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

[Rshermr]

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?

You have brought this up multiple times, now, oldstyle. Yes, oldstyle. I was wrong. And admitted to it. But it was not something that was relative to the topic of this string, nor was it anything that I had any reason to want to mislead on. As you well know. I just simply remembered something that happened in 1992 wrong, and you just can not get off the point.

And you were "wrong" about Mitch McConnell being the leader of the House?

Yup, should have said senate. But again, my point was the same, senate or house, it made no difference. So, do you have a point, oldstyle?

You were "wrong" about the CBO not taking data from government officials?

No, I was not. I was absolutely right. That was your statement. And it was a lie which I disproved. You see, oldstyle, this is why you loose credibility.

You were "wrong" about unemployment staying about 8% for 33 months?

And again, you are lying. I said nothing about unemployment staying "about 8% for 33 months". that is your lie, not mine. If you disagree, show the quote, or better yet, the post number.

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.

Perhaps you just do not understand making a mistake, oldstyle. You are so perfect.
But your lies are lies. And they are about the subject at hand, some of the time. And in this post you even lie about things recently posted. Complete lies. So my issue, oldstyle, is this: How do you do it. How do you lie, time after time, and not have it bother you in the least. I could not. Most people could not. Most people have integrity, but you have NONE AT ALL. You have agenda, and will do whatever to back up your agenda. But you do not care about truth. And yes, Oldstyle, you also make mistakes, maybe honest mistakes. But, you NEVER, EVER admit them. You just move on. And lie more. And attack. And attack. Like a true con tool, which you say you are not. Which is another lie, obviously.

Maybe you have some dishes to wash, dipshit. Liven up your poor dismal little life.

 

[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?

You have brought this up multiple times, now, oldstyle. Yes, oldstyle. I was wrong. And admitted to it. But it was not something that was relative to the topic of this string, nor was it anything that I had any reason to want to mislead on. As you well know. I just simply remembered something that happened in 1992 wrong, and you just can not get off the point.

And you were "wrong" about Mitch McConnell being the leader of the House?

Yup, should have said senate. But again, my point was the same, senate or house, it made no difference. So, do you have a point, oldstyle?

No, I was not. I was absolutely right. That was your statement. And it was a lie which I disproved. You see, oldstyle, this is why you loose credibility.

You were "wrong" about unemployment staying about 8% for 33 months?

And again, you are lying. I said nothing about unemployment staying "about 8% for 33 months". that is your lie, not mine. If you disagree, show the quote, or better yet, the post number.

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.

Perhaps you just do not understand making a mistake, oldstyle. You are so perfect.
But your lies are lies. And they are about the subject at hand, some of the time. And in this post you even lie about things recently posted. Complete lies. So my issue, oldstyle, is this: How do you do it. How do you lie, time after time, and not have it bother you in the least. I could not. Most people could not. Most people have integrity, but you have NONE AT ALL. You have agenda, and will do whatever to back up your agenda. But you do not care about truth. And yes, Oldstyle, you also make mistakes, maybe honest mistakes. But, you NEVER, EVER admit them. You just move on. And lie more. And attack. And attack. Like a true con tool, which you say you are not. Which is another lie, obviously.

Maybe you have some dishes to wash, dipshit. Liven up your poor dismal little life.

That would be post 199, Rshermr...remember this?

It stayed above 8% for (I believe) the next forty something months before dipping below 8% (although those numbers were subsequently adjusted higher bring it right back to 8%). So where was it that I played fast and loose with the truth? I'm simply stating what happened. Somehow you've turned THAT into a "lie". That was MY quote...and you responded with THIS...

"August 2012 - 8.1%
September 2012 - 7.8%
October 2012 - 7.9%
November 2012 - 7.7%

Not forty something months, dipshit. Do you know arithmetic? About 33 months. And no, the numbers were not adjusted to bring the number back up to 8%. Another lie. And, again, in perfect lock step with the bat shit crazy sites and fox. But you were hoping, weren't you oldstyle."

Gee, Rshermr...guess who got caught in yet ANOTHER lie? Or was that a "mistake"?

 

[Rshermr]

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?

