Consumers create jobs.

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle said:Since David Stockman's college education consisted of a BA in History and graduate studies at Harvard Divinity School (Yes, you heard right...DIVINITY SCHOOL!) you're going to have to first convince me why it is that he should be our "authority" on economics. Perhaps "God" told him about "trickle down" theory? (eye-roll) Stockman was a politician...not an economist. Somehow that makes him "eminently qualified" to you. As usual...you are talking out of your nether regions. As for who I believe? I had the great pleasure of HAVING Thomas Sowell as one of my professors...I choose to believe him.

Rshermr says:
So, what your professor said is absolutly true. If I remember, he stated that trickle down was not believed by economists. So, that is true. Trickle down was indeed a political concept. However, what you fail to understand is that there is NO conflict between your beloved econ prof, and Stockman's statement. Stockman did not say trickle down was an economic theory. Nor did he say it was not.

But, it was the repubs during the reagan admin who came up with the trickle down concept according to Stockman. so, you do not want to believe stockman? Of course you do not. Because he is not telling you what you WANT to believe. So, why should you believe what he said. Simple enough. He was there. He was Reagans chosen guy. He was the Budget Director. So, you are stupid to discount him the way you just did. Totally stupid. Simply showing why you are a person who does not mind lying as long as it leads to what he wants to believe.

But here is the trouble, dipshit. You have no source for your assertion that: "The term "trickle down" was something that the proponents of income redistribution coined to be used in a derogatory fashion when they accused those in favor of supply side economic's of only wanting to help the rich."

So, you have stockman's statements, and we have YOUR statement. In no way are you anywhere close to as knowledgeable as stodkman. So, where is your source to your statement. Yup, here we go again. Normally, you will not offer a source. Lets see what happens this time. Stockman was Budget director. And you, being the con that you are, have now attacked his credibility because he did not say what you want him to say. Really stupid, low integrity move. But that is you, oldstyle. No integrity. But you have nothing. Aces to deuces, and you are holding the deuces. come on, oldstyle, lets see your proof. Or are you content with deuces??

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle said:Since David Stockman's college education consisted of a BA in History and graduate studies at Harvard Divinity School (Yes, you heard right...DIVINITY SCHOOL!) you're going to have to first convince me why it is that he should be our "authority" on economics. Perhaps "God" told him about "trickle down" theory? (eye-roll) Stockman was a politician...not an economist. Somehow that makes him "eminently qualified" to you. As usual...you are talking out of your nether regions. As for who I believe? I had the great pleasure of HAVING Thomas Sowell as one of my professors...I choose to believe him.

Rshermr says:
So, what your professor said is absolutly true. If I remember, he stated that trickle down was not believed by economists. So, that is true. Trickle down was indeed a political concept. However, what you fail to understand is that there is NO conflict between your beloved econ prof, and Stockman's statement. Stockman did not say trickle down was an economic theory. Nor did he say it was not.

But, it was the repubs during the reagan admin who came up with the trickle down concept according to Stockman. so, you do not want to believe stockman? Of course you do not. Because he is not telling you what you WANT to believe. So, why should you believe what he said. Simple enough. He was there. He was Reagans chosen guy. He was the Budget Director. So, you are stupid to discount him the way you just did. Totally stupid. Simply showing why you are a person who does not mind lying as long as it leads to what he wants to believe.

But here is the trouble, dipshit. You have no source for your assertion that: "The term "trickle down" was something that the proponents of income redistribution coined to be used in a derogatory fashion when they accused those in favor of supply side economic's of only wanting to help the rich."

So, you have stockman's statements, and we have YOUR statement. In no way are you anywhere close to as knowledgeable as stodkman. So, where is your source to your statement. Yup, here we go again. Normally, you will not offer a source. Lets see what happens this time. Stockman was Budget director. And you, being the con that you are, have now attacked his credibility because he did not say what you want him to say. Really stupid, low integrity move. But that is you, oldstyle. No integrity. But you have nothing. Aces to deuces, and you are holding the deuces. come on, oldstyle, lets see your proof. Or are you content with deuces??

