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

[Rshermr]

Ed, your problem is that you are crushed so often, you would have no idea if someone else is crushed. Is that what happened to your poor brain. Just remember, your condition is not your fault. It was just plain bad luck.

too stuipid!! If that was true you could say at least one substantive thing in support of liberalism but after being asked 19 times you can't!! Do you even know what liberalism is??

Define "liberalism".

Uh, oh. We are now in for a rain storm of drivel. Poor guy can not define anything. He simply believes what he wants to believe. Makes life easier for himself. And, it limits his requirement to try to think.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, lets see what nonsense you have for us today:

I point out that the Democrats held Super Majorities and your response is that the Republicans held "majorities" in the Senate for six of Reagan's 8 years? So what? Does that mean they controlled what legislation came out of the House?

It means, oldstyle, that your sentence was a complete untruth. There was no super-majority at all, oldstyle. Do you yet see the difference. You say there were super majorities throughout reagans administration in both the house and the senate. Which was untrue. And yes, oldstyle, I hate to burst your bubble, but since there was no super majority, your argument falls apart. Since the repubs controlled the senate, then any legislation that got there could pass, barring a fillibuster by the dems. And Filibusters were still few in those days.

That unlike Obama who was able to ram through legislation without a single Republican supporting vote, Reagan was not constantly having to compromise with Tip O'Neil?

Not so, as you should know. Dems are not like lemmings. they do not vote in herds There are, for instance, the red dog dems who are repubs with a D behind their name. They pretty much always vote with the repubs. But then, you know that. And the super-majority went away with the death of Kennedy, and election of Brown. And so, you had less than 2 years as a theoretical super majority in the senate for the dems. Then, you had the leader of the house telling us that his main purpose was to make obama a one term pres. So, don't even try to compare Boehner and mcconnell, senate and house republican leaders, with any past leaders of either house or senate. These guys are run by the tea party.




Jesus, Oldstyle. Is this sentence suposed to mean something?? What is truly laughable is that you still do not understand that there is no such thing as a supermajorioty in the house. Will you ever learn there is no such thing, or are you simply immune to learning. And since I said no such thing as that a super majority is similar to having a majority, since there was NO SUPER-MAJORITY during the reagan administration. Which I proved to you. Are you simply stupid?



No, not particularly unique history. But, they were pretty much pissed after Reagan used Reconciliation FOUR times. Maybe it was payback. But at any rate, it was the right thing to do from an economic point of view.



Right. Just trying to keep you straight, Oldstyle. Your sentence said from 70% in 1986. So your statement is wrong, and gave the impression of a second tax decrease of almost 40%. And by the way, I do not buy the unwarranted comment. That is your opinion, and you know how much I have learned to value your opinion.

Your memory of what Bill Clinton had for a platform running for his first term is rather amusing. It was "the economy stupid"...specifically Bush I's broken promise of no new taxes that Clinton used against the sitting President. Clinton on the other hand promised Middle Class tax cuts if elected...a promise that he subsequently reneged on when he raised taxes.

Wrong, oh great economics historian. It was the economy, plain and simple. Clinton agreed with Bush's tax cuts, but they were way too small. So, where are your links, oldstyle. Kind of hard to produce links when you are lying, Oldstyle. Clinton promised tax increases. And provided them.
And you, oldstyle, are lying about it again.

Now as for your "why should Democrats trust Republicans" rant? What's laughable about that is that Reagan kept his end of the TEFRA deal he struck with Tip O'Neil but it was the Democrats who DIDN'T keep theirs. Yet for some reason you now want to paint Ronnie as the guy who couldn't be trusted? Sorry, but that dog isn't going to hunt.

Oh, it hunts, oldstyle, bigtime. Perhaps you missed the last election. It really, really hunts. People finally caught on and are continuing to do so. And if you think FOUR Reconciliations are not a reason to mistrust him, then keep your lip shut if obama uses three more to see if he can tie Ronnie for the record.

So, there you go, Oldstyle. You have been crushed over and over, shown to have lied, and posted ridiculous statements. And still you think you are winning this discussion. Which, Oldstyle, proves that you are a conservative and that you are delusional. Which is, I admit, redundant.

When did I EVER say that there were any Super Majorities during Reagan's two terms? I was the one who pointed out that Reagan never had the Super Majorities that Obama enjoyed...he had to try and reach compromises with Tip O'Neil.

It's "Blue Dog Democrats" that vote conservatively...not "Red Dog Democrats". Just one MORE thing you're clueless on.

It was the leader of the Senate telling people that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term President. If you didn't have your head up your ass you'd know that was Mitch McConnell. At that time Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. Another thing you don't know what you're talking about!

You're equally ignorant about Super Majorities. You can too have one in the House. A Super Majority is what is needed to overturn Presidential vetoes and to make amendments to the Constitution. Is there anything that you DO have some knowledge in?

The Democrats reneging on their promises to cut spending "was the right thing to do from an economic point of view"? Interesting concept...you chastise Reagan for increasing the deficit...yet you applaud the Democrats for not cutting spending (which would have decreased that deficit) as they had agreed to do? Isn't it obvious that if they HAD cut spending as they said they would...that the "Reagan deficits" would have been much smaller? So why does Ronnie get the blame for the size of those?

I did not say that Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28% in 1986. Go back and reread my post. Your word comprehension skills are as bad as your spelling, Rshermr.

I hate to keep bashing you, Rshermr but your recollection of what took place during the Clinton years is AWFUL. You want proof that Clinton ran for office against Bush I promising a Middle Class tax cut but then raised taxes after being elected? This is a discussion of the people in his Administration that were THERE when that decision to raise taxes instead of give a tax cut was made. I think it sums it up rather well...