You have brought this up multiple times, now, oldstyle. Yes, oldstyle. I was wrong. And admitted to it. But it was not something that was relative to the topic of this string, nor was it anything that I had any reason to want to mislead on. As you well know. I just simply remembered something that happened in 1992 wrong, and you just can not get off the point.


Yup, should have said senate. But again, my point was the same, senate or house, it made no difference. So, do you have a point, oldstyle?

No, I was not. I was absolutely right. That was your statement. And it was a lie which I disproved. You see, oldstyle, this is why you loose credibility.


And again, you are lying. I said nothing about unemployment staying "about 8% for 33 months". that is your lie, not mine. If you disagree, show the quote, or better yet, the post number.

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.

Perhaps you just do not understand making a mistake, oldstyle. You are so perfect.
But your lies are lies. And they are about the subject at hand, some of the time. And in this post you even lie about things recently posted. Complete lies. So my issue, oldstyle, is this: How do you do it. How do you lie, time after time, and not have it bother you in the least. I could not. Most people could not. Most people have integrity, but you have NONE AT ALL. You have agenda, and will do whatever to back up your agenda. But you do not care about truth. And yes, Oldstyle, you also make mistakes, maybe honest mistakes. But, you NEVER, EVER admit them. You just move on. And lie more. And attack. And attack. Like a true con tool, which you say you are not. Which is another lie, obviously.

Maybe you have some dishes to wash, dipshit. Liven up your poor dismal little life.

That would be post 199, Rshermr...remember this?

It stayed above 8% for (I believe) the next forty something months before dipping below 8% (although those numbers were subsequently adjusted higher bring it right back to 8%). So where was it that I played fast and loose with the truth? I'm simply stating what happened. Somehow you've turned THAT into a "lie". That was MY quote...and you responded with THIS...

"August 2012 - 8.1%
September 2012 - 7.8%
October 2012 - 7.9%
November 2012 - 7.7%

Not forty something months, dipshit. Do you know arithmetic? About 33 months. And no, the numbers were not adjusted to bring the number back up to 8%. Another lie. And, again, in perfect lock step with the bat shit crazy sites and fox. But you were hoping, weren't you oldstyle."

Gee, Rshermr...guess who got caught in yet ANOTHER lie? Or was that a "mistake"?

Simple enough, oldstyle. You are blaming Obama for an unemployment rate that was shooting up like a rocket when he took office. None of his doing. And continued up Until October of 2009 at 10.2%. The unemployment rate went below 8% in August of 2012. About 33 months after the highest rate, the end of the Bush budget, and the beginning of the effect of stimulus. So, what, do you give the rise of the UE during the first months of Obama's admin to Obama. What, exactly, did he do to raise the rate? Of course it was not Obama's unemployment problem. No one thought that the rates were his. Unless, of course, you are a con tool.

 

[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?
You have brought this up multiple times, now, oldstyle. Yes, oldstyle. I was wrong. And admitted to it. But it was not something that was relative to the topic of this string, nor was it anything that I had any reason to want to mislead on. As you well know. I just simply remembered something that happened in 1992 wrong, and you just can not get off the point.


Yup, should have said senate. But again, my point was the same, senate or house, it made no difference. So, do you have a point, oldstyle?

No, I was not. I was absolutely right. That was your statement. And it was a lie which I disproved. You see, oldstyle, this is why you loose credibility.


And again, you are lying. I said nothing about unemployment staying "about 8% for 33 months". that is your lie, not mine. If you disagree, show the quote, or better yet, the post number.



Perhaps you just do not understand making a mistake, oldstyle. You are so perfect.
But your lies are lies. And they are about the subject at hand, some of the time. And in this post you even lie about things recently posted. Complete lies. So my issue, oldstyle, is this: How do you do it. How do you lie, time after time, and not have it bother you in the least. I could not. Most people could not. Most people have integrity, but you have NONE AT ALL. You have agenda, and will do whatever to back up your agenda. But you do not care about truth. And yes, Oldstyle, you also make mistakes, maybe honest mistakes. But, you NEVER, EVER admit them. You just move on. And lie more. And attack. And attack. Like a true con tool, which you say you are not. Which is another lie, obviously.

Maybe you have some dishes to wash, dipshit. Liven up your poor dismal little life.