Once again i showed you to be clueless, Rshermr. You assumed that Stockman WAS an economist...when he was not. He was a politician. I never attacked Stockman's credibility, I simply pointed out that your referring to him as an economist was incorrect. I also never made the claim that "I" was more knowledgeable than David Stockman when it comes to economics...what I stated was that Thomas Sowell was more knowledgeable than David Stockman. The "source" that you demand I provide IS Thomas Sowell, a very well known and respected ECONOMIST. Now if you'd like to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" is a political term and not an economic one then feel free to do so. Show me where "trickle down theory" is being taught as a theory in an economics classroom.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle said:Since David Stockman's college education consisted of a BA in History and graduate studies at Harvard Divinity School (Yes, you heard right...DIVINITY SCHOOL!) you're going to have to first convince me why it is that he should be our "authority" on economics. Perhaps "God" told him about "trickle down" theory? (eye-roll) Stockman was a politician...not an economist. Somehow that makes him "eminently qualified" to you. As usual...you are talking out of your nether regions. As for who I believe? I had the great pleasure of HAVING Thomas Sowell as one of my professors...I choose to believe him.

Rshermr says:
So, what your professor said is absolutly true. If I remember, he stated that trickle down was not believed by economists. So, that is true. Trickle down was indeed a political concept. However, what you fail to understand is that there is NO conflict between your beloved econ prof, and Stockman's statement. Stockman did not say trickle down was an economic theory. Nor did he say it was not.

But, it was the repubs during the reagan admin who came up with the trickle down concept according to Stockman. so, you do not want to believe stockman? Of course you do not. Because he is not telling you what you WANT to believe. So, why should you believe what he said. Simple enough. He was there. He was Reagans chosen guy. He was the Budget Director. So, you are stupid to discount him the way you just did. Totally stupid. Simply showing why you are a person who does not mind lying as long as it leads to what he wants to believe.

But here is the trouble, dipshit. You have no source for your assertion that: "The term "trickle down" was something that the proponents of income redistribution coined to be used in a derogatory fashion when they accused those in favor of supply side economic's of only wanting to help the rich."

So, you have stockman's statements, and we have YOUR statement. In no way are you anywhere close to as knowledgeable as stodkman. So, where is your source to your statement. Yup, here we go again. Normally, you will not offer a source. Lets see what happens this time. Stockman was Budget director. And you, being the con that you are, have now attacked his credibility because he did not say what you want him to say. Really stupid, low integrity move. But that is you, oldstyle. No integrity. But you have nothing. Aces to deuces, and you are holding the deuces. come on, oldstyle, lets see your proof. Or are you content with deuces??

Once again i showed you to be clueless, Rshermr. You assumed that Stockman WAS an economist...when he was not. He was a politician. I never attacked Stockman's credibility, I simply pointed out that your referring to him as an economist was incorrect. I also never made the claim that "I" was more knowledgeable than David Stockman when it comes to economics...what I stated was that Thomas Sowell was more knowledgeable than David Stockman. The "source" that you demand I provide IS Thomas Sowell, a very well known and respected ECONOMIST. Now if you'd like to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" is a political term and not an economic one then feel free to do so. Show me where "trickle down theory" is being taught as a theory in an economics classroom.

