Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[daveman]

This guy is a hoot. One minute he's teaching college level economic classes but the next he can't remember basic Keynesian economic theory and has to have his "secretary" proof all his correspondence so he doesn't come across as illiterate. Asked a question ABOUT economics that someone who majored in the subject should be able to answer easily and he responds by essentially telling the questioner that they aren't smart enough to understand economics so therefore he's not going to reply.

"Economics? I...ah...I TAUGHT economics in college. I taught economics as ah...as an undergraduate for my Professor...who was Morgan Fairchild! And she was so impressed that she married me! Yeah, That's the ticket!!!"

A progressive, lying like a rug? The hell you say!

 

[Rshermr]

This guy is a hoot. One minute he's teaching college level economic classes but the next he can't remember basic Keynesian economic theory and has to have his "secretary" proof all his correspondence so he doesn't come across as illiterate. Asked a question ABOUT economics that someone who majored in the subject should be able to answer easily and he responds by essentially telling the questioner that they aren't smart enough to understand economics so therefore he's not going to reply.

"Economics? I...ah...I TAUGHT economics in college. I taught economics as ah...as an undergraduate for my Professor...who was Morgan Fairchild! And she was so impressed that she married me! Yeah, That's the ticket!!!"

And, Oldstyle, caught in the inability to argue substance, reverts agan to personal attack. What a surprise.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle says:

All that verbal diarrhea and yet you can't give me the economic school that asks for tax increases in a slow economy? You say that economics isn't "static" so you can't use just one school of thought? So what schools WOULD you use? What NEW school is this Administration using when it calls for tax increases in the midst of a weak economy?

Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.

Why don't you just admit that you have no more of an idea about economics then you do about brain surgery? Your "explanations" are so simplistic as to be useless. What does income distribution have to do with Keynesian economic policies not working? Because you read in one of your progressive sites that income distribution is now the problem for EVERYTHING that's wrong in America?

Sorry. I forgot that you were a con tool, incapable of actual rational thought. I will post this for others, because i am sure you can not or will not try to understand. So, if income is relatively evenly distributed, then you do a tax decrease, the actions of the upper and lower marginal income recipients will be more similar, If the upper income recipients have greatly higher incomes than the middle income recipients, as in the United States, then a tax cut would only work, from a demand creation standpoint, with the lower to middle income recipients. Simple enough.

The Bush tax cuts were hardly just for the wealthy. If they were then the Democrats wouldn't be screaming to the heaven's that the Republican's are holding the Middle Class "hostage" because they aren't willing to extend those unless the Democrats extend them for the wealthy.

No, they were not. But they were heavily weighted toward the wealthy. The wealthy got the meat and potatoes, and the middle class got the crumbs. Just the way you like it, as do the other con tools. Starve the middle class, make it smaller, and enrich the rich. And blame the worst economy since the great depression on other factors.

"The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.
The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.[2]
At a time of pressing fiscal problems and growing income inequality, continuing such large windfalls for the highest-income taxpayers is unaffordable.
The Highest-Income Taxpayers Have Received Immense Tax Cuts
The Bush tax cuts directed stunning tax benefits to high-income households over the last nine years:
If one adds up the average tax cuts that households with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 received in each of the last nine years, the total exceeds $74,000.
The sum of the average annual tax cuts delivered to households with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million exceeds $189,000 over the last nine years.
The sum of the average annual tax cuts delivered to households with incomes over $1 million in each of the last nine years exceeds $1.1 million. The average tax cut these individuals received was more than $110,000 in each of these years.
Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So, yes, I am sure you think the idea of keeping the crumbs for the middle class is a bad idea, and you should maintain the tax cut for the wealthy. Because it worked so well.

As for where Supply Side Economics has worked? Did you somehow "miss" the longest sustained period of wealth creation this country has ever seen following Reagan?