That would be post 199, Rshermr...remember this?

It stayed above 8% for (I believe) the next forty something months before dipping below 8% (although those numbers were subsequently adjusted higher bring it right back to 8%). So where was it that I played fast and loose with the truth? I'm simply stating what happened. Somehow you've turned THAT into a "lie". That was MY quote...and you responded with THIS...

"August 2012 - 8.1%
September 2012 - 7.8%
October 2012 - 7.9%
November 2012 - 7.7%

Not forty something months, dipshit. Do you know arithmetic? About 33 months. And no, the numbers were not adjusted to bring the number back up to 8%. Another lie. And, again, in perfect lock step with the bat shit crazy sites and fox. But you were hoping, weren't you oldstyle."

Gee, Rshermr...guess who got caught in yet ANOTHER lie? Or was that a "mistake"?

Simple enough, oldstyle. You are blaming Obama for an unemployment rate that was shooting up like a rocket when he took office. None of his doing. And continued up Until October of 2009 at 10.2%. The unemployment rate went below 8% in August of 2012. About 33 months after the highest rate, the end of the Bush budget, and the beginning of the effect of stimulus. So, what, do you give the rise of the UE during the first months of Obama's admin to Obama. What, exactly, did he do to raise the rate? Of course it was not Obama's unemployment problem. No one thought that the rates were his. Unless, of course, you are a con tool.

It is "simple", Rshermr. I stated that the unemployment rate stayed up over 8% for over 40 months and YOU stated that I was lying and that unemployment stayed over 8% for only 33. So who was right and who was talking out of their nether regions? The TRUTH is the unemployment rate went over 8% in Feb. of 2009 and stayed over 8% for 44 straight months and YOU lied when you pulled that figure of 33 OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

 

[Rshermr]

That would be post 199, Rshermr...remember this?

It stayed above 8% for (I believe) the next forty something months before dipping below 8% (although those numbers were subsequently adjusted higher bring it right back to 8%). So where was it that I played fast and loose with the truth? I'm simply stating what happened. Somehow you've turned THAT into a "lie". That was MY quote...and you responded with THIS...

"August 2012 - 8.1%
September 2012 - 7.8%
October 2012 - 7.9%
November 2012 - 7.7%

Not forty something months, dipshit. Do you know arithmetic? About 33 months. And no, the numbers were not adjusted to bring the number back up to 8%. Another lie. And, again, in perfect lock step with the bat shit crazy sites and fox. But you were hoping, weren't you oldstyle."

Gee, Rshermr...guess who got caught in yet ANOTHER lie? Or was that a "mistake"?

Simple enough, oldstyle. You are blaming Obama for an unemployment rate that was shooting up like a rocket when he took office. None of his doing. And continued up Until October of 2009 at 10.2%. The unemployment rate went below 8% in August of 2012. About 33 months after the highest rate, the end of the Bush budget, and the beginning of the effect of stimulus. So, what, do you give the rise of the UE during the first months of Obama's admin to Obama. What, exactly, did he do to raise the rate? Of course it was not Obama's unemployment problem. No one thought that the rates were his. Unless, of course, you are a con tool.

It is "simple", Rshermr. I stated that the unemployment rate stayed up over 8% for over 40 months and YOU stated that I was lying and that unemployment stayed over 8% for only 33. So who was right and who was talking out of their nether regions? The TRUTH is the unemployment rate went over 8% in Feb. of 2009 and stayed over 8% for 44 straight months and YOU lied when you pulled that figure of 33 OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

So, you believe that as soon as a president takes office, he is responsible for the economy he has been given. Even the worst economy since the great depression. Get a clue, oldstyle. Giving obama credit for the cesspool he inherited is nonsense. Just the kind of crap you get from con tools all the time. And a complete inability to take responsibility for the cons in charge of the economy for the prior 8 years. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple enough, oldstyle. You are blaming Obama for an unemployment rate that was shooting up like a rocket when he took office. None of his doing. And continued up Until October of 2009 at 10.2%. The unemployment rate went below 8% in August of 2012. About 33 months after the highest rate, the end of the Bush budget, and the beginning of the effect of stimulus. So, what, do you give the rise of the UE during the first months of Obama's admin to Obama. What, exactly, did he do to raise the rate? Of course it was not Obama's unemployment problem. No one thought that the rates were his. Unless, of course, you are a con tool.