Once again i showed you to be clueless, Rshermr. You assumed that Stockman WAS an economist...when he was not. Bullshit, again, oldstyle. You lie again. I did not at any time say he was an economist. Why do you lie??? Because you always lie. Because you are a con tool. He was a politician. I never attacked Stockman's credibility, I simply pointed out that your referring to him as an economist was incorrect. I also never made the claim that "I" was more knowledgeable than David Stockman when it comes to economics...what I stated was that Thomas Sowell was more knowledgeable than David Stockman. The "source" that you demand I provide IS Thomas Sowell, a very well known and respected ECONOMIST. Now if you'd like to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" is a political term and not an economic one then feel free to do so. Show me where "trickle down theory" is being taught as a theory in an economics classroom. Again, oldstyle, you are lying. Obviously desperate at this point. Because you are caught. Again, I did not at any time say Stockman was an economist. Nor, if you were at all honest and could read, did I say that trickle down theory is being taught as a theory in economic classrooms. If it is, it should not be. So, again you lie, this time twisting to get out of the lie that you are expousing.
So, lets get to your lie, oldstyle. Here is the quote from YOU. It is not from any source that you have provided. It is simply stated, by you, as fact:
"The term "trickle down" was something that the proponents of income redistribution coined to be used in a derogatory fashion when they accused those in favor of supply side economic's of only wanting to help the rich."
So, besides you, what rational source made that statement. It was not your professor. So, where is your proof of that statement. Because it is NOT AT ALL what stockman said. Stockman clearly stated that the concept of trickle down was a republican creation, meant to gain support for supply side economics. At this point, oldstyle, we have a statement by you and a statement by Stockman. Someone is lying. Where is your source? I asked you in my last post, and you are ignoring the question, which indicates to me that you have no source, and are just posting a conservative lie. Which again proves that you can not be believed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle said:Since David Stockman's college education consisted of a BA in History and graduate studies at Harvard Divinity School (Yes, you heard right...DIVINITY SCHOOL!) you're going to have to first convince me why it is that he should be our "authority" on economics. Perhaps "God" told him about "trickle down" theory? (eye-roll) Stockman was a politician...not an economist. Somehow that makes him "eminently qualified" to you. As usual...you are talking out of your nether regions. As for who I believe? I had the great pleasure of HAVING Thomas Sowell as one of my professors...I choose to believe him.

Rshermr says:
So, what your professor said is absolutly true. If I remember, he stated that trickle down was not believed by economists. So, that is true. Trickle down was indeed a political concept. However, what you fail to understand is that there is NO conflict between your beloved econ prof, and Stockman's statement. Stockman did not say trickle down was an economic theory. Nor did he say it was not.

But, it was the repubs during the reagan admin who came up with the trickle down concept according to Stockman. so, you do not want to believe stockman? Of course you do not. Because he is not telling you what you WANT to believe. So, why should you believe what he said. Simple enough. He was there. He was Reagans chosen guy. He was the Budget Director. So, you are stupid to discount him the way you just did. Totally stupid. Simply showing why you are a person who does not mind lying as long as it leads to what he wants to believe.

But here is the trouble, dipshit. You have no source for your assertion that: "The term "trickle down" was something that the proponents of income redistribution coined to be used in a derogatory fashion when they accused those in favor of supply side economic's of only wanting to help the rich."

So, you have stockman's statements, and we have YOUR statement. In no way are you anywhere close to as knowledgeable as stodkman. So, where is your source to your statement. Yup, here we go again. Normally, you will not offer a source. Lets see what happens this time. Stockman was Budget director. And you, being the con that you are, have now attacked his credibility because he did not say what you want him to say. Really stupid, low integrity move. But that is you, oldstyle. No integrity. But you have nothing. Aces to deuces, and you are holding the deuces. come on, oldstyle, lets see your proof. Or are you content with deuces??

Once again i showed you to be clueless, Rshermr. You assumed that Stockman WAS an economist...when he was not. He was a politician. I never attacked Stockman's credibility, I simply pointed out that your referring to him as an economist was incorrect. I also never made the claim that "I" was more knowledgeable than David Stockman when it comes to economics...what I stated was that Thomas Sowell was more knowledgeable than David Stockman. The "source" that you demand I provide IS Thomas Sowell, a very well known and respected ECONOMIST. Now if you'd like to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" is a political term and not an economic one then feel free to do so. Show me where "trickle down theory" is being taught as a theory in an economics classroom.