Chapters - Chapter 3 | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

"During those chaotic first weeks in the White House and following bad news about the size of the deficit, Bill Clinton made one of the most important decisions of his presidency -- to make deficit reduction the centerpiece of his first budget. Some members of the staff argued he was turning his back on campaign promises, in particular that of a middle-class tax cut. And by now Bill Clinton had already lost so much political capital that his budget was in deep trouble even though Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Begala: My view was that the campaign had been a sacred thing, that it had been a real compact, because I was there and I saw the connection that Clinton made with people, and the connection that they made with him. And this bond, you know, I felt very personally, and I know the president did too. So I had this, I think now naive notion that you would just then get out your campaign book and start on page one, and leaf through and enact everything until you got to page 228. Well, it turns out it doesn't quite work that way, and people who had been around the block a few times tried to explain it.

Stephanopoulos: I wanted to keep as many of the promises as we could. I was committed to the putting people first agenda and actually saw my role, in many ways, as a defender of the promises. So I wanted to do as much of the investment and keep as much of the tax cut as we could, not to the exclusion of deficit reduction. But that's more where my heart was and where I thought we had to protect ourselves politically.

Rubin: Well, the president's view was not that he was abandoning anything. The president's view was that the circumstances were substantially worse than he or any of us thought they were. And that even though it was a very tough path to take, politically, that if he didn't do the tough thing, politically, which is deal with the deficit, then the thing that he was elected to do, which is get the economy back on track, wouldn't happen. And the only way he could get the other things he wanted to do done would be to get the economy back on track.

Panetta: The president is someone who really loves to get the best information from the best minds that he can get a hold of. I mean, I have never seen him intimidated by an in-depth discussion about issues. He loves that. And I think he kind of relished the fact that there was this debate that was going on, and that very strong views were being presented. He never said, "Cool it. I don't want to hear it." Never said that. He always was intense, he was interested. He wanted to hear the discussions, because I think in the president's own mind, he constantly was testing exactly, you know, "How far can I go? What can I do?"

But he was also smart enough to understand that when he looked at some of the veterans he said, "These guys have been around a while, and they've seen these wars." And, you know, he recognized the fact that it wasn't Arkansas, that it wasn't just a question as a governor of a small state working with that kind of budget. He recognized the differences, and that's why I think he put a tremendous amount of trust in his economic team, which ultimately I think made the difference in terms of the final product.

Rubin: When you think of the enormous amount that was accomplished during that period, it's really quite remarkable. The president, from a standing start, put together a government. We put together a budget. The budget, in effect, represented a broad-based economic strategy that represented really quite dramatic change from where the country had been. And the president launched that economic strategy to the nation with his speech to the Congress in February....

Some of the political advisors wanted to see that tax increase using much different rhetoric. I mean, basically, Paul Begala, you know, wanted to sell that tax increase as we're "soaking the rich."

Rubin: Yeah. There was debate on the very day that the speech was delivered. The morning of that day, there was a draft running around, and I remember going to see Hillary, and saying, "You know, Hillary, I think the president's got the substantive message exactly right, but I do think there's a little question here of tone, and I think the president has to decide exactly what tone he wants to have."

And I remember, Hillary and I went down to speak to Paul, who was sort of the "holder of the pen," and we went over sections of this with him. And basically, Hillary said, "Let's make sure that we don't have a divisive tone to what we're doing." And I think she made an enormous contribution to avoiding what I think could have been a counterproductive tone.

In April '93, the stimulus package is up, and Republicans are filibustering it. You go into a meeting and the president is told what's going on, and he gets really angry. Can you describe that scene to us?

Reich: The president was told that the stimulus package was just not going to be passed. There was too much opposition. And he was upset. This was the first big blow to his presidency. I think he was upset, not so much because the stimulus package itself was not going to go through. There had been a lot of debate inside the administration as to whether it was a good idea, whether it would really help jump start the economy anyway. I think he was upset that as president, given that the Congress was Democrat, he didn't have enough power, enough authority to get what he wanted done. Already opposition was forming. Already his ability to change the direction of the country was being challenged, even in his own party.

Later that summer, in August, the deficit reduction bill finally passes the Senate, but it is a harrowing day. What do you remember about that?

Rubin: Yes, it was a harrowing day. In the House, as you remember, it passed by one vote. And I remember being in the Oval Office the night of the vote, and a little television screen they had there, which showed the floor of the House, showed the count as it was building. And we were all sitting -- it was actually in the little back office off the Oval Office -- watching that vote, and it was, to use your term, harrowing. But, ultimately, it passed by one vote and I think there was a sense of very great unease as we watched it. And then of course in the Senate it was a tie and then the vice president cast the tie-breaking vote."

That's what REALLY happened back then. I don't know WHAT it is you're remembering but it has no basis in reality.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

When did I EVER say that there were any Super Majorities during Reagan's two terms? I was the one who pointed out that Reagan never had the Super Majorities that Obama enjoyed...he had to try and reach compromises with Tip O'Neil.

Here is the quote we are talking about.

It's hard to filibuster when the opposition has Super Majorities in both the House and Senate

OK, so we are talking about the Obama presidency, and you are saying that democrats had super-majorities in both the house and senate. And again, oldstyle, there is no such thing as a super-majority in the house when it comes to filibusters. And, they had a super-majority in the senate for only two or three months. And because of the blue dog dems, the super-majority was fairly useless. So, you are saying it was hard to filibuster then?? Really??
"Because of the 231 Republican filibusters since President Obama took office, roughly one of every eight federal judgeships remain vacant, and as of September 2010, more than 190 presidential nominees were awaiting confirmation (7). This obstructionism has caused a lack of oversight, efficiency, and intellectual resources required for a functioning government to manage America's complex institutions. A common falsehood made by Republicans is to call out that even with 60 Democrat votes in 2009, and a Democrat President, the Democrats could not pass their legislation. But the data shows that in 2009, Democrats only enjoyed a 60 seat majority for only a brief 72 days due to Ted Kennedy's hospitalization for a brain tumor which led to his death, while at the same time Republicans filed 137 filibuster motions, the second largest number in U.S. history."
Congressional Filibuster Record by Party 1992 - 2011 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

So, Oldstyle, there have how been more filibusters during this first four years of the Obama admin than in any presidency in history. the above is for just through 2011. So, you call that HARD TO FILIBUSTER??? Dipshit. Get a fucking clue. You are saying that the repubs did not, or could not, FILIBUSTER. Go and get a clue. Everyone in the known world, who pays any attention to politics, knows that nothing happens in this congress. Which is, again, why it is known as the do nothing congress. And it is a republican problem.