Well, lets see, oldstyle. I am really getting tired of going through this with you. I must have done so what, ten times, by now. So, here goes AGAIN. I know you refuse to acknowledge this truth, and will be back for more at some point:
Reagan provided the biggest reason for supply side economics to be understood as a non working theory ever. In 1981, right after election, Reagan provided the largest tax decrease EVER. Huge tax decrease. All during his campaign, and during the push for the tax decrease, we were sold on the idea that this tax decrease would create jobs and expand the economy, resulting in higher revenue for the gov. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. Unemployment went up. Substantially. In 18 months, we had our highest unemployment rate ever outside of the great depression. 10.8% Unemployment.
At the same time, gov revenues dropped like a rock. And the deficits started to grow like crazy. And panic erupted in the administration.

Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

Then you know what happened, Oldstyle. You just conveniently forgot to mention it. Because Reagan BORROWED like crazy. Completely against supply side theory. And he borrowed big. Enough to tripple the national debt during his admin. He borrowed more than all of the other presidents before him COMBINED. And he INCREASED TAXES 11 TIMES. Completely against Supply Side Theory. You know that, oldstyle. I have proven it to you multiple time.
And Reagan SPENT like a drunken sailor. Not that any of this was bad, but all was to recover from the effects of Supply Side Economics. And it worked.

Did you miss the economic surge that JFK engendered with HIS tax cuts?

Odd, Oldtyle, you knew we were talking about tax decreases during a BAD economy, with HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. But neither was the case when JFK did those tax decreases. And the theory is that in good economic times, it may well be smart to decrease taxes if they seem to high. And the highest marginal tax rate was 72%.

I know that the progressive "mantra" is that Supply Side didn't work but the truth is that Supply Side economics combined with out of control governmental growth is what didn't work. Reagan proved that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level because of a growing economy. He also proved that SPENDING all of that revenue and then some is bad fiscal policy.

Yes, well, you, being a con tool, believe that actually studying supply side and telling the truth about what happened is mantra. You would prefer to lie about it, as you did above. You know, leave out ALL of the details. He did not prove that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level, he proved that in a bad economy, cutting taxes would decrease revenue substantially. And he did not just spend that revenue, as you lie again. He increased taxes, he borrowed like a drunk sailor, he spent stimulatively, and the economy improved.

So, You LIED AGAIN. Why a lie instead of just a mistake? Because you KNEW what you were saying was untrue.

So, here is the big question for you, OLDSTYLE. If you believe Supply Side economic theory works, then WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS BAD IN LATE 1982 DID THE REAGAN ECONOMIC TEAM TAX AND BORROW TO GET REVENUE TO SPEND STIMULATIVELY, AND THEN SPEND STIMULATIVELY. WHY DID THEY NOT FOLLOW SUPPLY SIDE THEORY, AND DECREASE TAXES, BUT INSTEAD SPEND STIMULATIVELY TO INCREASE DEMAND.

 

[Oldstyle]

Substance? Dude, I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?

 

[Rshermr]

Probably not. Small, struggling companies don't have the capital to build infrastructure. Especially if they are out in the boonies. That's why we have government. Are you retarded? Seriously, it would explain so much.

A hundred bucks a month.

HughesNet Plans and Pricing, High Speed Rural Satellite Internet

More government is not the answer to every problem. You cannot understand this, being a Statist useful idiot.

Derp? Where'd you go?

You really need to get out of the comedy game. Cons are never, ever good at comedy. It is not funny, and it is boring. But you really are obsessed with that time award, eh oldstyle. Still trying to attack it. Again, a typical con tool.
Frankly, I could care less. But it was fun to see if you would act like a bull. So I just put the red flag in front of you, and you charged. Just like a bovine. That was, in my opinion, funny.

You can always tell when oldstyle, or other cons, know they are defeated. Personal attacks and getting their friend to help always tells. Funny. So, now we see Daveman trying to help poor Oldstyle. And between them, they can not lie their way through. dipshits.

 

[Rshermr]

You take what the CBO says as gospel, even though the data they're given comes from politicians.

Idiot.