Once again i showed you to be clueless, Rshermr. You assumed that Stockman WAS an economist...when he was not. Bullshit, again, oldstyle. You lie again. I did not at any time say he was an economist. Why do you lie??? Because you always lie. Because you are a con tool. He was a politician. I never attacked Stockman's credibility, I simply pointed out that your referring to him as an economist was incorrect. I also never made the claim that "I" was more knowledgeable than David Stockman when it comes to economics...what I stated was that Thomas Sowell was more knowledgeable than David Stockman. The "source" that you demand I provide IS Thomas Sowell, a very well known and respected ECONOMIST. Now if you'd like to refute Sowell's contention that "trickle down theory" is a political term and not an economic one then feel free to do so. Show me where "trickle down theory" is being taught as a theory in an economics classroom. Again, oldstyle, you are lying. Obviously desperate at this point. Because you are caught. Again, I did not at any time say Stockman was an economist. Nor, if you were at all honest and could read, did I say that trickle down theory is being taught as a theory in economic classrooms. If it is, it should not be. So, again you lie, this time twisting to get out of the lie that you are expousing.
So, lets get to your lie, oldstyle. Here is the quote from YOU. It is not from any source that you have provided. It is simply stated, by you, as fact:
"The term "trickle down" was something that the proponents of income redistribution coined to be used in a derogatory fashion when they accused those in favor of supply side economic's of only wanting to help the rich."
So, besides you, what rational source made that statement. It was not your professor. So, where is your proof of that statement. Because it is NOT AT ALL what stockman said. Stockman clearly stated that the concept of trickle down was a republican creation, meant to gain support for supply side economics. At this point, oldstyle, we have a statement by you and a statement by Stockman. Someone is lying. Where is your source? I asked you in my last post, and you are ignoring the question, which indicates to me that you have no source, and are just posting a conservative lie. Which again proves that you can not be believed.

God, you are so ignorant on this subject it's almost pathetic. The term "trickle down" didn't originate with Republicans...it originated with Democrats that were opposed to tax breaks for the wealthy going back as far as William Jennings Bryan back in the 1800's when it was crudely referred to as the "horse-and-sparrow" theory. Will Rodgers coined the term as well for the same reason during the Great Depression. It's a pejorative. It's used derisively by those who favor income redistribution. It is NOT an economic theory and it wasn't invented by Reagan Republicans to push Supply Side theory.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Rshermr says:
So, what your professor said is absolutly true. If I remember, he stated that trickle down was not believed by economists. So, that is true. Trickle down was indeed a political concept. However, what you fail to understand is that there is NO conflict between your beloved econ prof, and Stockman's statement. Stockman did not say trickle down was an economic theory. Nor did he say it was not."

You're so confused at this juncture that you're holding arguments with yourself.

 

[antagon]

My "argument" has not changed one bit from the start of this discussion until now. How have I CHANGED my argument to match yours when I haven't changed ANYTHING?

You've made at least three changes to your argument by abandoning your original stance and adopting my own after I had presented it to you. I pointed it out to you each time you've done that, using color coding to demonstrate the fact on the first two occasions. It's all stuck here online. See for yourself.

I'll Title my arguments and follow them with direct questions moving forward...

As for Sowell "bullshitting" himself? Please, just because you've heard economists debating the merits of Supply Side economics and you've heard politicians and pundits debating the merits of "Trickle Down" economics don't confuse yourself into believing that you're heard economists debating the merits of an economic theory that doesn't exist.

Economists Advance Trickle-down Implications to Supply-side Policy Analysis

Most economists are not stuck in academia debating theory. Indeed, Ernst & Young employs more economists than Stanford, however, without being politicians whatsoever, these economists publish their reports on trickle-down implications to public policy pieces aimed at the supply-side.

Am I wrong?

Sowell is 100% correct when he states that trickle down theory is a "straw man". As for his "getting off of campus" more? Thomas Sowell is one of the more respected economists on the planet. He doesn't need to get out more!

Sowell's Insular

This is the second time that I've proposed that economists do indeed make forecasts of downward trickles from supply-side policy analysis. Sowell has been very narrowly quoted here, but he needs to look up from his studies, get off campus, or whatever is necessary to recognize that his colleagues outside of academia certainly do advance trickle down implications to their policy analyses.