It was the leader of the Senate telling people that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term President. If you didn't have your head up your ass you'd know that was Mitch McConnell. At that time Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. Another thing you don't know what you're talking about!

Yup. I make mistakes when I hurry. I am sure you never do. You simply lie, and lie, and lie. But it was nice of you to admit that Mitch did say what he did. So, since Mitch headed up the senate, does that make what I said any different, dipshit. I mean, that he said it in the senate rather than the house. Again, I do not lie. That is your purview.

You're equally ignorant about Super Majorities. You can too have one in the House. A Super Majority is what is needed to overturn Presidential vetoes and to make amendments to the Constitution. Is there anything that you DO have some knowledge in?

Nice try at changing the topic. We were not talking about overturning presidential vetoes, or making ammendments to the constitution. We were talking about filibusters, and only filibusters. Maybe you should re read your posts. You are such a dipshit, oldstyle. No integrity at all.

The Democrats reneging on their promises to cut spending "was the right thing to do from an economic point of view"? Interesting concept...you chastise Reagan for increasing the deficit...yet you applaud the Democrats for not cutting spending (which would have decreased that deficit) as they had agreed to do? Isn't it obvious that if they HAD cut spending as they said they would...that the "Reagan deficits" would have been much smaller? So why does Ronnie get the blame for the size of those?

Oldstyle, you do not pay attention. He had cut spending, big time, oldstyle. And cutting spending is exactly what caused the deficit that he had. Are you this ignorant?
When you cut taxes by the amount that he did, you cut spending automatically. You cut employment, which he did. So, you are saying the dems should have done the same thing that reagan did, and decrease spending?? Did you assume that doing the same thing that Reagan did would have a different result this time?? You know, not drive unemployment up further? Maybe, oldstyle, they did not like the idea of driving unemployment higher. Maybe they agreed with Reagan by this time, and decided it was time to stop cutting spending. Ya think. Maybe they did not cut spending for the same reason that Reagan was borrowing like a drunken sailor. Because they wanted to stimulate the economy, not cause layoffs. You assume that cutting spending works well to reduce deficits, but it does the opposite, as Reagan and his economic team determined earlier. And which W found out, also.

I did not say that Reagan cut taxes from 70% to 28% in 1986. Go back and reread my post. Your word comprehension skills are as bad as your spelling, Rshermr.

OK, Oldstyle. Here is the sentence that you and I are talking about.

"Reagan was adamant about NOT raising marginal tax rates and would not allow it to happen, instead dropping them even further in 1986...all the way down from 70% to 28%."

So, it says he dropped the unemployment rate in 1986 from 70% to 28% Now, yes, I knew what you probably meant. I just pointed out that it was not all in 1986, which is what you should have done to be clear. So, I would say it was your word comprehension skills that are deficient. but then, like you, that is just my opinion. So, take your insults and shove them where the sun don't shine. dipshit.

I hate to keep bashing you, Rshermr but your recollection of what took place during the Clinton years is AWFUL.

Actually, that is what you spend all of your time on. Bashing, that is. And not on anything that is of importance.

You want proof that Clinton ran for office against Bush I promising a Middle Class tax cut but then raised taxes after being elected? This is a discussion of the people in his Administration that were THERE when that decision to raise taxes instead of give a tax cut was made. I think it sums it up rather well...

Damn, Oldstyle. An actual quote from an actual impartial source. See, you can do it. But, did you really need to copy and paste several pages to make a simple post? I just cut most of it out since you can read it on your post, one post earlier. But you have a point. I think what I was remembering was his intent on stimulus during the campaign. His intent to increase taxes, which he sold to the public, came later. So, what is actually important, oldstyle, is the US ended up with the first deficit in decades. You know, the one that W pissed away.

So, what you cut and pasted to this thread had information that was also interesting in that it showed what the state of the economy was when Clinton took office. Worse than it had been said to be by the Bush 1 admin. And, oldstyle, a leftover of the Reagan administration, which caused Bush 1 to have the problems that he tried to deal with for four years. And the only way he could have solved it was with deficit spending. And he could not do so, as a republican. And he could not raise taxes enough (yes, oldstyle, I know he did raise the a bit) to do anything with the deficit and unemployment. So he was doomed. Bad economy, and no way to get out of the mess.

Chapters - Chapter 3 | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That's what REALLY happened back then. I don't know WHAT it is you're remembering but it has no basis in reality.

See above. What was happening during the Clinton admin was a lot of happy businesses as the economy soared. And yes, I know a lot more about it. But I do not try to rewrite what actually happened. as you do when discussing reagan. there were really bad components of the Clinton admin, too. But overall, it was a pretty damned good economy.
Now, are you actually going to talk about anything relative to the subject of this thread. Or just continue to nit pick and ignore the obvious truth. Which is, oldstyle, that stimulus spending, and particularly stimulus spending on infrastructure, WORKS.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

When did I EVER say that there were any Super Majorities during Reagan's two terms? I was the one who pointed out that Reagan never had the Super Majorities that Obama enjoyed...he had to try and reach compromises with Tip O'Neil.