Daveman, the idiot, calling others idiots. Funny, eh.
So, as a con tool, you believe that the CBO gets its information from politicians. No proof of any kind. I posted proof that is a lie. But, Daveman, being an idiot, posts that that the CBO gets its information from politicians.

That is the problem with con tools. They simply take what they want to believe, post it, and believe it. Sad existence.

Oh, you mean exactly like you do with your progressive circle-jerk studies "proving" conservatives are dumb?

Run along, kid. You're hopelessly outmatched.

Yes. In your mind. Because you are just so upset that all of the studies out there say the same thing. And that you help prove the fact. And, being a con, you are delusional. You actually post things like "run along now" like you have some right, some power. Here is a news flash for you daveman, so pay attention. You have no right, and no power and neither I nor anyone else you say that to will run along.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle says:

All that verbal diarrhea and yet you can't give me the economic school that asks for tax increases in a slow economy? You say that economics isn't "static" so you can't use just one school of thought? So what schools WOULD you use? What NEW school is this Administration using when it calls for tax increases in the midst of a weak economy?

Poor Oldstyle. He thinks that there must be a template to follow. You know, like his beloved republicans have followed Supply Side. And continue to. Even though there are no colleges with classes in Supply Side. And even though supply side did not work. And any president, in Oldstyle's simplistic little mind, should follow just one group of economists, who favor one particular economic theory. Poor Oldstyle. Just can not manage to understand. Just wants to attack. Kinda like a con tool, which he says he definitely is not.

Why don't you just admit that you have no more of an idea about economics then you do about brain surgery? Your "explanations" are so simplistic as to be useless. What does income distribution have to do with Keynesian economic policies not working? Because you read in one of your progressive sites that income distribution is now the problem for EVERYTHING that's wrong in America?

Sorry. I forgot that you were a con tool, incapable of actual rational thought. I will post this for others, because i am sure you can not or will not try to understand. So, if income is relatively evenly distributed, then you do a tax decrease, the actions of the upper and lower marginal income recipients will be more similar, If the upper income recipients have greatly higher incomes than the middle income recipients, as in the United States, then a tax cut would only work, from a demand creation standpoint, with the lower to middle income recipients. Simple enough.



No, they were not. But they were heavily weighted toward the wealthy. The wealthy got the meat and potatoes, and the middle class got the crumbs. Just the way you like it, as do the other con tools. Starve the middle class, make it smaller, and enrich the rich. And blame the worst economy since the great depression on other factors.

"The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.
The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive. In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent.[2]
At a time of pressing fiscal problems and growing income inequality, continuing such large windfalls for the highest-income taxpayers is unaffordable.
The Highest-Income Taxpayers Have Received Immense Tax Cuts
The Bush tax cuts directed stunning tax benefits to high-income households over the last nine years:
If one adds up the average tax cuts that households with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 received in each of the last nine years, the total exceeds $74,000.
The sum of the average annual tax cuts delivered to households with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million exceeds $189,000 over the last nine years.
The sum of the average annual tax cuts delivered to households with incomes over $1 million in each of the last nine years exceeds $1.1 million. The average tax cut these individuals received was more than $110,000 in each of these years.
Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So, yes, I am sure you think the idea of keeping the crumbs for the middle class is a bad idea, and you should maintain the tax cut for the wealthy. Because it worked so well.



Well, lets see, oldstyle. I am really getting tired of going through this with you. I must have done so what, ten times, by now. So, here goes AGAIN. I know you refuse to acknowledge this truth, and will be back for more at some point:
Reagan provided the biggest reason for supply side economics to be understood as a non working theory ever. In 1981, right after election, Reagan provided the largest tax decrease EVER. Huge tax decrease. All during his campaign, and during the push for the tax decrease, we were sold on the idea that this tax decrease would create jobs and expand the economy, resulting in higher revenue for the gov. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. Unemployment went up. Substantially. In 18 months, we had our highest unemployment rate ever outside of the great depression. 10.8% Unemployment.
At the same time, gov revenues dropped like a rock. And the deficits started to grow like crazy. And panic erupted in the administration.