If Sowell has no idea that thousands of economists publish and consult on the trickle-down effects from policy, is he a credible source on this matter?

Not a Straw Man

Where a straw man argument is constructed from appending hyperbolic arguments to an original statement, and challenging those in lieu of the original, with tens of thousands of economists analyzing public policy and publishing their findings, inclusive of trickle-down effects which are rarely realized, 'trickle-down' is a direct, rather than straw man assessment of supply-side theory in application.

Can you point out where the straw man is if economists are widely published claiming trickle-down effects?

 

[Oldstyle]

My "argument" has not changed one bit from the start of this discussion until now. How have I CHANGED my argument to match yours when I haven't changed ANYTHING?

You've made at least three changes to your argument by abandoning your original stance and adopting my own after I had presented it to you. I pointed it out to you each time you've done that, using color coding to demonstrate the fact on the first two occasions. It's all stuck here online. See for yourself.

I'll Title my arguments and follow them with direct questions moving forward...

As for Sowell "bullshitting" himself? Please, just because you've heard economists debating the merits of Supply Side economics and you've heard politicians and pundits debating the merits of "Trickle Down" economics don't confuse yourself into believing that you're heard economists debating the merits of an economic theory that doesn't exist.

Economists Advance Trickle-down Implications to Supply-side Policy Analysis

Most economists are not stuck in academia debating theory. Indeed, Ernst & Young employs more economists than Stanford, however, without being politicians whatsoever, these economists publish their reports on trickle-down implications to public policy pieces aimed at the supply-side.

Am I wrong?

Sowell is 100% correct when he states that trickle down theory is a "straw man". As for his "getting off of campus" more? Thomas Sowell is one of the more respected economists on the planet. He doesn't need to get out more!

Sowell's Insular

This is the second time that I've proposed that economists do indeed make forecasts of downward trickles from supply-side policy analysis. Sowell has been very narrowly quoted here, but he needs to look up from his studies, get off campus, or whatever is necessary to recognize that his colleagues outside of academia certainly do advance trickle down implications to their policy analyses.

If Sowell has no idea that thousands of economists publish and consult on the trickle-down effects from policy, is he a credible source on this matter?

Not a Straw Man

Where a straw man argument is constructed from appending hyperbolic arguments to an original statement, and challenging those in lieu of the original, with tens of thousands of economists analyzing public policy and publishing their findings, inclusive of trickle-down effects which are rarely realized, 'trickle-down' is a direct, rather than straw man assessment of supply-side theory in application.

Can you point out where the straw man is if economists are widely published claiming trickle-down effects?

What ARE you babbling about? How has my argument changed ONCE let alone three times?

I've stated that trickle-down theory is not an actual economic theory but a political one.

What economists are being "widely published claiming trickle-down" as a viable economic theory?

 

[antagon]

Oldstyle doesn't read or respond to arguments

I have answered the three questions which you've posed in the post directly preceding. You clearly didn't read the post.

I laid three lil arguments and three questions which went unanswered.

I've got a big week in the real world and got to go.

Edit: forgot the question...

What's the point of a debate if you're having it with yourself?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle doesn't read or respond to arguments

I have answered the three questions which you've posed in the post directly preceding. You clearly didn't read the post.

I laid three lil arguments and three questions which went unanswered.

I've got a big week in the real world and got to go.

Edit: forgot the question...

What's the point of a debate if you're having it with yourself?

How have I changed my argument? It's been consistent from the beginning and continues to be. There is no such thing as "trickle down theory" in economics...it's a political term. As Thomas Sowell correctly pointed out it's a strawman argument put forward by proponents of income redistribution to lampoon those who don't agree with them.

I ask you to show what economists are publishing trickle down theories and suddenly you remember that you have things to do in Real Life? Now THAT is amusing...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oldstyle doesn't read or respond to arguments

I have answered the three questions which you've posed in the post directly preceding. You clearly didn't read the post.