Here is the quote we are talking about.

It's hard to filibuster when the opposition has Super Majorities in both the House and Senate

OK, so we are talking about the Obama presidency, and you are saying that democrats had super-majorities in both the house and senate. And again, oldstyle, there is no such thing as a super-majority in the house when it comes to filibusters. And, they had a super-majority in the senate for only two or three months. And because of the blue dog dems, the super-majority was fairly useless. So, you are saying it was hard to filibuster then?? Really??
"Because of the 231 Republican filibusters since President Obama took office, roughly one of every eight federal judgeships remain vacant, and as of September 2010, more than 190 presidential nominees were awaiting confirmation (7). This obstructionism has caused a lack of oversight, efficiency, and intellectual resources required for a functioning government to manage America's complex institutions. A common falsehood made by Republicans is to call out that even with 60 Democrat votes in 2009, and a Democrat President, the Democrats could not pass their legislation. But the data shows that in 2009, Democrats only enjoyed a 60 seat majority for only a brief 72 days due to Ted Kennedy's hospitalization for a brain tumor which led to his death, while at the same time Republicans filed 137 filibuster motions, the second largest number in U.S. history."
Congressional Filibuster Record by Party 1992 - 2011 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

So, Oldstyle, there have how been more filibusters during this first four years of the Obama admin than in any presidency in history. the above is for just through 2011. So, you call that HARD TO FILIBUSTER??? Dipshit. Get a fucking clue. You are saying that the repubs did not, or could not, FILIBUSTER. Go and get a clue. Everyone in the known world, who pays any attention to politics, knows that nothing happens in this congress. Which is, again, why it is known as the do nothing congress. And it is a republican problem.




Yup. I make mistakes when I hurry. I am sure you never do. You simply lie, and lie, and lie. But it was nice of you to admit that Mitch did say what he did. So, since Mitch headed up the senate, does that make what I said any different, dipshit. I mean, that he said it in the senate rather than the house. Again, I do not lie. That is your purview.



Nice try at changing the topic. We were not talking about overturning presidential vetoes, or making ammendments to the constitution. We were talking about filibusters, and only filibusters. Maybe you should re read your posts. You are such a dipshit, oldstyle. No integrity at all.




Oldstyle, you do not pay attention. He had cut spending, big time, oldstyle. And cutting spending is exactly what caused the deficit that he had. Are you this ignorant?
When you cut taxes by the amount that he did, you cut spending automatically. You cut employment, which he did. So, you are saying the dems should have done the same thing that reagan did, and decrease spending?? Did you assume that doing the same thing that Reagan did would have a different result this time?? You know, not drive unemployment up further? Maybe, oldstyle, they did not like the idea of driving unemployment higher. Maybe they agreed with Reagan by this time, and decided it was time to stop cutting spending. Ya think. Maybe they did not cut spending for the same reason that Reagan was borrowing like a drunken sailor. Because they wanted to stimulate the economy, not cause layoffs. You assume that cutting spending works well to reduce deficits, but it does the opposite, as Reagan and his economic team determined earlier. And which W found out, also.



OK, Oldstyle. Here is the sentence that you and I are talking about.

"Reagan was adamant about NOT raising marginal tax rates and would not allow it to happen, instead dropping them even further in 1986...all the way down from 70% to 28%."

So, it says he dropped the unemployment rate in 1986 from 70% to 28% Now, yes, I knew what you probably meant. I just pointed out that it was not all in 1986, which is what you should have done to be clear. So, I would say it was your word comprehension skills that are deficient. but then, like you, that is just my opinion. So, take your insults and shove them where the sun don't shine. dipshit.





Actually, that is what you spend all of your time on. Bashing, that is. And not on anything that is of importance.

You want proof that Clinton ran for office against Bush I promising a Middle Class tax cut but then raised taxes after being elected? This is a discussion of the people in his Administration that were THERE when that decision to raise taxes instead of give a tax cut was made. I think it sums it up rather well...

Damn, Oldstyle. An actual quote from an actual impartial source. See, you can do it. But, did you really need to copy and paste several pages to make a simple post? I just cut most of it out since you can read it on your post, one post earlier. But you have a point. I think what I was remembering was his intent on stimulus during the campaign. His intent to increase taxes, which he sold to the public, came later. So, what is actually important, oldstyle, is the US ended up with the first deficit in decades. You know, the one that W pissed away.

So, what you cut and pasted to this thread had information that was also interesting in that it showed what the state of the economy was when Clinton took office. Worse than it had been said to be by the Bush 1 admin. And, oldstyle, a leftover of the Reagan administration, which caused Bush 1 to have the problems that he tried to deal with for four years. And the only way he could have solved it was with deficit spending. And he could not do so, as a republican. And he could not raise taxes enough (yes, oldstyle, I know he did raise the a bit) to do anything with the deficit and unemployment. So he was doomed. Bad economy, and no way to get out of the mess.

Chapters - Chapter 3 | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That's what REALLY happened back then. I don't know WHAT it is you're remembering but it has no basis in reality.

See above. What was happening during the Clinton admin was a lot of happy businesses as the economy soared. And yes, I know a lot more about it. But I do not try to rewrite what actually happened. as you do when discussing reagan. there were really bad components of the Clinton admin, too. But overall, it was a pretty damned good economy.
Now, are you actually going to talk about anything relative to the subject of this thread. Or just continue to nit pick and ignore the obvious truth. Which is, oldstyle, that stimulus spending, and particularly stimulus spending on infrastructure, WORKS.

So the basic rule is that when Rshermr makes a mistake...it's simply a mistake. But if I make something that you "feel" is a mistake...then I'm a liar? Just want to be clear on the "Rshermr Rules" here...

