Economics 101

[P@triot]

I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

A Conservative talking point.
What's good for Wall Street is NOT good for Main Street.

Actually - nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute, undeniable, reality is that what is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street, healthcare, security, employment, technology, innovation, etc., etc., etc. - freedom. Government intervention, control, and regulation creates collapse and failure every time. Freedom, free markets, etc. create wealth, prosperity, and innovation every time. It's simply an undeniable, universal reality which has been proven to be true 100% of the time throughout history.

With freedom - only the people making bad decisions suffer (like being dumb enough to gamble your money away in the stock market). With government (like the $19 trillion in debt), all of society suffers. Even those who have never made a bad decision in their life. If you handed your money over to some broker on Wall Street that you've never met because you're greedy to make money without working for it, and they cheat you out of it, that's not their fault and that's not the fault of a lack of regulations. That's your fault. I've never placed a single damn penny into Wall Street - and guess what? I've never lost a single damn penny. No matter how irresponsible they were or reckless they were, their actions didn't affect me one damn bit. It's the beauty of freedom. The problem with liberals is that they always want someone else to take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Only when government got involved and mandated stuff did I become affected (like their banking regulations which caused banks which previously provided free checking to start charging checking account fees did I become affected).

Bullshit.

Ahahaha! I guess when you're faced with facts which you cannot dispute, the only thing you can do is waste time saying "b.s."

 

[Moonglow]

Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......

As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.

Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, genius. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.

Yeah, it's all leftist...

 

[Moonglow]

Reagan and Bush musta been leftist..

 

[Rshermr]

Listen, Young Republican, 90% of anything that happened before 2001 isn't on YouTube.

I presume you haven't looked up the definition of Supply Side Economics because your mommy hasn't taught you to use Google.
In fact, I posted the Wikipedia link 2 weeks ago and you still refuse to read it because it spells out the shithead Reagan was.

Prove there was an American Revolution using YouTube.
No dramatic reenactments; I want the actual footage.

Listen, Young Republican, 90% of anything that happened before 2001 isn't on YouTube.

That's your excuse for failing to prove your claim?

I presume you haven't looked up the definition of Supply Side Economics because your mommy hasn't taught you to use Google.

You claim it caused the crash. It's a stupid claim.
I'm not going to use the actual definition to discuss your claim.
You need to share your definition and share your explanation of cause and effect.
All your blathering about banks and loans has nothing to do with supply side.

Supply Side is funded by banks because the 3rd World shitholes that produce our products don't build factories with their own money.
Are you really that ignorant?

Supply Side is funded by banks

That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Listen, Young Republican, 90% of anything that happened before 2001 isn't on YouTube.

That's your excuse for failing to prove your claim?

I presume you haven't looked up the definition of Supply Side Economics because your mommy hasn't taught you to use Google.

You claim it caused the crash. It's a stupid claim.
I'm not going to use the actual definition to discuss your claim.
You need to share your definition and share your explanation of cause and effect.
All your blathering about banks and loans has nothing to do with supply side.

Supply Side is funded by banks because the 3rd World shitholes that produce our products don't build factories with their own money.
Are you really that ignorant?

Supply Side is funded by banks

That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

 

[P@triot]

Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......

As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.

Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, genius. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.

Yeah, it's all leftist...

Dude....Bush was a vintage Kennedy-era liberal. Just because someone runs with an "R" behind their name doesn't make them a conservative. And....even if it did....it doesn't mean that they implement 100% conservative policy across the board.

Lets break this down honestly for a moment - shall we?

George W. Bush significantly grew the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security. He also grew is significantly with the NSA, etc. and a multitude of other polices and items. Now, is growing the federal government liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

George W. Bush significantly spent beyond the federal budget (to the tune of roughly $4 trillion dollars). Now, is adding to the federal debt liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

George W. Bush shredded the U.S. Constitution by requesting and then signing into law, the Patriot Act. Now, is disrespecting and ignoring the U.S. Constitution liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

So yes, too big to fail is 100% left-wing concept. It is government intervention. Not true free-market conservatism. Just because some liberal with an "R" behind his name engages in it, doesn't make it any less left-wing. I think we've just proven that here today. Wouldn't you agree? (Of course you won't because our friends on the left are too disingenuous to engage in an honest discussion - it's all about the ends justifying the means).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......