Unemployment Rates in 1982
January 1982 - 8.6%
February 1982 - 8.9%
March 1982 - 9%
April 1982 - 9.3%
May 1982 - 9.4%
June 1982 - 9.6%
July 1982 - 9.8%
August 1982 - 9.8%
September 1982 - 10.1%
October 1982 - 10.4%
November 1982 - 10.8%
December 1982 - 10.8%
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

Then you know what happened, Oldstyle. You just conveniently forgot to mention it. Because Reagan BORROWED like crazy. Completely against supply side theory. And he borrowed big. Enough to tripple the national debt during his admin. He borrowed more than all of the other presidents before him COMBINED. And he INCREASED TAXES 11 TIMES. Completely against Supply Side Theory. You know that, oldstyle. I have proven it to you multiple time.
And Reagan SPENT like a drunken sailor. Not that any of this was bad, but all was to recover from the effects of Supply Side Economics. And it worked.

Did you miss the economic surge that JFK engendered with HIS tax cuts?

Odd, Oldtyle, you knew we were talking about tax decreases during a BAD economy, with HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT. But neither was the case when JFK did those tax decreases. And the theory is that in good economic times, it may well be smart to decrease taxes if they seem to high. And the highest marginal tax rate was 72%.

I know that the progressive "mantra" is that Supply Side didn't work but the truth is that Supply Side economics combined with out of control governmental growth is what didn't work. Reagan proved that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level because of a growing economy. He also proved that SPENDING all of that revenue and then some is bad fiscal policy.

Yes, well, you, being a con tool, believe that actually studying supply side and telling the truth about what happened is mantra. You would prefer to lie about it, as you did above. You know, leave out ALL of the details. He did not prove that you could cut taxes and keep revenues at the same level, he proved that in a bad economy, cutting taxes would decrease revenue substantially. And he did not just spend that revenue, as you lie again. He increased taxes, he borrowed like a drunk sailor, he spent stimulatively, and the economy improved.

So, You LIED AGAIN. Why a lie instead of just a mistake? Because you KNEW what you were saying was untrue.

So, here is the big question for you, OLDSTYLE. If you believe Supply Side economic theory works, then WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS BAD IN LATE 1982 DID THE REAGAN ECONOMIC TEAM TAX AND BORROW TO GET REVENUE TO SPEND STIMULATIVELY, AND THEN SPEND STIMULATIVELY. WHY DID THEY NOT FOLLOW SUPPLY SIDE THEORY, AND DECREASE TAXES, BUT INSTEAD SPEND STIMULATIVELY TO INCREASE DEMAND.

You're probably one of the bigger idiots on this board when it comes to this topic. No college in the country teaches Supply Side economics? Did you REALLY just make that statement? I'm beginning to think that the closest you've ever come to a college is driving past one.

And I can't believe after lecturing me about citing Forbes magazine because of their "conservative bias" you have the stones to use something from The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities. Do you not know that their entire reason for being is to advocate for legislation to aid the poor? You continue to amuse with your double standard.

"The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty."

Gee, wonder if THEY might have a "slight" bias! (eye-roll)

 

[Oldstyle]

And once again you trot out the old progressive refrain that Reagan raised taxes a bunch of times. Well, no shit, Sherlock! He was working with a Democratically controlled Congress. The number of tax increases that he signed over an eight year period might SOUND shocking to a head in the sand poser like yourself but it was simply the price of doing business with a staunch liberal like Tip O'Neal. You see...unlike Barry...Ronnie was willing to compromise from time to time.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for unemployment going up because of tax cuts? That's horseshit. Unemployment went up because the Fed tightened up the money supply to alleviate the inflationary side of Stagflation that Reagan inherited from Carter. If you really WERE an economist you'd know that! But you're a "Tommy Flanagan" economist so you don't have a CLUE!

 

[Oldstyle]

A hundred bucks a month.

HughesNet Plans and Pricing, High Speed Rural Satellite Internet

More government is not the answer to every problem. You cannot understand this, being a Statist useful idiot.