This progressive narrative that Obama's agenda would have improved the economy and put people back to work if only the evil Republicans hadn't held up so much with their obstructionist policies is rather amusing. Let's ignore the fact that Democrats in the 110th Congress used the cloture vote against Bush a record setting amount of times. Let's focus on what Republican "obstructionism" kept Barry from getting done. Let's look at what he was proposing as his agenda that DIDN'T get passed. The two major pieces of legislation that the GOP put an immediate stop to when they seized control of the House in 2010 were Cap & Trade and Card Check. Both of those ideas...beloved by you progressives...would have resulted in even more businesses either not building in the US or the ones that were here having their costs increased to the point of not being competitive with their overseas business foes. The 2010 mid-term "shellacking" that the Democrats took also backed Barry off on letting the EPA impose strict new regulations on "green house gasses" that would have also added billions to the cost of doing business in the US...even further hurting jobs here. The truth of the matter is that GOP "obstructionism" is the only thing that kept "Barry the economic whiz kid" from putting hundreds of thousands MORE Americans out of work.

Cutting taxes = cutting spending? Really? I thought you were an economics major? As such you should grasp the concept that simply because government doesn't receive monies in the form of taxes that they can subsequently spend doesn't mean those monies somehow VANISH. That money remains in the taxpayer's pockets for THEM to spend. You still are tip-toeing around my question to you about the so called "Reagan deficits". If the budget deal that Reagan worked out with Tip O'Neil called for $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised and the Democrats reneged on that deal...then why is it Reagan's deficit? Why is "he" solely blamed by people like yourself when you point to his tripling the national debt? Why isn't it the "Tip O'Neil deficit"?

So you admit that you knew what I meant when I was talking about Reagan cutting the marginal tax rate AGAIN in 1986...but you chose to pretend you didn't so that you could accuse me of posting something that wasn't true? Are you THAT desperate for a "win" in this debate? Apparently so...

So when I showed you that YOU were the person lying when you said that Clinton ran for office promising tax increases...you give me shit about the length of my cut and paste? After giving me shit about not PROVIDING you with one in the first place? You were completely and utterly WRONG about what Clinton ran on and you damn well know it. But rather than admit that you change the subject and declare what's REALLY important is that Clinton ended up with a "deficit" for the the first time in decades...but you can't even try and bullshit your way out of your own screw-up without screwing up even more. IT WASN'T A DEFICIT YOU BUFFOON IT WAS A SURPLUS!!!

You're embarrassing yourself, Rshermr...and it's getting worse by the day.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What was happening during the Clinton admin was a lot of happy businesses as the economy soared.

Amazing what happens when the President is having sex with kids, gets impeached, you have a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years, and the weakened Democrat President says, "the era of big liberal government is over," and governs accordingly!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

What was happening during the Clinton admin was a lot of happy businesses as the economy soared.

Amazing what happens when the President is having sex with kids, gets impeached, you have a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years, and the weakened Democrat President says, "the era of big liberal government is over," and governs accordingly!

President Clinton had sex with kids? Big liberal government ended in the 1990s? Holy shit, I missed some news.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What was happening during the Clinton admin was a lot of happy businesses as the economy soared.

Amazing what happens when the President is having sex with kids, gets impeached, you have a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years, and the weakened Democrat President says, "the era of big liberal government is over," and governs accordingly!

President Clinton had sex with kids? Big liberal government ended in the 1990s? Holy shit, I missed some news.

I didn't say it ended, I merely quoted Clinton's hypocritical pronouncement. Got it now??

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Amazing what happens when the President is having sex with kids, gets impeached, you have a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years, and the weakened Democrat President says, "the era of big liberal government is over," and governs accordingly!

President Clinton had sex with kids? Big liberal government ended in the 1990s? Holy shit, I missed some news.

I didn't say it ended, I merely quoted Clinton's hypocritical pronouncement. Got it now??

Yes. Did you get that I was clowning around?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

President Clinton had sex with kids? Big liberal government ended in the 1990s? Holy shit, I missed some news.

I didn't say it ended, I merely quoted Clinton's hypocritical pronouncement. Got it now??

Yes. Did you get that I was clowning around?

I guess not, sorry.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I didn't say it ended, I merely quoted Clinton's hypocritical pronouncement. Got it now??

Yes. Did you get that I was clowning around?

I guess not, sorry.

Consider me one of the few Republicans in the world who has a sense of humor. Think of me like Sonny Bono.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes. Did you get that I was clowning around?

I guess not, sorry.

Consider me one of the few Republicans in the world who has a sense of humor. Think of me like Sonny Bono.

Fair enough; i'll look forward to your posts

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I guess not, sorry.

Consider me one of the few Republicans in the world who has a sense of humor. Think of me like Sonny Bono.

Fair enough; i'll look forward to your posts

You won't like them all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Consider me one of the few Republicans in the world who has a sense of humor. Think of me like Sonny Bono.

Fair enough; i'll look forward to your posts

You won't like them all.

no worries I'll feel free to correct you from time to time

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Fair enough; i'll look forward to your posts

You won't like them all.

no worries I'll feel free to correct you from time to time

What was it Bogey said?

"This looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle says:

So the basic rule is that when Rshermr makes a mistake...it's simply a mistake. But if I make something that you "feel" is a mistake...then I'm a liar? Just want to be clear on the "Rshermr Rules" here...

No, oldstyle. When I point out that you are lying, prove it with data, and you can not argue the point further, that would be when you are lying. Other than that, oldstyle, what I have said over and over, is that much of what you say is your opinion.
Then, oldstyle, you get on some tangent, about some minor point, and spend pages trying to prove some minor issue, while ignoring the subject of this thread completely. Which we will now see here.

This progressive narrative that Obama's agenda would have improved the economy and put people back to work if only the evil Republicans hadn't held up so much with their obstructionist policies is rather amusing.