As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.

Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, genius. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.

Yeah, it's all leftist...

Dude....Bush was a vintage Kennedy-era liberal. Just because someone runs with an "R" behind their name doesn't make them a conservative. And....even if it did....it doesn't mean that they implement 100% conservative policy across the board.

Lets break this down honestly for a moment - shall we?

George W. Bush significantly grew the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security. He also grew is significantly with the NSA, etc. and a multitude of other polices and items. Now, is growing the federal government liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

George W. Bush significantly spent beyond the federal budget (to the tune of roughly $4 trillion dollars). Now, is adding to the federal debt liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

George W. Bush shredded the U.S. Constitution by requesting and then signing into law, the Patriot Act. Now, is disrespecting and ignoring the U.S. Constitution liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

So yes, too big to fail is 100% left-wing concept. It is government intervention. Not true free-market conservatism. Just because some liberal with an "R" behind his name engages in it, doesn't make it any less left-wing. I think we've just proven that here today. Wouldn't you agree? (Of course you won't because our friends on the left are too disingenuous to engage in an honest discussion - it's all about the ends justifying the means).

Funny how......

One idiot at Heritage writes a paper on the individual mandate......

And

Obamacare is a conservative idea........

or

Conservatives bashed Bush when he started wars and wasting money, but the left never listened..

But

Bush was a conservative......

The far left and far right don't care about the truth...

They only look for what fits their fairy tales.

 

[Rshermr]

Supply Side is funded by banks because the 3rd World shitholes that produce our products don't build factories with their own money.
Are you really that ignorant?

Supply Side is funded by banks

That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

Supply Side is funded by banks because the 3rd World shitholes that produce our products don't build factories with their own money.
Are you really that ignorant?

Supply Side is funded by banks

That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

 

[Indeependent]

You know squat about Black Monday, little child.
Reagan was bullying banks into lending hundreds of millions of dollars to every non-US nation to build factories.
Guess what? The corrupt of the best of them took the money and we were left with non-existent or empty factories.
Why? Because no one did their due diligence to ensure that the loans were being utilized properly.

I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

You know squat about Black Monday, little child.
Reagan was bullying banks into lending hundreds of millions of dollars to every non-US nation to build factories.
Guess what? The corrupt of the best of them took the money and we were left with non-existent or empty factories.
Why? Because no one did their due diligence to ensure that the loans were being utilized properly.

I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

A Conservative talking point.
What's good for Wall Street is NOT good for Main Street.

Actually - nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute, undeniable, reality is that what is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street, healthcare, security, employment, technology, innovation, etc., etc., etc. - freedom. Government intervention, control, and regulation creates collapse and failure every time. Freedom, free markets, etc. create wealth, prosperity, and innovation every time. It's simply an undeniable, universal reality which has been proven to be true 100% of the time throughout history.

With freedom - only the people making bad decisions suffer (like being dumb enough to gamble your money away in the stock market). With government (like the $19 trillion in debt), all of society suffers. Even those who have never made a bad decision in their life. If you handed your money over to some broker on Wall Street that you've never met because you're greedy to make money without working for it, and they cheat you out of it, that's not their fault and that's not the fault of a lack of regulations. That's your fault. I've never placed a single damn penny into Wall Street - and guess what? I've never lost a single damn penny. No matter how irresponsible they were or reckless they were, their actions didn't affect me one damn bit. It's the beauty of freedom. The problem with liberals is that they always want someone else to take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Only when government got involved and mandated stuff did I become affected (like their banking regulations which caused banks which previously provided free checking to start charging checking account fees did I become affected).

