says, OS is a food services worker.  So,  there is no dishonor in that at all, me poor ignorant con.  Truth is, however, that there is no reason to expect that a food services worker should be believed in economic matters.  Same for me.  I have a degree in economics, but I am not an economist.  I do not study the subject all day long.  Get it.  So, I see no reason anyone should believe my statements in the realm of economics.  And certainly you should not believe a food services worker.  
Why do I mention it?  Even you should understand.  Making unsubstantiated claims by either of us is treating anyone reading the posts unfairly.  So, I always use impartial sources to prove my points.  Problem is, Oldstyle seldom if ever uses impartial sources.  There, me con troll, is the problem as I see it.  Prove your statements or shut up.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


I ran nightclubs for three decades...like the largest club in Boston...but Georgie thinks because I told him I was in the Hospitality Industry that makes me a "dishwasher".  It's his usual tact when he's losing an argument.

You'll find that Rshermr will constantly demand that you talk "economic issues" yet when you do and he has no comeback to what you point out...he will label you as a "bat shit crazy con" who spouts "talking points"...and then spam a bunch of left wing garbage that I don't think he has a clue as to what it really means!  Ask him what will happen to the wage structure of other workers if those at an entry level get $15 an hour?  Ask him how it accomplishes anything if everyone gets a pay bump which would of course mean that labor cost would have to be passed along to consumers in the form of price hikes?  He won't have a reply for either.

I understand pay scales because I've actually run large businesses where I had to determine what wages will attract the best employees...keep them long enough to justify the cost of training them...and still make a profit.  Rshermr doesn't have the faintest idea how any of those things work.  I don't have the faintest idea what he really did for a living...but I'm pretty sure he never was in charge of anything.

Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy.  You know how much I respect your opinion.  Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one.  Will be no problem to prove you wrong.  Glad you are proud of yourself.  Now, if you could just cut down on the lies.  The people who worked for me were all college grads.  IT professionals.  And no problem to prove it.  Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well.  I could work with  you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book. 

So, no discussion of the  subject of the thread, and no discussion of economics.  Just a bunch of personal attacks.  Your record in the past month is 25 straight without economic discussion.  But then, who knows how far it went.  I just quit counting.
So, Five Straight posts with no discussion of economics, just personal attacks, me boy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 21, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > That is four straight posts with no economic arguments.  Nice.
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 21, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!  I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce. 

As for a discussion of economics?  When do you EVER do that?  I just gave you a challenge to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?  The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Well, whether you study econ regularly or not (or are practiced in it), you still suck at it, tbh (and that's pretty apparent). But suddenly, you say you're not so talented in the field, yet you were trying to play the credential card some odd posts ago. Honestly, you're as nutty as  squirrel sh**. 

As to your "impartial sources," they're not impartial. Every entity has agendas. And in fact, many of the entities you cite have huge agendas. I would trust independent economists over most the stuff you post.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Man, you just have a hard time making cogent points let alone putting forth solid economics. I suggest you stop trying to be an expert or a mindless purveyor of sorts and start actually trying to understand real economic concepts and systems.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Especially if he's going to pretend to be something that he OBVIOUSLY isn't!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Rshermr plays this little game...he presents himself as someone who is supposedly educated...yet then he'll blame his lack of writing skills on his secretary not proofing his correspondence or his lack of knowledge of economics on how long it's been since he got his degree.  It's basically him declaring himself educated and then making excuse after excuse for why he can't back up that claim with intelligent posts.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy.  You know how much I respect your opinion.  Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one.  Will be no problem to prove you wrong.  Glad you are proud of yourself.  Now, if you could just cut down on the lies.  The people who worked for me were all college grads.  IT professionals.  And no problem to prove it.  Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well.  I could work with  you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book. 

So, no discussion of the  subject of the thread, and no discussion of economics.  Just a bunch of personal attacks.  Your record in the past month is 25 straight without economic discussion.  But then, who knows how far it went.  I just quit counting.
So, Five Straight posts with no discussion of economics, just personal attacks, me boy.  [/QUOTE]



At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!  I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

As for a discussion of economics?  When do you EVER do that?  I just gave you a challenge to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?  The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.[/QUOTE]
So, oldstyle starts his posts with lies, personal attacks, and juvinile name calling:

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie! 
*1.  As you well know, my name is not Georgie.  I could return fire and call you some tv personality, but I have enough class not to resort to immature name calling.  Sorry you have none.
2.  I did not suggest I was a hot shot anything, me boy.  That is your interpretation.  I was a corporate employee who worked hard and moved up the ranks a ways.  Over a 4o year period.  Nothing more.  Are you simply unhappy with your economic position?*

*3.  Uh, where you got the idea that I had scores of college graduates working for me is interesting.  Not my claim.  that would be you trying another avenue at a personal attack.  
*
I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

*1. No, you are not sorry.  And you are simply posting another mindless angry attack.  You have always loved making the personal attacks.  But then, you prove yourself to be what you are.  An attack dog.  With about that much ability to argue any point.  Funny that my grammar was plenty good for CEO's and others at major corporations, and good enough to get passed the professors for my Masters documents that I created.  So, no me poor food services employee.  Your criticism is just plain empty.