What is amusing, oldstyle, is that you call this a progressive narrative. It is the opinion of not just progressives, but of all sorts of students of the economy, both independent and some conservative.
What is obvious, to non con tools, oldstyle, is that a record number of filibusters in the senate is obstructionist. That the fact that no piece of legislation proposed by the president gets past the filibuster and dies in the senate, as a result of republican filibustering, shows obstructionism. The fact that the House of Representatives, since it was taken over by Republicans, has not brought forward, for a vote in the house, as single piece of legislation that has had to do with the Presidents jobs bill, is obstructionist.
The fact that article after article, and books by long time republican sympathizers, that say this congress is obstructionist, again shows the problem. But you, oldstyle, see no obstruction. Interesting.

Let's ignore the fact that Democrats in the 110th Congress used the cloture vote against Bush a record setting amount of times. Let's focus on what Republican "obstructionism" kept Barry from getting done.

Now, here is a nice example of you trying to mislead, oldstyle. The 110th congress was during the period of the newly elected democratic House of Representatives majority. It was a period of filibusters against not Bush, my good con tool, but against House bills sent to the senate. Those record cloture votes were of republican senators filibustering EVERYTHING that came to the floor of the Senate. And as you said, it was a record number of filibusters. But what you did not mention was that the record was broken in the next session of the house, in the 111th congress.

The history of the filibuster, in one graph - The Washington Post

So, there you go. Misleading again. Leaving out facts again. Could you ever make a point and tell the truth at the same time, oldstyle??

Let's look at what he was proposing as his agenda that DIDN'T get passed. The two major pieces of legislation that the GOP put an immediate stop to when they seized control of the House in 2010 were Cap & Trade and Card Check. Both of those ideas...beloved by you progressives...would have resulted in even more businesses either not building in the US or the ones that were here having their costs increased to the point of not being competitive with their overseas business foes.

We discussed that earlier. oldstyle, in depth. And I proved to you that Cap and Trade was not a progressive beloved idea, but a republican beloved idea. It only became a progressive idea AFTER obama agreed to try to move it forward. Then. we saw the biggest political flip flop ever, as suddenly all republicans hated the idea.
Now pay attention, oldstyle. Try to remember what you learn.

Pretty Much Every Republican Front-Runner Used to Support Cap and Trade
Pretty Much Every Republican Front-Runner Used to Support Cap and Trade

Almost Every 2012 Republican Has a Cap-and-Trade Problem
Almost Every 2012 Republican Has a Cap-and-Trade Problem - Chris Good - The Atlantic

Cap and Trade Becomes a Bludgeon in Republican Primary Brawl
Cap and Trade Becomes a Bludgeon in Republican Primary Brawl - NYTimes.com

Remember when Republicans liked cap-and-trade?
Remember when Republicans liked cap-and-trade? | Grist

And, of course, your assertion that cap and trade would have been an economic disaster is nonsense. It may, or may not, have cost some, but the CBO, as I showed you in a post on this exact subject on this exact thread, says that it would reduce the deficit.

So, oldstyle, how many times do you need things answered??? Once is apparently not enough. And secondly, oldstyle, it would mean more if you would provide a link, instead of just posting dogma.

Then, there is your assertion that progressives supported Card Check. Just trying to prove you are a con, oldstyle. EFCA protects a few rights of union members. Saying it is going to send jobs overseas is nonsense? And by the way, oldstyle, There was no major effort to pass the EFCA at that time. And, oldstyle, I am sure you have not been out to those far right bat shit crazy web sites. Because, oldstyle, only they say anything so nuts as this assertion. Which would account again for the fact that you provided no links to back up your assertion.

The 2010 mid-term "shellacking" that the Democrats took also backed Barry off on letting the EPA impose strict new regulations on "green house gasses" that would have also added billions to the cost of doing business in the US...even further hurting jobs here.

Well, I would expect so. You had a house full of tea party nut cases who believe as little in science as you do. Why work on it when you do not have the votes. Relative to the costs you suggest, that is a total lie. Which is why, oldstyle, you can not provide a source.

Cutting taxes = cutting spending? Really? I thought you were an economics major? As such you should grasp the concept that simply because government doesn't receive monies in the form of taxes that they can subsequently spend doesn't mean those monies somehow VANISH.

Only if you want to really increase the deficit, oldstyle. Think a bit before you try to post economic thought. Why do you think Reagan was in trouble in 1982. Now, try to pay attention, oldstyle:
1. Taxes rates were cut.
2. Government revenues were decreased.
3. the Deficit increased.
4. Gov employees and private employees working gov projects were fired.
5. Unemployment went UP
So, you are faced with what Reagan was faced with, oh great economic mind. He had cut taxes, so he either had to cut spending, or borrow money to keep spending going. The concept that the money does not simply vanish is interesting, but of course nonsense. Incoming revenue decreases, so your choices are borrow or cut spending, got that yet? Because, oldstyle, until you understand that concept, you will never understand anything about economic policy.

That money remains in the taxpayer's pockets for THEM to spend.

Yup, but mostly in the wealthy's hands, and they do not spend it.

You still are tip-toeing around my question to you about the so called "Reagan deficits". If the budget deal that Reagan worked out with Tip O'Neil called for $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised and the Democrats reneged on that deal...then why is it Reagan's deficit? Why is "he" solely blamed by people like yourself when you point to his tripling the national debt? Why isn't it the "Tip O'Neil deficit"?

Because, oldstyle, you are an economic idiot. You are suggesting that I am skirting this question, I answered that question when you posted it a couple days ago, and in full. So try to pay attention this time. Reagan cut spending before. The results were the worst unemployment rate since the great depression. So, why would anyone do the same thing again and expect a different result. I know you would, oldstyle. But doing so is the definition of insanity. And it is reagans deficit because his spending was the problem. And his borrowing was the problem. And though you are a con tool trying to rewrite the reagan history, that is just the way it is.