It is "simple", Rshermr. I stated that the unemployment rate stayed up over 8% for over 40 months and YOU stated that I was lying and that unemployment stayed over 8% for only 33. So who was right and who was talking out of their nether regions? The TRUTH is the unemployment rate went over 8% in Feb. of 2009 and stayed over 8% for 44 straight months and YOU lied when you pulled that figure of 33 OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

So, you believe that as soon as a president takes office, he is responsible for the economy he has been given. Even the worst economy since the great depression. Get a clue, oldstyle. Giving obama credit for the cesspool he inherited is nonsense. Just the kind of crap you get from con tools all the time. And a complete inability to take responsibility for the cons in charge of the economy for the prior 8 years. Why am I not surprised.

Yes, as a matter of fact I "do" think that as soon as a President takes office he is responsible for the economy. I know that you progressives don't want to admit it but Barack Obama is responsible for the worst recovery from a recession SINCE the Great Depression because his agenda was so idiotic. Instead of concentrating on the things that would have put people back to work in the Private Sector, Barry chose to keep his supporters working in the Public Sector while he spent most of his time that first year going after ObamaCare. Not something that would create jobs...but something that encouraged employers NOT to hire. Not content with THAT, the idiot wanted Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation and for the EPA to crack down on greenhouse gases. In a freakin' nutshell everything BUT things that would put people in the Private Sector back to work. It's four years later and he STILL doesn't have a clue what makes businesses hire because the moron is seeking higher taxes on some of the people who might just do that.

What's amusing is that the inability to take responsibility for his actions, lies with this President. I don't think I've EVER seen someone so ready to take so much of the credit for the successes of his Administration and so quick to pass the blame to others when things don't go well.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Olstyle says:

Yes, as a matter of fact I "do" think that as soon as a President takes office he is responsible for the economy

.

So, the economy is shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. The past president has been handing hundreds of billions of dollars to the largest financial institutions to keep them in business. The auto industry is about to collapse entirely. Southern republicans are trying to see that happen so their local economy gets more work while the us economy is pushed into a true depression. And you think it is Obamas great recession. Which, dipshit, proves that you are a con tool. Because, dipshit, that is the stupidest sentence that I have seen EVER, in my life, tried to make sense of.

I know that you progressives don't want to admit it but Barack Obama is responsible for the worst recovery from a recession SINCE the Great Depression because his agenda was so idiotic.

Yes, of course, oldstyle. You would like to blame the ONLY depression we ever had, the great republican depression of 1929. also on democrats. Because, after all, they took over in free fall, also. And, as a con tool, you are out to prove that the great depression, after four years of free fall, was the result of democratic policies. Kind of out on that island alone, oldstyle, except for other right wing nut cases like yourself.

Instead of concentrating on the things that would have put people back to work in the Private Sector,

Which you are completely unable to name and support as ever having worked before.

Barry chose to keep his supporters working in the Public Sector while he spent most of his time that first year going after ObamaCare.

His supporters and non supporters, dipshit. Really stupid question. Now if he had just stopped gov spending, he could have seen unemployment go to much higher numbers. Like Reagan. Dipshit.

Not something that would create jobs...but something that encouraged employers NOT to hire.

In other words, keep supporting those nice health insurance companies. Those great companies who are charging us more, by a factor of two, than any other country among the 35 industrialized nations. Because, being a con tool, that's what you like. You love having those great high rates, and seeing the cost of insurance go up 18 percent per year. Because you do not give a flying fuck about the middle class, You love the insurance companies who are screwing them. That would be Oldstyle. Support the hell out of the health insurance companies, applaud when their ceo's make hundreds of millions. Cause they pay my heroes, the con politicians who I support. Because I love what they say, and I could care less about the middle class.

Not content with THAT, the idiot wanted Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation and for the EPA to crack down on greenhouse gases. In a freakin' nutshell everything BUT things that would put people in the Private Sector back to work.