The ONLY reason that 98.7% of people living in the US are not hanging elitists by telephone poles is because the shrinking Middle Class, of which I am a part, are being taxed to death to provide them with the, relatively speaking, good life.
Of course, Neo-Conservatives will pound their chests with pride, on ONE thread, that our poor are better off than the poor living anywhere else, whilst bitching on ANOTHER Thread that the lazy assed 98.7% should be allowed to starve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Supply Side is funded by banks

That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

Supply Side is funded by banks

That's awful. Let's see your definition of Supply Side Economics already.

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

 

[Rshermr]

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.[/QUOTE]
Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?[/QUOTE]

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.[/QUOTE]

Really, me boy. I answered you. You are simply proving, as I suspected, that you are a lying tool.
If I do not understand a persons argument, I ask them to clarify it so that I may understand. You obviously do not want to understand. And, me boy, I obviously do not want to help you.
You are, however, demonstrating why cons understand so very little.
Here, me boy. Let me help you further, to understand your cognitive issues:
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

• Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
• Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
• Analysis of more than 15,000 people

By ROB WAUGH
UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 31 January 2016

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Read more: Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

One of many, many, many studies saying the same basic thing.
Your welcome. Again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really, me boy. I answered you.

Still can't post his argument? LOL!

 

[Indeependent]

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

Jesus H. Christ. It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory. That it is no longer taught in universities except, of course, liberty university, tells you how successful the then Supply Side School of Economics was. Great for economists looking for awards and monetary awards. It was such a great new set of theories. But, me boy, over the years, rational economists pretty much all waw the light. Now, being a Supply Side guy probably means you are a Libertarian drinking the CATO cool aid, and sitting out on an island with the few well paid economists who could care less about truth.

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

 

[Rshermr]

Really, me boy. I answered you.

Still can't post his argument? LOL!

Really, me boy. It is not my argument. You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Which proves my point, that cons like you are stupid. I provide you with a self help source, discussing your particular malfunction, and you mistakingly suggest that you are having problems understanding "his" argument, and want my explanation.
I did explain why you have problems understanding. Or, more properly, provided a quote and link to a proper study explaining the problem. And, me boy, it is your problem. No one else seems to have your problem.
Usually, one gets thanks for helping the mentally deficient. In your case, you keep making stupid requests that you have no right to make.
Perhaps it is congenital?!?!?!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really, me boy. I answered you.

Still can't post his argument? LOL!

Really, me boy. It is not my argument. You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Which proves my point, that cons like you are stupid. I provide you with a self help source, discussing your particular malfunction, and you mistakingly suggest that you are having problems understanding "his" argument, and want my explanation.
I did explain why you have problems understanding. Or, more properly, provided a quote and link to a proper study explaining the problem. And, me boy, it is your problem. No one else seems to have your problem.
Usually, one gets thanks for helping the mentally deficient. In your case, you keep making stupid requests that you have no right to make.
Perhaps it is congenital?!?!?!

It's his argument. You said it was clear. Durr.

 

[Rshermr]

Really, me boy. I answered you.

Still can't post his argument? LOL!

Really, me boy. It is not my argument. You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Which proves my point, that cons like you are stupid. I provide you with a self help source, discussing your particular malfunction, and you mistakingly suggest that you are having problems understanding "his" argument, and want my explanation.
I did explain why you have problems understanding. Or, more properly, provided a quote and link to a proper study explaining the problem. And, me boy, it is your problem. No one else seems to have your problem.
Usually, one gets thanks for helping the mentally deficient. In your case, you keep making stupid requests that you have no right to make.
Perhaps it is congenital?!?!?!

It's his argument. You said it was clear. Durr.

There. You seem to have caught on. His argument, it is simple to understand. One problem, me boy. You do not seem capable of understanding it. Actually, two problems. You seem to also think someone else should explain it. Durr.
Just try to imagine, me boy, how great it would be if you could do research for yourself, AND understand what you read.

 

[Indeependent]

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".

None of that explanation has the slightest thing to do with supply side or the crash of 1987.

 

[Indeependent]

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".

None of that explanation has the slightest thing to do with supply side or the crash of 1987.

Bullshit...and you've way overdone the boredom factor.