So you admit that you knew what I meant when I was talking about Reagan cutting the marginal tax rate AGAIN in 1986...but you chose to pretend you didn't so that you could accuse me of posting something that wasn't true? Are you THAT desperate for a "win" in this debate? Apparently so...

No, oldstyle. First you were talking about Reagans administration. Your statement that was complete nonsense was in response to me saying that the Reagan republicans in the senate could have filibustered the bill. You then made your nonsensical statement. Then, you changed it to say you were talking about Obama. But again, the sentence made no sense. I am far from desperate for a win. So far, all you have done is lie, post dogma, and post opinion. Nice try though, dipshit.

So when I showed you that YOU were the person lying when you said that Clinton ran for office promising tax increases...you give me shit about the length of my cut and paste? /QUOTE]
I was not lying, of course. I do not lie, ever. But I was wrong. As you are, over and over again. Now, here is the difference. If you have any class, or any integrity, you admit when you were wrong. I did. You never do. And, oldstyle, though I was wrong, it had nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, which is, should you be able to keep your concentration, deficit spending relative to infrastructure.

After giving me shit about not PROVIDING you with one in the first place? You were completely and utterly WRONG about what Clinton ran on and you damn well know it. But rather than admit that you change the subject and declare what's REALLY important is that Clinton ended up with a "deficit" for the the first time in decades...but you can't even try and bullshit your way out of your own screw-up without screwing up even more.

1.Well, oldstyle, that was the longest single copy and paste I remember ever seeing. And it almost entirely was about things other than what your point was. But whatever. If that is what you like to post, then fine. After all, it is the first time that I have seen you use a quote from an impartial source, which I congratulated you for. Maybe with practice you can get more concise, so you do not bore the shit out of everyone trying to read your pasted data. And next time, Oldstyle, try leaving a link.
2. And yes I did say that I was wrong. And I explained my mistake. So, why are you lying about that, Oldstyle?
3. More importantly, you are wasting a whole lot of time talking at length, and I mean rally long boreing length, about things that are of no real importance to anyone but you.

IT WASN'T A DEFICIT YOU BUFFOON IT WAS A SURPLUS!!!

You're embarrassing yourself, Rshermr...and it's getting worse by the day.

Yes, it was, oldstyle. Thanks for catching that. And nice to see you recognize that it was a surplus. That thing that reagan could not achieve.

So, embarrassing, eh. Your opinion, oldstyle. And I really value your opinion. Lets see how you did in this post of yours, oldstyle:

1. Asking the same questions you had asked before and that I had answered.
2. Showing a complete inability to understand economic policy.
3. You lied by saying the 110th congress had record filibusters against Bush2's bills. when it was obvious, and you certainly new, that those record filibusters were by repubs in the senate agains bills sent forward by the democratic house.
4. And you forgot to mention that the next congress, number 111, broke the record again. Again all republican filibusters.
5. Not understanding where cap and trade came from and that it was a republican supported idea.
6. Spending the majority of your time on side issues, and staying away from the topic of the thread.

Nice, oldstyle. Dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr: "1.Well, oldstyle, that was the longest single copy and paste I remember ever seeing. And it almost entirely was about things other than what your point was. But whatever. If that is what you like to post, then fine. After all, it is the first time that I have seen you use a quote from an impartial source, which I congratulated you for. Maybe with practice you can get more concise, so you do not bore the shit out of everyone trying to read your pasted data. And next time, Oldstyle, try leaving a link.
2. And yes I did say that I was wrong. And I explained my mistake. So, why are you lying about that, Oldstyle?
3. More importantly, you are wasting a whole lot of time talking at length, and I mean rally long boreing length, about things that are of no real importance to anyone but you.

You whine about my not citing sources...then you whine louder when I do. Your claim that Clinton ran for election on a platform of raising taxes was total bullshit...something which I pointed out quite easily with the statements of people from the Clinton Administration themselves, so there's ZERO opportunity for you to claim that it's a "right wing talking point" or "dogma". So what do you do? You claim it wasn't about my point? How was it not? My "point" was completely opposite to what YOU claimed...my point was that Clinton ran for office on the promise of a tax cut...a promise that he immediately broke.

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr: "I was not lying, of course. I do not lie, ever. But I was wrong. As you are, over and over again. Now, here is the difference. If you have any class, or any integrity, you admit when you were wrong. I did. You never do. And, oldstyle, though I was wrong, it had nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, which is, should you be able to keep your concentration, deficit spending relative to infrastructure."

So you don't "lie" but you post things that aren't true...over and over again? So you were "wrong" about Clinton running for election on a platform of raising taxes? And you were "wrong" about Mitch McConnell being the leader of the House? You were "wrong" about the CBO not taking data from government officials? You were "wrong" about unemployment staying about 8% for 33 months?

Funny thing...Rshermr...you say you don't "lie"...but you sure do post a lot of incorrect material here while accusing others of lying and I'm not even getting into your claims about teaching college economics as an undergrad.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for my getting away from the original point of this string? The claim that stimulus spending on infrastructure "worked" in the first Obama Stimulus is tenuous at best. The fact is there were very few "shovel ready" jobs which delayed the stimulus from creating jobs at the onset of the process and then when it became glaringly obvious that was the case, the Obama Administration panicked and demanded that money be spent on anything that could happen quickly, which meant we got lots of road resurfacing projects done and little to no work on bridges and schools.