2.  And your delusion that you can or have ever won any economic argument with me is funny.  You are truly delusional.

3.  All I ever paste is expert opinion, from rational and impartial sources.  I know that is hard for you to understand.  But that is because you have the delusional belief that anyone can or should believe anything a food services employee and con troll posts without expert support.  Especially since all you ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.*

As for a discussion of economics?  When do you EVER do that? 

*1,  Ah, another personal attack.  How surprising.

2.  Often, when not responding to drivel like this, me boy.

3.  Look around and discover that there are a number of threads where I am doing exactly that.  Though with con trolls like you making nothing but personal attacks, it is a challenge.

*
The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

*1.  And another personal attack.  

2.  what a surprise.  Oldstyle just made a post with a bit of economic content, wrapped in 90% personal attacks, name calling, and lies. Normal for Oldstyle.
*

I just gave you a challenge* 
1.  So you are looking for education?  

2. Sorry I missed your "challenge".  

3.Truth is it is no challenge at all.

*
to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour

History of Minimum Wage increases show that it is completely dependent on factors such as what type of business you are talking about, what the economic situation is, how the wage increase is rolled out over time.  

1.  In my business type, it would have had NO impact.  Everyone made something more than minimum wage, so no affect at all.  In other cases, history shows that few changes would occur to the average business.  Even in the case of a hamburger stand, past shows some small initial loss of jobs, but longer term, say a couple years down the road, simply higher pay overall.  

2l  Of all the Minimum Wage Increases, about 90% showed no short term impact or long term impact on employment.

3. The long term has shown, historically, continued increases in pay and no impact on employment.

4.  In the short and long term pay increases mostly at low pay rates, but overall increases are noticeable in nearly all cases.

5.  the impact on GNP is measureable, but small.  And that impact is beneficial.  In other words, GNP increases.
*

*or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers 

*1.  So, that is a silly question.  Of course any business who is in business to make a profit will indeed pass thouse costs it can on to customers.

2.  To the extent that a company has a high profit margin, more of the wage increase will be absorbed.

3.  So, depends on company type and profits and state of that companies economy.

4.  Depends greatly on the elasticity of demand for that companies products.*

and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics? 
*
And another personal attack.  No, me boy, ignored nothing.  And it has been my pleasure to address your questions.  I whined about nothing, me lying con troll.  I never whine.  But then, the fact that you so seldom get even close to an economic question is an issue.  This is, should you care to notice, an economics thread.
*


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



*And more personal attacks.  I do not make excuses, me boy.  And again, your posting personal attacks simply proves what and whom you are. *


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



As for you accusations, I find them funny.  All you do is make accusations and personal attacks.  Nothing else.  Did you think that personal attacks and lies are economic arguments.  does stupid hurt?

Here is your malfunction, dipshit.  You think that con talking points are impartial sources.  And you have no ability to think.  Thanks for proving the fact.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy.  You know how much I respect your opinion.  Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one.  Will be no problem to prove you wrong.  Glad you are proud of yourself.  Now, if you could just cut down on the lies.  The people who worked for me were all college grads.  IT professionals.  And no problem to prove it.  Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well.  I could work with  you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book.
> 
> So, no discussion of the  subject of the thread, and no discussion of economics.  Just a bunch of personal attacks.  Your record in the past month is 25 straight without economic discussion.  But then, who knows how far it went.  I just quit counting.
> So, Five Straight posts with no discussion of economics, just personal attacks, me boy.





At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!  I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

As for a discussion of economics?  When do you EVER do that?  I just gave you a challenge to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?  The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.[/QUOTE]
So, oldstyle starts his posts with lies, personal attacks, and juvinile name calling:

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!
*1.  As you well know, my name is not Georgie.  I could return fire and call you some tv personality, but I have enough class not to resort to immature name calling.  Sorry you have none.
2.  I did not suggest I was a hot shot anything, me boy.  That is your interpretation.  I was a corporate employee who worked hard and moved up the ranks a ways.  Over a 4o year period.  Nothing more.  Are you simply unhappy with your economic position?*

*3.  Uh, where you got the idea that I had scores of college graduates working for me is interesting.  Not my claim.  that would be you trying another avenue at a personal attack.  
*
I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

*1. No, you are not sorry.  And you are simply posting another mindless angry attack.  You have always loved making the personal attacks.  But then, you prove yourself to be what you are.  An attack dog.  With about that much ability to argue any point.  Funny that my grammar was plenty good for CEO's and others at major corporations, and good enough to get passed the professors for my Masters documents that I created.  So, no me poor food services employee.  Your criticism is just plain empty.