Derp? Where'd you go?

You really need to get out of the comedy game. Cons are never, ever good at comedy. It is not funny, and it is boring. But you really are obsessed with that time award, eh oldstyle. Still trying to attack it. Again, a typical con tool.
Frankly, I could care less. But it was fun to see if you would act like a bull. So I just put the red flag in front of you, and you charged. Just like a bovine. That was, in my opinion, funny.

You can always tell when oldstyle, or other cons, know they are defeated. Personal attacks and getting their friend to help always tells. Funny. So, now we see Daveman trying to help poor Oldstyle. And between them, they can not lie their way through. dipshits.

If you want to accuse me of being a "tool"...I'd suggest doing it in answer to a post that I actually posted...you TOOL! God, you're an idiot...

 

[daveman]

A hundred bucks a month.

HughesNet Plans and Pricing, High Speed Rural Satellite Internet

More government is not the answer to every problem. You cannot understand this, being a Statist useful idiot.

Derp? Where'd you go?

You really need to get out of the comedy game. Cons are never, ever good at comedy. It is not funny, and it is boring. But you really are obsessed with that time award, eh oldstyle. Still trying to attack it. Again, a typical con tool.
Frankly, I could care less. But it was fun to see if you would act like a bull. So I just put the red flag in front of you, and you charged. Just like a bovine. That was, in my opinion, funny.

You can always tell when oldstyle, or other cons, know they are defeated. Personal attacks and getting their friend to help always tells. Funny. So, now we see Daveman trying to help poor Oldstyle. And between them, they can not lie their way through. dipshits.

How is it you consider yourself intelligent, again?

I'm not assisting Oldstyle. He's handling you quite easily on his own, mostly using your own words (and it's funny when lefties play "I Didn't Say What I Said!! ). Furthermore, you're replying to a post that wasn't directed at you, and which easily destroyed your fellow lefty moron's point.

So, in summary, you're stupid, and you're running to your fellow lefty's defense.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, the idiot, calling others idiots. Funny, eh.
So, as a con tool, you believe that the CBO gets its information from politicians. No proof of any kind. I posted proof that is a lie. But, Daveman, being an idiot, posts that that the CBO gets its information from politicians.

That is the problem with con tools. They simply take what they want to believe, post it, and believe it. Sad existence.

Oh, you mean exactly like you do with your progressive circle-jerk studies "proving" conservatives are dumb?

Run along, kid. You're hopelessly outmatched.

Yes. In your mind. Because you are just so upset that all of the studies out there say the same thing. And that you help prove the fact. And, being a con, you are delusional. You actually post things like "run along now" like you have some right, some power. Here is a news flash for you daveman, so pay attention. You have no right, and no power and neither I nor anyone else you say that to will run along.

I didn't really expect you to.

I did, however, expect you to inflate your stuffed shirt even more and lamely attempt to browbeat me into acknowledging your superiority, which is based on absolutely nothing at all.

Prediction: You will now bleat about my alleged "inferiority complex", thus proving me correct about your overblown sense of your own importance.

Guaranteed.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think Rshermr's "secretary" has gone to lunch...hence the delay in his posts.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or more likely, Rshermr's Mom is making him his usual grilled cheese "sammy" hence the delay in his posts...

 

[Rshermr]

And once again you trot out the old progressive refrain that Reagan raised taxes a bunch of times. Well, no shit, Sherlock! He was working with a Democratically controlled Congress. The number of tax increases that he signed over an eight year period might SOUND shocking to a head in the sand poser like yourself but it was simply the price of doing business with a staunch liberal like Tip O'Neal. You see...unlike Barry...Ronnie was willing to compromise from time to time.