Your initial claim in this string that the CBO had proclaimed the stimulus to have "worked" is equally tenuous because the CBO themselves repeatedly state that all large stimulus programs are notoriously hard to measure. If you really "were" an economist you'd understand that the CBO essentially plugs numbers into economic models that assume that the stimulus WILL work and then reports it's findings. That the CBO is not confident in the results of that is patently obvious in the large "range" of what it projects...1.2 million jobs to 3.3 million jobs in the initial CBO report. One can also read into which end of that range the CBO thought the true number would lie at by the direction the CBO consequently revised that range to...dropping the "low end" down to 600,000 jobs in a follow up report. Now you can CLAIM that spending 870 billion to create 600,000 jobs means that the program "worked" but let's be honest with ourselves...spending that much money to create that few jobs is HARDLY a "success"...especially when the CBO has reported that the costs of the stimulus would have a net negative effect on GDP over a ten year period.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

As for my getting away from the original point of this string? The claim that stimulus spending on infrastructure "worked" in the first Obama Stimulus is tenuous at best.

Not what I was referring to at all as far as getting away from the subject of the string. As you know. This is more to the subject of the string. I was referring to things like the pages of discussion posted by you to prove that Clinton did not campaign on tax increases.

The fact is there were very few "shovel ready" jobs which delayed the stimulus from creating jobs at the onset of the process and then when it became glaringly obvious that was the case, the Obama Administration panicked and demanded that money be spent on anything that could happen quickly, which meant we got lots of road resurfacing projects done and little to no work on bridges and schools.

Now that, Oldstyle, is a completely untrue paragraph. Which is exactly why there is no link to support anything said there. The money was spent as it was scheduled to be spent, mostly within a year and a half of the stimulus bill.

Your initial claim in this string that the CBO had proclaimed the stimulus to have "worked" is equally tenuous because the CBO themselves repeatedly state that all large stimulus programs are notoriously hard to measure.

Again, you are posting untruths. And again no links.

If you really "were" an economist you'd understand that the CBO essentially plugs numbers into economic models that assume that the stimulus WILL work and then reports it's findings. That the CBO is not confident in the results of that is patently obvious in the large "range" of what it projects...1.2 million jobs to 3.3 million jobs in the initial CBO report.

First, perhaps you can find the place where I ever claimed to be an economist, Oldstyle. Lying again. I said I have a degree in economics. I did not spend my years in business as an economist. Kind of like you saying you are a Historian, because you have a degree in history. But then spent your career in food services.
Second, the initial CBO report was less specific than they became later, oldstyle. As you know. And those were not the numbers for the stimulus overall, but individual quarters, or for the beginning of the stimulus. Which, again, is why you provide no numbers.

One can also read into which end of that range the CBO thought the true number would lie at by the direction the CBO consequently revised that range to...dropping the "low end" down to 600,000 jobs in a follow up report. Now you can CLAIM that spending 870 billion to create 600,000 jobs means that the program "worked" but let's be honest with ourselves...spending that much money to create that few jobs is HARDLY a "success"...especially when the CBO has reported that the costs of the stimulus would have a net negative effect on GDP over a ten year period.

Again, you are posting your version, which is not even opinion, oldstyle. And your numbers, $870B and 600M jobs, are complete and absolute lies. And again no links to your statements. And your analysis is so strained, it looks like you are a pretzel, oldstyle. Odd, eh. How much your statements align with the statement of bat shit crazy con tool web sites. Must be just a coincidence.

Here is a statement from June of this year in testimony to the Congress about the impact of the Stimulus made by the director of the CBO:
"CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession."
Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - Washington Post

So, Oldstyle, that is in one quarter. And in the area of 13 to 16 months after the bill was signed. And that estimate is for ONE QUARTER. Three months, oldstyle. And the jobs saved started well BEFORE then, this is simply the biggest quarter. And, the analysis is that the jobs saved are still occurring. As they occurred throughout the latter part of 2009, all of 2010, all of 2011, and through the last month analyzed by the CBO in 2012. But Oldstyle keeps on keeping on, just posting those conservative talking points.

And, oldstyle, I see you over and over again attacking the stimulus, as do all con tools. But the independent analysis is that it worked. Sorry, Oldstyle. Again, I can either believe you, or I can believe the CBO. And in that case, I will take the independent source, and the source with actual KNOWLEDGE as opposed to AGENDA.

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr: "1.Well, oldstyle, that was the longest single copy and paste I remember ever seeing. And it almost entirely was about things other than what your point was. But whatever. If that is what you like to post, then fine. After all, it is the first time that I have seen you use a quote from an impartial source, which I congratulated you for. Maybe with practice you can get more concise, so you do not bore the shit out of everyone trying to read your pasted data. And next time, Oldstyle, try leaving a link.
2. And yes I did say that I was wrong. And I explained my mistake. So, why are you lying about that, Oldstyle?
3. More importantly, you are wasting a whole lot of time talking at length, and I mean rally long boreing length, about things that are of no real importance to anyone but you.

You whine about my not citing sources...then you whine louder when I do. Your claim that Clinton ran for election on a platform of raising taxes was total bullshit...something which I pointed out quite easily with the statements of people from the Clinton Administration themselves, so there's ZERO opportunity for you to claim that it's a "right wing talking point" or "dogma". So what do you do? You claim it wasn't about my point? How was it not? My "point" was completely opposite to what YOU claimed...my point was that Clinton ran for office on the promise of a tax cut...a promise that he immediately broke.

Got it, Oldstyle. And my point was not at all what you are making it. It is that it took pages of copy and paste, mostly having nothing to do with the subject you were aiming at, to get to your point. That that was boaring is indisputable. That it was overly long is indisputable. But I did not dispute the conclusion. I agreed with it. And here you are again, posting on the same point again. And, oldstyle, I also suggested that after you paste several pages of material, a link would be a good thing.
And yes, indeed, the majority of the pasted article you submitted had NOTHING to do with whether Clinton ran on a tax increase, OR NOT. It was paragraph after paragraph about other things entirely. Perhaps you just need to reread your own post.