2.  And your delusion that you can or have ever won any economic argument with me is funny.  You are truly delusional.

3.  All I ever paste is expert opinion, from rational and impartial sources.  I know that is hard for you to understand.  But that is because you have the delusional belief that anyone can or should believe anything a food services employee and con troll posts without expert support.  Especially since all you ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.*

As for a discussion of economics?  When do you EVER do that?

*1,  Ah, another personal attack.  How surprising.

2.  Often, when not responding to drivel like this, me boy.

3.  Look around and discover that there are a number of threads where I am doing exactly that.  Though with con trolls like you making nothing but personal attacks, it is a challenge.

*
The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

*1.  And another personal attack.  

2.  what a surprise.  Oldstyle just made a post with a bit of economic content, wrapped in 90% personal attacks, name calling, and lies. Normal for Oldstyle.
*

I just gave you a challenge* 
1.  So you are looking for education?  

2. Sorry I missed your "challenge".  

3.Truth is it is no challenge at all.

*
to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour

History of Minimum Wage increases show that it is completely dependent on factors such as what type of business you are talking about, what the economic situation is, how the wage increase is rolled out over time. 

1.  In my business type, it would have had NO impact.  Everyone made something more than minimum wage, so no affect at all.  In other cases, history shows that few changes would occur to the average business.  Even in the case of a hamburger stand, past shows some small initial loss of jobs, but longer term, say a couple years down the road, simply higher pay overall. 

2l  Of all the Minimum Wage Increases, about 90% showed no short term impact or long term impact on employment.

3. The long term has shown, historically, continued increases in pay and no impact on employment.

4.  In the short and long term pay increases mostly at low pay rates, but overall increases are noticeable in nearly all cases.

5.  the impact on GNP is measureable, but small.  And that impact is beneficial.  In other words, GNP increases.
*
*
or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers

*1.  So, that is a silly question.  Of course any business who is in business to make a profit will indeed pass thouse costs it can on to customers.

2.  To the extent that a company has a high profit margin, more of the wage increase will be absorbed.

3.  So, depends on company type and profits and state of that companies economy.

4.  Depends greatly on the elasticity of demand for that companies products.*

and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?
*
And another personal attack.  No, me boy, ignored nothing.  And it has been my pleasure to address your questions.  I whined about nothing, me lying con troll.  I never whine.  But then, the fact that you so seldom get even close to an economic question is an issue.  This is, should you care to notice, an economics thread.
*

[/QUOTE]

So your expectation is that an almost doubling of the minimum wage will simply be "absorbed" by companies because of their high profit margins?  What companies would fall under that category, Georgie?  

As for your claim that 90% of all minimum wage increases showed no short or long term impact on employment?  How many of those increases were small in size?  Would you care to show an increase of the size you advocate NOW that had no short or long term impact on employment?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Wow.  and I was expecting an economic argument.
Jesus, Oldstyle.  Do you ever stop lying.  Nah.  Of course not.  For the past four years, nothing but lies.  Lie after lie after lie.  You really could care less.  Which makes you a complete joke.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy.  You know how much I respect your opinion.  Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one.  Will be no problem to prove you wrong.  Glad you are proud of yourself.  Now, if you could just cut down on the lies.  The people who worked for me were all college grads.  IT professionals.  And no problem to prove it.  Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well.  I could work with  you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book.
> ...


So, oldstyle starts his posts with lies, personal attacks, and juvinile name calling:

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!
*1.  As you well know, my name is not Georgie.  I could return fire and call you some tv personality, but I have enough class not to resort to immature name calling.  Sorry you have none.
2.  I did not suggest I was a hot shot anything, me boy.  That is your interpretation.  I was a corporate employee who worked hard and moved up the ranks a ways.  Over a 4o year period.  Nothing more.  Are you simply unhappy with your economic position?*

*3.  Uh, where you got the idea that I had scores of college graduates working for me is interesting.  Not my claim.  that would be you trying another avenue at a personal attack.  
*
I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

*1. No, you are not sorry.  And you are simply posting another mindless angry attack.  You have always loved making the personal attacks.  But then, you prove yourself to be what you are.  An attack dog.  With about that much ability to argue any point.  Funny that my grammar was plenty good for CEO's and others at major corporations, and good enough to get passed the professors for my Masters documents that I created.  So, no me poor food services employee.  Your criticism is just plain empty.

2.  And your delusion that you can or have ever won any economic argument with me is funny.  You are truly delusional.

3.  All I ever paste is expert opinion, from rational and impartial sources.  I know that is hard for you to understand.  But that is because you have the delusional belief that anyone can or should believe anything a food services employee and con troll posts without expert support.  Especially since all you ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.*

As for a discussion of economics?  When do you EVER do that?

*1,  Ah, another personal attack.  How surprising.

2.  Often, when not responding to drivel like this, me boy.

3.  Look around and discover that there are a number of threads where I am doing exactly that.  Though with con trolls like you making nothing but personal attacks, it is a challenge.

*
The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

*1.  And another personal attack.  