Sorry, oldstyle. Those were reagan's bills, he signed them, and he had full responsibility.
"Reagan, renowned by Republicans as a tax-cutter, also increased revenue about a dozen times when confronted with surging deficits. The Treasury Department has estimated those measures would be the equivalent of $300 billion annually today -- more than what many Democrats are now seeking as part of a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling."
Reagan

So, I see you have your dander up. But you are making unfounded accusations. The unemployment rate had been going down, oh great economic mind. It did not start up until after reagan lowered taxes and decreased gov spending. Pure and simple.
And no, it was not that reagan had to sign any tax increases. As you will see, if you actually used google a little and stayed out of the bat shit crazy con sites, that he did so as the above bloomberg article states. To stop the rising deficit. And to try to gain money to stop the increasing unemployment numbers.
So, great economics expert, why did reagan not use supply side economics to stop the rising deficit and unemployment?? Why did he do all the stimulus spending??? And why, oh great economic mind, did he increase the size of the gov significantly??? Really, oldstyle, try a little integrity in your claims.

 

[Rshermr]

I think Rshermr's "secretary" has gone to lunch...hence the delay in his posts.

No. Actually not true. I do not get all the time off that you do, having a really, really menial job. I actually have a life.

 

[Rshermr]

Or more likely, Rshermr's Mom is making him his usual grilled cheese "sammy" hence the delay in his posts...

And I did not know you missed me so much. You really do need to get a life.

 

[Rshermr]

Derp? Where'd you go?

You really need to get out of the comedy game. Cons are never, ever good at comedy. It is not funny, and it is boring. But you really are obsessed with that time award, eh oldstyle. Still trying to attack it. Again, a typical con tool.
Frankly, I could care less. But it was fun to see if you would act like a bull. So I just put the red flag in front of you, and you charged. Just like a bovine. That was, in my opinion, funny.

You can always tell when oldstyle, or other cons, know they are defeated. Personal attacks and getting their friend to help always tells. Funny. So, now we see Daveman trying to help poor Oldstyle. And between them, they can not lie their way through. dipshits.

How is it you consider yourself intelligent, again?

I'm not assisting Oldstyle. He's handling you quite easily on his own, mostly using your own words (and it's funny when lefties play "I Didn't Say What I Said!! ). Furthermore, you're replying to a post that wasn't directed at you, and which easily destroyed your fellow lefty moron's point.

So, in summary, you're stupid, and you're running to your fellow lefty's defense.

You are correct. You are not assisting oldstyle, in any way. Trying, but with no real effect. And as to who is handling who, that would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

Derp? Where'd you go?

You really need to get out of the comedy game. Cons are never, ever good at comedy. It is not funny, and it is boring. But you really are obsessed with that time award, eh oldstyle. Still trying to attack it. Again, a typical con tool.
Frankly, I could care less. But it was fun to see if you would act like a bull. So I just put the red flag in front of you, and you charged. Just like a bovine. That was, in my opinion, funny.

You can always tell when oldstyle, or other cons, know they are defeated. Personal attacks and getting their friend to help always tells. Funny. So, now we see Daveman trying to help poor Oldstyle. And between them, they can not lie their way through. dipshits.

How is it you consider yourself intelligent, again?

I'm not assisting Oldstyle. He's handling you quite easily on his own, mostly using your own words (and it's funny when lefties play "I Didn't Say What I Said!! ). Furthermore, you're replying to a post that wasn't directed at you, and which easily destroyed your fellow lefty moron's point.

So, in summary, you're stupid, and you're running to your fellow lefty's defense.

So, another insignificant con tool. I can tell that you are insignificant because you have all the time you do to post dogma. And personal attacks. Jesus H. Christ, dipshit, you need a life. Or maybe you are on the con payroll.

 

[Rshermr]

Substance? Dude, I asked you a simple question...to tell me what school of economics advocates tax raises in the midst of a slow economy and you give me several paragraphs of nothing. Now you want to argue substance? OK...then tell me what school of economics the Obama Administration is basing this tax increase on?

I told you what they are doing, as nearly as I can tell, oldstyle. Obviously you can not or choose not to read. So, which one do you think. Obviously you are not going to believe anything I say, regardless of how obvious it is. so, do what cons do. Make something up and believe it. dipshit.