Yup, repubs came up with cap and trade as a great answer to global warming. You know, that thing that cons including Oldstyle do not believe in. That thing that the military is preparing for. That thing that 97% of all climate sciences say is coming and is caused by humans. That thing that only the polluters and the politicians that they pay say is not a coming disaster. That thing that these moneyed sources have spent hundreds of millions attacking. You know, oldstyle, global warming. So, you see conservatives develop and support cap and trade, then flip flop on it when the new pres is a democrat, and there is oldstyle. In perfect lock step. And Card Check. Sorry, not many things make me laugh, but though there was very, very little concentration on Cap and Trade by this pres, there was pretty much zero concentration on Card Check. But, being a con tool, oldstyle is saying there was. And, being a con tool, Oldstyle is saying that those issues would have cost the economy greatly. And yet. he has no support for those statements at all. Just being a con tool and saying that they were. Because oldstyle does not argue his points, does not provide support for his points, he simply posts con dogma. Simple as that.

It's four years later and he STILL doesn't have a clue what makes businesses hire because the moron is seeking higher taxes on some of the people who might just do that.

Yes, well, there you go oldstyle. Obama should have done what his predecessor, W, did and lower taxes. A nice big wet kiss to the upper 1%. Those wonderful job makers that did such a great job leading to the worst recession since the great depression under W. Great idea. Give those folks who got 93% of the economic gains over the past 30 years, more and more and more. So that they can outsource more and more and more.

And, with that great philosophy, we watched the economy crumble under W. But oldstyle is too stupid to look back at the Clinton admin, when taxes were increased and stimulus utilized to get the economy going again. To have the best economy in decades. So that the surplus could be handed to a con by the name of W who would give the surplus back in the form of tax decreases and we could all watch the economy fall into the greatest recession since the great depression. Because oldstyle is a con tool who is unable to do anything but support con tools and their masters.

What's amusing is that the inability to take responsibility for his actions, lies with this President. I don't think I've EVER seen someone so ready to take so much of the credit for the successes of his Administration and so quick to pass the blame to others when things don't go well.

And oldstyle, believing that the current president is blaming the other party too much, does not see that one of its leaders, mitch mcconnell, has stated that his number one job has been to make Obama a one term president. Now, if a dem had said that about a republican pres, oldstyle would have rightly said that that dem was un-american. Because, you see, even republican politicians number one job is to help the american people. But since it was a repub, and the senate minority leader, Oldstyle sees no problem. And he sees no problem with the record number of filibusters against anything that dems brought forward. Because, you see, oldstyle is a con tool. Oldstyle has zero integrity. He simply posts dogma.

 

[Oldstyle]

When someone's agenda is causing millions of Americans to stay out of work...then YES the intelligent thing to do is to limit that agenda as much as possible. The reason that the American electorate sent record numbers of Republicans to Washington in the 2010 midterms was that they didn't like the direction that Barry, Harry and Nancy were taking us.

Mitch McConnell didn't make that statement at the BEGINNING of the Obama Administration...he made it after a year had gone by...a year in which the GOP was told to go wait in the hall while the far left had a "party" with our tax dollars.

Barack Obama made many promises during his initial campaign. One of the big ones was a promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The truth is...he never even made an effort towards that goal. He told the American people a straight faced lie and then went out and ran trillion dollars plus deficits, year after year with spending cuts ALWAYS kicked down the road. He's seeking a tax increase on the wealthy that WILL slow the economy and cost jobs but won't even put a small dent in the budget deficits that his policies are giving us. Why? Because it's a populist message that liberals can "sell" to the public. "Don't you worry about all this spending we're doing...because if we tax those evil rich people...then everything will be hunky dory!" And idiots like yourself fall for that nonsense because you apparently can't do eighth grade math and realize that it won't fix the problem.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

When someone's agenda is causing millions of Americans to stay out of work...then YES the intelligent thing to do is to limit that agenda as much as possible.