2.  what a surprise.  Oldstyle just made a post with a bit of economic content, wrapped in 90% personal attacks, name calling, and lies. Normal for Oldstyle.
*

I just gave you a challenge* 
1.  So you are looking for education?  

2. Sorry I missed your "challenge".  

3.Truth is it is no challenge at all.

*
to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour

*History of Minimum Wage increases show that it is completely dependent on factors such as what type of business you are talking about, what the economic situation is, how the wage increase is rolled out over time. 

1.  In my business type, it would have had NO impact.  Everyone made something more than minimum wage, so no affect at all.  In other cases, history shows that few changes would occur to the average business.  Even in the case of a hamburger stand, past shows some small initial loss of jobs, but longer term, say a couple years down the road, simply higher pay overall. 

2l  Of all the Minimum Wage Increases, about 90% showed no short term impact or long term impact on employment.

3. The long term has shown, historically, continued increases in pay and no impact on employment.

4.  In the short and long term pay increases mostly at low pay rates, but overall increases are noticeable in nearly all cases.

5.  the impact on GNP is measureable, but small.  And that impact is beneficial.  In other words, GNP increases.

*
or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers

*1.  So, that is a silly question.  Of course any business who is in business to make a profit will indeed pass thouse costs it can on to customers.

2.  To the extent that a company has a high profit margin, more of the wage increase will be absorbed.

3.  So, depends on company type and profits and state of that companies economy.

4.  Depends greatly on the elasticity of demand for that companies products.*

and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?
*
And another personal attack.  No, me boy, ignored nothing.  And it has been my pleasure to address your questions.  I whined about nothing, me lying con troll.  I never whine.  But then, the fact that you so seldom get even close to an economic question is an issue.  This is, should you care to notice, an economics thread.
*

[/QUOTE]     [/QUOTE]

So your expectation is that an almost doubling of the minimum wage will simply be "absorbed" by companies because of their high profit margins? Since I did not say that, NO.  n.  It is really not nice to lie all the time.   What companies would fall under that category, Georgie?   Some companies, but not all, would be able to absorb the costs.  The company that I worked for, and others in my career of over 45 years, for instance, would have no problem at all do ing so.  The other several thousand companies in my business type, would likewise have no problem.  
I am sure others would not.  History shows that much of the cost is passed on to consumers.  As I stated.    Really, it is not nice to lie, Oldstyle.  Shows you for what you are.

As for your claim that 90% of all minimum wage increases showed no short or long term impact on employment?  How many of those increases were small in size?  Most were.  Some were not.  But the analysis of economists tends to look at the real increase, taking into account the change in the price index over the years.  Something you studiously ignore.  So, for instance, if you look at the minimum wage of 1968 and compared it to today, $15 is not far off.   Would you care to show an increase of the size you advocate NOW that had no short or long term impact on employment?
Please hold your fire until you look at the Pew information.   

This is Pew.  They are widely considered honest and impartial.  You will notice as usual I do not post talking points.  Read and learn.

*"5 facts about the minimum wage*

*11968* at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “*one would expect America…to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”*

2*Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. *An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)

3*wenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. *State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation’s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project.

4*About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. *We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS’s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of “near-minimum” U.S. workers – *those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. *The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education  

5*The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. *Our analysisalso found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as “tip credits” bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.)"
5 facts about the minimum wage

*So, the minimum wage should be about $12 today.  Since it is being increased over time, and will not get to $15 for a while, it may be that $15 will be close to what it should be.  But, as hard as it is to raise the Minimum, it will certainly be at or below what it should be before the next increase based on the economic history we have to look at today.*


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Show me where a doubling of the minimum wage took place and didn't affect employment!  Show me the increases that you deem more than small!

What industry is it that can absorb a doubling of it's wages without raising prices?  

You couldn't possibly be more vague...could you?

As for the fast food industry?  The single biggest employer of "near minimum wage workers" is also one of the industries that works with the smallest profit margins.  For you to sit here and state that raising labor costs...the single largest expense of the fast food industry by far...wouldn't affect the small profit margins they do business under is laughable!  The reason you're seeing "self serve" kiosks at fast food restaurants in ever increasing numbers is that the industry is getting ready to lay off human resources in favor of machines so that they CAN stay in business!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



And, me boy, as you know, I never ever pretend.  If I did I would pretend to be something important.  But I will never do so.  Because, as with you, doing so requires that you have no integrity.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

You're pretending to know something about the economic effects of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour!  

Show me an example of a large raise of the minimum wage...like the one that you're advocating!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Show me where a doubling of the minimum wage took place and didn't affect employment!  Show me the increases that you deem more than small!