I laid three lil arguments and three questions which went unanswered.

I've got a big week in the real world and got to go.

Edit: forgot the question...

What's the point of a debate if you're having it with yourself?

How have I changed my argument? It's been consistent from the beginning and continues to be. There is no such thing as "trickle down theory" in economics...it's a political term. As Thomas Sowell correctly pointed out it's a strawman argument put forward by proponents of income redistribution to lampoon those who don't agree with them.

I ask you to show what economists are publishing trickle down theories and suddenly you remember that you have things to do in Real Life? Now THAT is amusing...

not only that but even if there was a trickle down theory it would be far far better than the liberal theory of trickle down welfare entitlements!!

 

[Rshermr]

In his absence, let me take on some of your con crap. Oldstyle. You lie like a rug.
Oldstyle says: How have I changed my argument? It's been consistent from the beginning and continues to be. There is no such thing as "trickle down theory" in economics...it's a political term. As Thomas Sowell correctly pointed out it's a strawman argument put forward by proponents of income redistribution to lampoon those who don't agree with them. Makes no difference, oldstyle. No one is arguing whether or not trickle down is part of economics.
But, for the fun of it, let me show all that you are lying. As opposed to your economics professor, and your tortured logic, others say something quite different:
trickle-down adj
(Economics) of or concerning the theory that granting concessions such as tax cuts to the rich will benefit all levels of society by stimulating the economy
trickle-down - definition of trickle-down by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Trickle-down The theory of economics contending that drastic reductions in tax rates will stimulate productive investment by corporations and wealthy individuals to the benefit of the entire society.
trickle-down: Definition from Answers.com
So, oldstyle, most outside of your strange brain understand that Trickle down is a theory. Your argument is stupid. And we can go on all day. Economists, web sites, dictionaries. All call it a theory. Only you want to change it to NOT be a theory. You are a lying dipshit.

I ask you to show what economists are publishing trickle down theories and suddenly you remember that you have things to do in Real Life? Now THAT is amusing...Actually, that is another really stupid statement. People other than you, who has an unimportant enough job that you can play on the web all day, actually do need to work. dipshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In his absence, let me take on some of your con crap. Oldstyle. You lie like a rug.
Oldstyle says: How have I changed my argument? It's been consistent from the beginning and continues to be. There is no such thing as "trickle down theory" in economics...it's a political term. As Thomas Sowell correctly pointed out it's a strawman argument put forward by proponents of income redistribution to lampoon those who don't agree with them. Makes no difference, oldstyle. No one is arguing whether or not trickle down is part of economics.
But, for the fun of it, let me show all that you are lying. As opposed to your economics professor, and your tortured logic, others say something quite different:
trickle-down adj
(Economics) of or concerning the theory that granting concessions such as tax cuts to the rich will benefit all levels of society by stimulating the economy
trickle-down - definition of trickle-down by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Trickle-down The theory of economics contending that drastic reductions in tax rates will stimulate productive investment by corporations and wealthy individuals to the benefit of the entire society.
trickle-down: Definition from Answers.com
So, oldstyle, most outside of your strange brain understand that Trickle down is a theory. Your argument is stupid. And we can go on all day. Economists, web sites, dictionaries. All call it a theory. Only you want to change it to NOT be a theory. You are a lying dipshit.

I ask you to show what economists are publishing trickle down theories and suddenly you remember that you have things to do in Real Life? Now THAT is amusing...Actually, that is another really stupid statement. People other than you, who has an unimportant enough job that you can play on the web all day, actually do need to work. dipshit.

of course there is not one economist who says he is an advocate of trickle down theory!

IS it possible that liberals can be so stupid!!