The agenda that is causing millions of Americans to stay out of work is that of the republicans. And of Mitch McConnell. And of the record filibuster. And that NO jobs bills get to a vote in the senate without a filibuster. But then, you know that. So, we essentially have the same plan as always from the repubs. Give everything to the job makers. And so they get more, and more, and see record profits. And they starve the economy of jobs. they outsource, and they save, and they invest. But they do not hire. Just as under Reagan. Not as under Clinton, when stimulus spending kick started an economy to greatness. But as a con tool, you do not care. You simply want more. Give to the wealthy. Screw the middle class. You hate workers, particularly if they are union workers. You have no problem with monopoly in business, but damn those workers if they want to have enough monopoly power themselves to have a chance. Hell, lets look like China. Then the wealthy will be happy, you will be happy, but the middle class will have continued to dwindle to the size of a thimble. Perfect for con tools, because they frollow their masters. Dipshit.

The reason that the American electorate sent record numbers of Republicans to Washington in the 2010 midterms was that they didn't like the direction that Barry, Harry and Nancy were taking us.

But you know better. That was a very low turn out election in which a relative few nut case tea party groups, very very very well financed tea party groups, were able to turn an election. Stupid statement, oldstyle, having just gone through an election a month or two ago, where your heroes got spanked. Badly. So, based on that, we now know where the american public is. And it is NOT with you.

Mitch McConnell didn't make that statement at the BEGINNING of the Obama Administration...he made it after a year had gone by...a year in which the GOP was told to go wait in the hall while the far left had a "party" with our tax dollars.

Completely immaterial. Here is some education, oldstyle. Maybe you can get a grip on yourself:

"Democrats have rounded on revelations about a private dinner of House Republicans on inauguration day in 2009 in which they plotted a campaign of obstruction against newly installed president Barack Obama.

During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected.

The disclosures – described as "appalling and sad" by Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod – undermine Republican claims that the president alone is to blame for the partisan deadlock in Washington.

A detailed account of who was present at the dinner on that January 20 night and the plan they worked out to bring down Obama is provided by Robert Draper in 'Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives', published this week.

In his book, Draper opens with the heady atmosphere in Washington on the days running up to the inauguration and the day itself, which attracted 1.8 million to the mall to witness Obama being sworn in as America's first black president.

Those numbers contributed to a growing sense of unease among Republicans as much the defeat in the White House race the previous November. The 15 Republicans were in a sombre mood as they gathered at the Caucus Room in Washington, an upscale restaurant where a New York strip steak costs $51.

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.
Democrats condemn GOP's plot to obstruct Obama as 'appalling and sad' | World news | guardian.co.uk

So, Oldstyle, what do you say after reading this little gem, based on a recently released book. By the way, the attendees of that little meeting did not say it did not happen. So, there you go, oldstyle, the proof of the obstructionism that you blindly say does not exist. Makes you look rather ignorant, oldstyle. But I understand. As a con tool, you have to keep posting that dogma.

Barack Obama made many promises during his initial campaign. One of the big ones was a promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The truth is...he never even made an effort towards that goal.

See above. You have to attack unemployment first, and the republican congress did all they could to see that did not happen.

He told the American people a straight faced lie and then went out and ran trillion dollars plus deficits, year after year with spending cuts ALWAYS kicked down the road.

See above, oldstyle. Get an understanding that most americans already have. Try to shed your con tool being, and understand what actually happened as opposed to what you want to believe.

He's seeking a tax increase on the wealthy that WILL slow the economy and cost jobs but won't even put a small dent in the budget deficits that his policies are giving us.

And more con tool dogma. That whole Clinton thing did not happen, right, oldstyle. He just really did not raise taxes and spend stimulatively and have a spectacular economy. And that whole Reagan thing, when he did that huge tax decrease and unemployment went to the highest rate ever outside of the great depression. And the deficit took off like a rocket. That just did not happen. And no, reagan did not really increase taxes 11 times, and he did not borrow like a drunken sailor, tripling the national debt. And he did not increase the size of the government during his years. And he did not use stimulus spending to correct the mess made by his tax decrease. No, oldstyle, all of that just did not happen. Because you are a con tool. And you just do not like the truth, so you make up your own.

Why? Because it's a populist message that liberals can "sell" to the public. "Don't you worry about all this spending we're doing...because if we tax those evil rich people...then everything will be hunky dory!" And idiots like yourself fall for that nonsense because you apparently can't do eighth grade math and realize that it won't fix the problem.