   [/QUOTE]
*1938, by $4.15 in current dollars. From 0.  So, technically, an infinite increase.  Employment got better, *
1968 until now, the minimum wage has decreased. 
What industry is it that can absorb a doubling of it's wages without raising prices?
None.  But what is true, me boy, is that raising the minimum wage only affects those below the new minimum wage.  Not all employees.  So, saying an industry is a bit sweeping.  For instance, in the it industry, I can think of none that would not be able to absorb such an increase.  And, in many industries, some business will have no problem, others would.  Again, depends.
You couldn't possibly be more vague...could you?Yes.  I could be like you.  Vague is what you are, me boy.  

As for the fast food industry?  The single biggest employer of "near minimum wage workers" is also one of the industries that works with the smallest profit margins.  For you to sit here and state that raising labor costs...the single largest expense of the fast food industry by far...wouldn't affect the small profit margins they do business under is laughable! Which, me boy, is why I did not say it.  You are lying again.   The reason you're seeing "self serve" kiosks at fast food restaurants in ever increasing numbers is that the industry is getting ready to lay off human resources in favor of machines so that they CAN stay in business  Funny.  I notice you have no link to prove your laughable contention.  Because, me boy, you are blaming the minimum wage for kiosks, assuming that greater profits are not of interest to the owners.  Fact is, the kiosks are there to increase profits and satisfy customer wants.  Period.   And jobs are just one of the issues.   Kiosks are going to happen, whether the minimum wage increases or not. 
Read:

*"Automation arrives at restaurants (but don’t blame rising minimum wages)*
The elimination of jobs because of automation will happen anyway. Gartner says software and robots will replace one third of all workersby 2025, and that includes many high-skilled jobs, too.

Automation is hardly new to retail. Banks rely on ATMs, and grocery stores, including Walmart, have deployed self-service checkouts. But McDonald's hasn't changed its basic system of taking orders since its founding in the 1950s, said Darren Tristano, executive vice president of Technomic, a research group focused on the restaurant industry."
*The move to kiosk and mobile ordering, said Tristano, is happening because it will improve order accuracy, speed up service and has the potential of reducing labor cost, which can account for about 30% of costs. But automated self-service is a convenience that's now expected, particularly among younger customers,* he said.
Automation arrives at restaurants (but don’t blame rising minimum wages)

Really, me boy, con talking points are just too easy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> You're pretending to know something about the economic effects of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour!


No, actually, I am not.  The fact is I was very concerned about an increase that great.  So I did something you do not do.  I read what the experts had to say.  Not my expertise as much as it is the economists who study the issue.  But I had a solid base of basic understanding of labor wage issues in general from many years of studying the subject, in and after college.  

Show me an example of a large raise of the minimum wage...like the one that you're advocating!
Republican presidents and congressmen have blocked meaningful raises in the MW for 45 years.  In real terms, the min wage was $10.34, and had decreased to $5.91 under GW Bush in 2006.  It raised to only $7.25 recently.    A major increase is in order, in my opinion.  People need to be able to afford to live. I know cons don't care, but most of the real world does.
From 1968 till today is a long period with no real minimum wage raise in real terms.  This will be bringing the minimum wage back to equal footing with the min wage of that time.  Plus a couple bucks.  So, concerns me but not as much now that I have seen the economists findings.

Let me know when you have an actual serious economic issue.  So far, you are boring anyone who understands the issue.  Which you obviously do not.  Knowing talking points is different than understanding the subject.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

LOL...you're claiming that the minimum wage was increased in 1938?  Really?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Since minimum wage was enacted in 1938 and was 25 cents which translates to around $4 in 2012 dollars...what you call an increase of four dollars is only because there was no established minimum wage before then!  Do you think people worked for zero before that law was put into effect?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> LOL...you're claiming that the minimum wage was increased in 1938?  Really?


From 0.  Yes, as I said, the first min. wage.  And again in 1939, and 1945.  Next.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

And minimum wage went from $5.15 when W. took office to $6.55 when he left.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...you're claiming that the minimum wage was increased in 1938?  Really?
> ...



So there wasn't an increase in the minimum wage because a minimum wage didn't EXIST!  Correct?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Since minimum wage was enacted in 1938 and was 25 cents which translates to around $4 in 2012 dollars...what you call an increase of four dollars is only because there was no established minimum wage before then!  Do you think people worked for zero before that law was put into effect?



Mostly, before that they pretty much did not work.  Are you suggesting that there was no increase from 0 to $3.98?  What it meant was that they could hire people, and did, at wages as low as a nickel per day.  You know, under the republican great depression of 1929 when people were truly starving.  You should really get a clue.  Actual study of that time would help.
Here is a free primer, me ignorant con troll:
During the height of the Great Depression, *37 percent of all nonfarm workers were without jobs*. It was a time when families fell apart and people lost their homes and farms. Farmers couldn't sell their crops, so *more than 750,000 farms were lost to foreclosure and many people starved. *Women and children found jobs where they could, and the men, whose job it was to support their families, felt useless when they had to rely on their families to support them.

The Depression brought with it a halt to industrial production and construction. African-American women were often the first to be laid off from domestic positions and white women took their places. Women found jobs as seamstresses, maids and servants. Many people also built toys from home for a salary of around $5 per week.
What were some of the jobs available during the Great Depression?