 

[Oldstyle]

In his absence, let me take on some of your con crap. Oldstyle. You lie like a rug.
Oldstyle says: How have I changed my argument? It's been consistent from the beginning and continues to be. There is no such thing as "trickle down theory" in economics...it's a political term. As Thomas Sowell correctly pointed out it's a strawman argument put forward by proponents of income redistribution to lampoon those who don't agree with them. Makes no difference, oldstyle. No one is arguing whether or not trickle down is part of economics.
But, for the fun of it, let me show all that you are lying. As opposed to your economics professor, and your tortured logic, others say something quite different:
trickle-down adj
(Economics) of or concerning the theory that granting concessions such as tax cuts to the rich will benefit all levels of society by stimulating the economy
trickle-down - definition of trickle-down by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Trickle-down The theory of economics contending that drastic reductions in tax rates will stimulate productive investment by corporations and wealthy individuals to the benefit of the entire society.
trickle-down: Definition from Answers.com
So, oldstyle, most outside of your strange brain understand that Trickle down is a theory. Your argument is stupid. And we can go on all day. Economists, web sites, dictionaries. All call it a theory. Only you want to change it to NOT be a theory. You are a lying dipshit.

I ask you to show what economists are publishing trickle down theories and suddenly you remember that you have things to do in Real Life? Now THAT is amusing...Actually, that is another really stupid statement. People other than you, who has an unimportant enough job that you can play on the web all day, actually do need to work. dipshit.

Showing us that the term "trickle down" can be found in several on-line sites does NOT prove that it exists as a theory for economists, you buffoon! I can find references to unicorns and mermaids on line as well but that doesn't mean they exist outside of someone's imagination...which is EXACTLY where the ever elusive "trickle down economic theory" resides as well. It isn't a REAL economic theory...it's a political term used by the proponents of income redistribution.

Show me a credible economist that is using the "trickle down economic model". You can't BECAUSE JUST LIKE THE UNICORN IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MADE UP...IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

And if you really WERE an economics major like you claim...then you'd know that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And if you really WERE an economics major like you claim...then you'd know that.

OMG!! He says he was an economics major?? I've asked him 100 times what makes him think a stimulus, somthing he always advocates, would work and he's never been able to come up with an answer!

That's so typical of a liberal.

 

[Oldstyle]

And if you really WERE an economics major like you claim...then you'd know that.

OMG!! He says he was an economics major?? I've asked him 100 times what makes him think a stimulus, somthing he always advocates, would work and he's never been able to come up with an answer!

That's so typical of a liberal.

Oh, he not only claims to have been an economics major...Rshermr claims to have TAUGHT economics at the college level.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And if you really WERE an economics major like you claim...then you'd know that.

OMG!! He says he was an economics major?? I've asked him 100 times what makes him think a stimulus, somthing he always advocates, would work and he's never been able to come up with an answer!

That's so typical of a liberal.

Oh, he not only claims to have been an economics major...Rshermr claims to have TAUGHT economics at the college level.

wow!!! well then I patiently await my lesson on the heart of liberal thinking: what makes them think a liberal stimulus is not merely a bubble that will burst like the housing stimulus bubble and cause another depression!

This should be the easiest question in the world for the professor!!
Let's watch how easily he can handle it!!

Actually, so far as I know his only line is,"thats con dogma and so it is wrong, though I can't explain why for the life of me."

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, no...Rshermr isn't a professor...he taught college as an underclassman! Hard to believe of course since college TA's are usually graduate students and PhD candidates but Rshermr insists it's true...and if you doubt his word he will hold you in contempt!!!

 

[Rshermr]

And if you really WERE an economics major like you claim...then you'd know that.

OMG!! He says he was an economics major?? I've asked him 100 times what makes him think a stimulus, somthing he always advocates, would work and he's never been able to come up with an answer!

That's so typical of a liberal.

Oh, he not only claims to have been an economics major...Rshermr claims to have TAUGHT economics at the college level.

Yes, I did. You tried to say I did not, called me a liar, asked for more info time after time. And I told you to talk about the issues. Finaly you agreed to let it go if you got more info. So I gave it to you. On your promise to get off the subject. And, so, here we are back.