See above, dipshit. I understand eighth grade math just fine. But you do not follow history at all. You simply think that you can keep cutting taxes, and keep stopping spending, and things will get better. As they NEVER, EVER HAVE in the economic history of this country, when the economy was bad. Because oldstyle believes in Supply Side economics, which coincidentally always fails, and coincidentally always makes the wealthy more so. Dipshit.

So here is the thing, oldstyle. The american public is tired of the bullshit. They blame the republican party. For good reason, as the article above shows. And so they want to try the other way. And, you want to continue on continuing on. You are a sad case. The true con who has the mental problem of wanting to put things in order, but is unwilling to do the work to do so. So, as cons do, you believe what you want. And take the feeding that your masters give you. Sad thing. Because I do not think you are actually stupid. Just plain ignorant, however. And you like it that way.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Because oldstyle believes in Supply Side economics, which coincidentally always fails, and coincidentally always makes the wealthy more so.

how could a sane person say it always fails when it has produced the wealthiest country in human history by far??? The private sector supplies the goods that got us from the stone age to here. The soviets found that out, just not our liberals who spied for them.

The USA has the largest private sector and so the largest supply of goods in human history!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The american public is tired of the bullshit. They blame the republican party. For good reason, as the article above shows. And so they want to try the other way.

too stupid!!! The Chinese tried the other way, it starved 60 million to death, then they switched to Republican capitalism and are now getting rich!!

 

[freedombecki]

The american public is tired of the bullshit. They blame the republican party. For good reason, as the article above shows. And so they want to try the other way.

too stupid!!! The Chinese tried the other way, it starved 60 million to death, then they switched to Republican capitalism and are now getting rich!!

The restoration of Republicans to the House tells me that the American Public knows the fiscal score--if Obama is left with a revolving door on the Treasury by way of Congress, America is fiscally doomed to bankruptcy and worse. It hasn't quite forgotten stories our parents and grandparents shared when we were younger about the Great Depression of the 1930s, rationing, and people going hungry.

If we go bankrupt, that is not out of the question, and there will be grassroots trouble if Obama keeps calling the Treasury about funding his and his fellow democrats' campaign donors' failed businesses. (as in Solyndra theft of taxpayer money through no-worry-half-billion-dollar-loans legislation).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The restoration of Republicans to the House tells me that the American Public knows the fiscal score--if Obama is left with a revolving door on the Treasury by way of Congress, America is fiscally doomed to bankruptcy and worse.

yes!!! government is now far bigger than ever and yet there is no end in site short of socialism for Obama!! Has he ever said how big is big??

We are in the Stalinist death spiral. The more the liberal programs fail the bigger government has to be to correct the failures!

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

When someone's agenda is causing millions of Americans to stay out of work...then YES the intelligent thing to do is to limit that agenda as much as possible.

The agenda that is causing millions of Americans to stay out of work is that of the republicans. And of Mitch McConnell. And of the record filibuster. And that NO jobs bills get to a vote in the senate without a filibuster. But then, you know that. So, we essentially have the same plan as always from the repubs. Give everything to the job makers. And so they get more, and more, and see record profits. And they starve the economy of jobs. they outsource, and they save, and they invest. But they do not hire. Just as under Reagan. Not as under Clinton, when stimulus spending kick started an economy to greatness. But as a con tool, you do not care. You simply want more. Give to the wealthy. Screw the middle class. You hate workers, particularly if they are union workers. You have no problem with monopoly in business, but damn those workers if they want to have enough monopoly power themselves to have a chance. Hell, lets look like China. Then the wealthy will be happy, you will be happy, but the middle class will have continued to dwindle to the size of a thimble. Perfect for con tools, because they frollow their masters. Dipshit.

The reason that the American electorate sent record numbers of Republicans to Washington in the 2010 midterms was that they didn't like the direction that Barry, Harry and Nancy were taking us.

But you know better. That was a very low turn out election in which a relative few nut case tea party groups, very very very well financed tea party groups, were able to turn an election. Stupid statement, oldstyle, having just gone through an election a month or two ago, where your heroes got spanked. Badly. So, based on that, we now know where the american public is. And it is NOT with you.