So, $5 per week was around 3 cents per hour.  You really need to get a clue.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> And minimum wage went from $5.15 when W. took office to $6.55 when he left.



Yup.  You will notice it is under the last two years, when dems got control of congress, in 2007 and 2008.  but nothing before then.  Nice try, me boy, but no cigar.  President makes no laws.  Congress does.  
Were you simply looking for more education??


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


So, you think from 0 to 3.98 is no increase?  Do you think no one worked before 1938.  You really do not care about workers, do you, oldstyle.  Just con talking points.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Since minimum wage was enacted in 1938 and was 25 cents which translates to around $4 in 2012 dollars...what you call an increase of four dollars is only because there was no established minimum wage before then!  Do you think people worked for zero before that law was put into effect?
> ...



So now you're claiming people didn't work before the advent of a minimum wage?  How stupid are you?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



What I think is that establishing a 25 cent minimum wage isn't increasing wages from zero you buffoon!  Unless you really think people did work for nothing?

Your claim that FDR took wages from zero to $3.98 is a total misrepresentation of the truth.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



OK with me.  If you think no minimum wage to a $3.98 minimum wage is not a major increase, from nothing to $3.98, then believe what you want. I know better, and all of our arguing will settle nothing.  So, anything else or do you simply want to argue this point?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



I got a lot of information about the great republican depression from those that lived through it.  If you had said  to them what you are now saying, you would need a coffin.  I kid you not.  My mother talked about loosing a dime in the snow near christmas.  She cried still thinking about it.  They worked for near nothing.  So yes, dipshit, I consider it a total increase in the minimum wage.  Ass hole. You simply think about it as a talking point.  People were starving, dipshit.  Starving.  Get a grip.  
But here is the good thing, ass hole.  It really does not matter what you think it was.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Gee whiz, Georgie!  Your mother suffered through The Great Depression?  Guess what?  My grandparents did as well!  How does that change the point that your claiming that FDR increased minimum wage from zero to $3.98 is a total misrepresentation of what really took place?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



Only if you think the going rate for an entry level job was zero before 1938!  Are you REALLY that stupid?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



sorry you learned nothing from them.  It was simple ass hole. They worked for next to nothing, and nearly nothing.  So, fuck off.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


There was no rate.  so, while today, employers can pay the minimum wage. Legally.  Then they could get them to work long hours, as children, and for nothing.  The only protection they had was to refuse to work, while today they have a low level guaranteed.  You lost this argument long ago.  From now on, you can argue with yourself.  

Perhaps I should bring back the arra arguments you were making, dipshit.  I let it go long ago, but you were wrong.  Here, we are arguing over your opinion.  Dipshit.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...


There was no rate.  so, while today, employers can pay the minimum wage. Legally.  Then they could get them to work long hours, as children, and for nothing.  The only protection they had was to refuse to work, while today they have a low level guaranteed.  You lost this argument long ago.  From now on, you can argue with yourself.

Perhaps I should bring back the arra arguments you were making, dipshit.  I let it go long ago, but you were wrong.  Here, we are arguing over your opinion.  Dipshit.  Loosing your home is below zero.  Starving to death, or having your child starve to death, is below zero.   PEOPLE WORKED FOR NEAR NOTHING.  TODAY THE GOING WAGE IS ABOVE MINIMUM WAGE.  BUT MINIMUM WAGE PROTECTS WORKERS A LITTLE.  THEN, THEIR PROTECTION LEVEL WAS ZERO.  AND THEIR GOING WAGE MEANS AND MEANT NOTHING.  WHAT THEY HAD TO WORK FOR MEANT SOMETHING.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



There is always a going rate, Georgie!  You really ARE that stupid...aren't you!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 22, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Thanks for the personal insult, since my name is not georgie.

Did you think that the minimum wage was the going rate.  You really ARE that stupid...aren't you!

For your continued education, the going rate for contractors is typically $23 to $45 per hour, depending on location and type of contractor involved.  Is that what you had in mind?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 22, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



The "going rate" is basically whatever a free market sets a price at.  If the going rate for contractors is $23 dollars...that's what the market has set that going rate at!  Minimum wage totally disrupts the going rate by artificially setting a base wage that people can't work for less even if they would like to.

You want to see first hand what artificially setting wage rates does to a free market?  Study what took place in American Samoa when our Congress decided that even though they had a totally separate economy from ours...one in which the average Samoan made around $12,000 a year...that they should have the same minimum wage rate as the US.  Unemployment there shot up from around 5% to over 30% and the Samoan political leadership BEGGED to be let out or our minimum wage because it was destroying their economy.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That's terrible.  I think I will avoid samoa, myself.  You??
Now, march yourself on down to the construction workers union hall and tell them that there will be no more set rates of pay, and see if you can make it out of there in one piece.  Or, try a group of those working on min wage of today and tell them there will be no more minimum wage. and they can be happy working for $6/hour.   Same problem, me boy.  You see, if you believe there is a free market today, you need to go back and try reading Adam Smith and let him explain to you what free market is.