So, we see what integrity oldstyle has. Not that I am at all surprised.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle Says: Showing us that the term "trickle down" can be found in several on-line sites does NOT prove that it exists as a theory for economists, you buffoon!Buffoon?? Some one is going to look like a buffoon at the end of this post, and it won't be me. I really do not care if it is or is not being taught. I can find references to unicorns and mermaids on line as well but that doesn't mean they exist outside of someone's imagination...which is EXACTLY where the ever elusive "trickle down economic theory" resides as well. So you say, but you have no proof of that. It is just your word, which has no value, dogma pusher. It isn't a REAL economic theory...it's a political term used by the proponents of income redistribution. Look, dipshit, it is a term that is "used" by all sorts of people. As Reagans Budget Director Says, it was a republican invention meant to get people to agree with supply side economics. You see, oldstyle, He would know. He was there. You do not. You were not. He was Reagans Budget Director. You were what, oldstyle. So, why is it that we should believe your contention. You have no proof. Because you can not find any.

Show me a credible economist that is using the "trickle down economic model". You can't BECAUSE JUST LIKE THE UNICORN IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MADE UP...IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! Did someone say that there was an economic model for trickle down?? It was not me. Lying again, eh oldstyle?? Did I say it was being taught??? No, I did not.

And if you really WERE an economics major like you claim...then you'd know that. Now there is a stupid statement. You just said I would know something that I did not. Again, you are being dishonest.
So lets see, oh great econ expert. Is trickle down an economic theory??? You say you know better than the encyclopedias, which shows you are delusional. I do not care if it is an economic theory. You seem to be hung up on it, and say it is not. Who else believes it is an economic theory: (you know you are going to loose this point)
Trickle-down economic theory is based upon supply-side economics.
Trickle Down Economics Theory and Effect

due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory's most famous adherent.
Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy

In fact I am certain that the developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this
Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

Robert Reich Dismisses Trickle-Down Theory Commonwealth Club
Robert Reich on the Trickle-Down Economic Theory video from Answers.com Videos

Why the Trickle Down Theory of Economics Does not Work for Small Businesses.
Why the Trickle Down Theory of Economics Does not Work for Small Businesses. | Strategies For Small Business

Trickle Down Economic Theory-- "An economic theory which advocates letting businesses flourish,
Online Debate: Trickle Down Economic Theory Does Not Work | Debate.org

Irwin Shishko: GOP trickle down theory more like casino economics
Irwin Shishko: GOP trickle down theory more like casino economics - Sun Sentinel

Warren Buffett: ‘Trickle Down’ Theory Hasn’t Worked
Warren Buffett: ‘Trickle Down’ Theory Hasn’t Worked (VIDEO) | TPMDC

And we can go for hours, literally hundreds of references to trickle down theory. Economists, dictionaries, pundits, on and on. And then there is Oldstyle, steadfastly saying that trickle down is not a theory. But, he has NO references saying so. Who to believe. Robert Reich, Warren Buffett, (both of whom, among many many others say it is a theory), and then Oldstyle, all by himself, saying it is not. And repeating it over and over. Who to believe. Who to believe.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. Ed and oldstyle. If you two are both physically together, and a bomb goes of and you both tip over, the IQ of the entire area will increase.

Ed says: wow!!! well then I patiently await my lesson on the heart of liberal thinking: what makes them think a liberal stimulus is not merely a bubble that will burst like the housing stimulus bubble and cause another depression! So, ed, there is a great example of your complete stupidity. The answer is simple. Stimulus has nothing to do with bubbles. Totally disconnected. So, ed me poor ignorant libertarian, there you go.

This should be the easiest question in the world for the professor!!
Let's watch how easily he can handle it!!

Actually, so far as I know his only line is,"thats con dogma and so it is wrong, though I can't explain why for the life of me." Of course, you are lying again. I keep trying to explain economics to you, but you are incapable of understanding. And con dogma, which you do post continuously, is easily discussed. And shown to be wrong, which it always is. If you had a brain, you would understand.

Have you looked at the study explaining why cons are stupid? I keep sending it to you, for your own good, you should read it.