While your at it, you will need to get rid of the Davis Bacon Act.  Republicans have been trying to avoid it for decades:  

*"THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
PROTECTING WAGE EQUALITY SINCE 1931*
Since its enactment in 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) has provided critical wage protections for construction workers and has guaranteed a level playing field for construction contractors bidding on federal projects.

The federal government constructs buildings, builds dams, and funds housing projects. State highway departments pave roads with federal funds from the Federal Highway Administration. Local and state governments build water treatment plants, modernize schools, and renovate airports with the support of federal funds.

The DBA ensures that construction workers on federal or federally assisted construction projects will not see their wages and benefits undercut by government spending practices. The DBA exists to prevent the infusion of federal dollars into local communities from depressing local wages. DBA provides a wage floor that protects construction workers’ pay, and sets a level playing field for contractors who are bidding on federally funded projects. As important, these standards enable local contractors and their employees to compete for local projects by protecting against under-bidding by contractors from other areas who might import workers or offer the same jobs for less pay.

*CONFORMANCES*
*The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) determines locally prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates through the conduct of wage surveys on government contracts covered by the Davis-Bacon Act. Published wage determinations for each county in the country list the wages and benefits that have been found to be prevailing for each classification of worker for which there is sufficient wage payment data."*
Frequently Asked Questions: Conformances - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - U.S. Department of Labor

Hope you don't think this is a free market mechanism, me boy.  Cause it is not.  It is aimed at gov jobs, but tends to set rates for all kinds of contractors throughout the US, state by state.
Every contractor, and every company involved in contracting, knows of this law.  Been around since 1931.  Hoover admin law, due to major concerns of local workers having contractors bringing in workers that worked at very low rates.  No free market here, just a reaction to free market abuses due to monopoly power.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



And one of the main reasons why we seldom ever see a job done by contractors for the government that doesn't end up costing much more than it should.

What does the DBA have to do with raising the minimum wage in the drastic manner you suggest should happen?


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 23, 2016)

As for those union employees?  What's telling about them, Rshermr is how many plumbers, electricians and carpenters who are union men and work for a set rate through the union are tickled pink if they can work out a cash deal under the table with someone who doesn't want to pay union scale!


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 23, 2016)

The people that you'll need to talk to about minimum wage are the poor saps that will lose their low skill entry level jobs to a machine or downsizing!  I wonder how thrilled they're going to be with your $15 an hour when they are making $0 dollars an hour because they got laid off?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



That is your interpretation.  You are wrong.


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> The people that you'll need to talk to about minimum wage are the poor saps that will lose their low skill entry level jobs to a machine or downsizing!  I wonder how thrilled they're going to be with your $15 an hour when they are making $0 dollars an hour because they got laid off?



That is your opinion.  Time, me boy, will tell.  Your opinion, by the way, is not likely to impress anyone but other con trolls.  Since economists generally disagree, I think it much smarter to believe them,


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The people that you'll need to talk to about minimum wage are the poor saps that will lose their low skill entry level jobs to a machine or downsizing!  I wonder how thrilled they're going to be with your $15 an hour when they are making $0 dollars an hour because they got laid off?
> ...



The reason Economics is nicknamed "The Dismal Science" is that most economists can't agree period!  Of course you don't have much of a choice but to believe someone, Georgie because you're too damned ignorant to figure it out yourself!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So, lets try to help you.  I know that there is little I can do to provide you with truth, because you hate truth.  You, being a con troll, simply want to take the canned con talking points and pretend they are your thoughts.  
It is no problem at all to lend one's mind to a subject and come to a conclusion.  You as an actual food services worker, with a firmly fixed agenda, say you use your sterling mind to come to conclusions.  But, the actual problem you have is getting anyone to believe you.  Because:
1.  Your "figured out yourself" opinions are always exactly what the con talking points say.
2.  Saying that your opinions being identical to the con talking points does not pass the giggle test.
3.  You are a food services employee.
4.  You are not, and never had any minuscule chance of being, an economist.
5.  You have no teams of people of any kind working for you in analyzing your opinions.
6.  You have no respect at all for those with great economic knowledge, which you lack entirely.
7.  So, you simply post what you, with all your enumerated shortcomings, want to believe.
8.  You think based on points 1 through 7 that any rational person would believe you.
9.  You think that no one notices that your believe system is based on agenda, group thinking, and believing what you want to believe, rather than rational research or thought.
10.  You are wrong, which is why no one pays attention to your drivel.
11.  Your "figure it out yourself" beliefs are, in the end, totally irrelevant jokes.  
12.  Expressing you self discovered con talking points makes you a joke.
Did you have anything rational to say?  Or are you simply resting on con drivel and personal attacks?


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So Oldstyle, posing as an expert in economics, lies and says:
The reason Economics is nicknamed "The Dismal Science" is that most economists can't agree period!

So, me poor lying con troll, lets examine you latest posting of Oldstyle "truth" and see if it is, in fact, a lie like normal from OS.  Here is a description of the origination of the term "Dismal Science", which is entirely different from the con talking point version that Oldstyle has chosen to believe;

*"Why Economics Is Really Called 'the Dismal Science'*
The (not-so-dismal) origin myth of a ubiquitous term.
The story goes like this:* Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish writer and philosopher, called economics "the dismal science" in reference to Thomas Malthus, that lugubrious economist who claimed humanity was trapped in a world where population growth would always strain natural resources and bring widespread misery. Dismal, indeed.*

*But this origin myth is, well, mythical. *Carlyle did coin the phrase "the dismal science." And Malthus was, without question, dismal.

But *Carlyle labeled the science "dismal" when writing about slavery in the West Indies. White plantation owners, he said, ought to force black plantation workers to be their servants. Economics, somewhat inconveniently for Carlyle, didn't offer a hearty defense of slavery. Instead, the rules of supply and demand argued for "letting men alone" rather than thrashing them with whips for not being servile. Carlyle bashed political economy as "a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing [science]; what we might call ... the dismal science.”*

Today, when we hear the term "the dismal science," it's typically in reference to economics' most depressing outcomes (e.g.: on globalization killing manufacturing jobs: "well, that's why they call it the _dismal_ science," etc). In other words, we've tended to align ourselves with Carlyle to acknowledge that an inescapable element of economics is human misery.

*But the right etymology turns that interpretation on its head. In fact, it aligns economics with morality, and against racism, rather than with misery, and against happiness. Carlyle couldn't find a justification for slavery in political economic thought, and he considered this fact to be "dismal." Students of economics should be proud: Their "science" was then (as it can be, today) a force for a more just and, crucially, less dismal world."*
Why Economics Is Really Called 'the Dismal Science'

So, there we go.  Proof again that Oldstyle uses con talking points, and lies like a rug.  Even in areas so unimportant that it really does not matter, and which normal people simply ignore, a con tool looks for any little opportunity to lie.  To rational people, it is so much more rational to exercise class and integrity, but to con trolls it is way more important to lie and support your agenda.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jul 23, 2016)

Rshermr said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Rshermr said:
> ...



When your only rebuttal to someone's point is to call it a "con talking point" ...then you've made yourself "irrelevant"!

We're discussing what effect a drastic increase in the minimum wage on jobs and you bring up the DBA...which has ZERO to do with the discussion at hand?  

I bring up what happened to the economy of American Samoa when they were forced to implement a high minimum wage rate by the US Congress and your response is that you guess you won't visit there?

Then you lecture about having a lack of economic knowledge?  Seriously?  You're a buffoon when it comes to economics!  You can't carry on an intelligent conversation about the subject.   If you couldn't cut and paste the liberal economic views of OTHERS you'd be totally lost!


----------



## Rshermr (Jul 23, 2016)

Oldstyle said:


> Rshermr said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



When your only rebuttal to someone's point is to call it a "con talking point" ...then you've made yourself "irrelevant"!
Not so, of course.  Particularly since there is no other source you can point to.  Except you own mind, that of a food services worker.

We're discussing what effect a drastic increase in the minimum wage on jobs and you bring up the DBA...which has ZERO to do with the discussion at hand?
It was in reference to your statement that "The "going rate" is basically whatever a free market sets a price at. If the going rate for contractors is $23 dollars...that's what the market has set that going rate at!"  Yesterday at 7:58PM, this thread.  So, what I educated you over was that the Davis Bacon Act sets wage rates for contractors across the US.  Not the free market.  Just proved you wrong.  And pissed you off again.  So you lie again.  So, did your statement in quotes above have nothing to do with the minimum wage????

I bring up what happened to the economy of American Samoa when they were forced to implement a high minimum wage rate by the US Congress and your response is that you guess you won't visit there?
What is obvious to thinking people is that what happened in Samoa has nothing to do with the US.  If you actually study the issue, you learn that the problem there was at it's base that the economy is basically run by a couple fishing corporations.  And it is a monopoly economy.  Different animal, me boy.  That and other factors of that unique economy make it interesting but not descriptive of the US economy.  But the story of Jack Abramoff is well known, part and parcel of the Samoa problems, and a favorite of cons everywhere.  

Then you lecture about having a lack of economic knowledge?  Seriously?  You're a buffoon when it comes to economics!  You can't carry on an intelligent conversation about the subject.   If you couldn't cut and paste the liberal economic views of OTHERS you'd be totally lost!
Translation:  I have NO economic argument.  So i must regress to my normal personal attacks and lies.  
Got it, OS.  thanks again for proving you know nothing at all.  Must be that "dismal science" lie you told.  Or your continued arguments about the ACCA.  Maybe we need to study what those member accountants have to say.  
Who is the joke, me boy?


----------