Completely immaterial. Here is some education, oldstyle. Maybe you can get a grip on yourself:

"Democrats have rounded on revelations about a private dinner of House Republicans on inauguration day in 2009 in which they plotted a campaign of obstruction against newly installed president Barack Obama.

During a lengthy discussion, the senior GOP members worked out a plan to repeatedly block Obama over the coming four years to try to ensure he would not be re-elected.

The disclosures – described as "appalling and sad" by Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod – undermine Republican claims that the president alone is to blame for the partisan deadlock in Washington.

A detailed account of who was present at the dinner on that January 20 night and the plan they worked out to bring down Obama is provided by Robert Draper in 'Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives', published this week.

In his book, Draper opens with the heady atmosphere in Washington on the days running up to the inauguration and the day itself, which attracted 1.8 million to the mall to witness Obama being sworn in as America's first black president.

Those numbers contributed to a growing sense of unease among Republicans as much the defeat in the White House race the previous November. The 15 Republicans were in a sombre mood as they gathered at the Caucus Room in Washington, an upscale restaurant where a New York strip steak costs $51.

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future – and failed – presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.
Democrats condemn GOP's plot to obstruct Obama as 'appalling and sad' | World news | guardian.co.uk

So, Oldstyle, what do you say after reading this little gem, based on a recently released book. By the way, the attendees of that little meeting did not say it did not happen. So, there you go, oldstyle, the proof of the obstructionism that you blindly say does not exist. Makes you look rather ignorant, oldstyle. But I understand. As a con tool, you have to keep posting that dogma.




See above. You have to attack unemployment first, and the republican congress did all they could to see that did not happen.



See above, oldstyle. Get an understanding that most americans already have. Try to shed your con tool being, and understand what actually happened as opposed to what you want to believe.

He's seeking a tax increase on the wealthy that WILL slow the economy and cost jobs but won't even put a small dent in the budget deficits that his policies are giving us.

And more con tool dogma. That whole Clinton thing did not happen, right, oldstyle. He just really did not raise taxes and spend stimulatively and have a spectacular economy. And that whole Reagan thing, when he did that huge tax decrease and unemployment went to the highest rate ever outside of the great depression. And the deficit took off like a rocket. That just did not happen. And no, reagan did not really increase taxes 11 times, and he did not borrow like a drunken sailor, tripling the national debt. And he did not increase the size of the government during his years. And he did not use stimulus spending to correct the mess made by his tax decrease. No, oldstyle, all of that just did not happen. Because you are a con tool. And you just do not like the truth, so you make up your own.

Why? Because it's a populist message that liberals can "sell" to the public. "Don't you worry about all this spending we're doing...because if we tax those evil rich people...then everything will be hunky dory!" And idiots like yourself fall for that nonsense because you apparently can't do eighth grade math and realize that it won't fix the problem.

See above, dipshit. I understand eighth grade math just fine. But you do not follow history at all. You simply think that you can keep cutting taxes, and keep stopping spending, and things will get better. As they NEVER, EVER HAVE in the economic history of this country, when the economy was bad. Because oldstyle believes in Supply Side economics, which coincidentally always fails, and coincidentally always makes the wealthy more so. Dipshit.

So here is the thing, oldstyle. The american public is tired of the bullshit. They blame the republican party. For good reason, as the article above shows. And so they want to try the other way. And, you want to continue on continuing on. You are a sad case. The true con who has the mental problem of wanting to put things in order, but is unwilling to do the work to do so. So, as cons do, you believe what you want. And take the feeding that your masters give you. Sad thing. Because I do not think you are actually stupid. Just plain ignorant, however. And you like it that way.

You never cease to amuse, Rshermr! You come here and accuse others of posting "dogma" and using "con sites" when they've done neither but then you yourself post that nonsense from The Guardian?

You're STILL trying to use the Clinton economy as a template for what we face now and it's the height of absurdity. Clinton was able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...he did not make the Dot Com Boom HAPPEN because he raised taxes. Clinton also had a GOP led House that forced him to cut spending. Every time you trot the notion out that Clinton caused a boom by raising taxes and try to "sell it" as a solution to what we face now, the only thing you convince me of is that I'm 100% correct when I say that you're full of shit when you claim to have taught economics. Nobody who understood the subject well enough to teach it at that collegiate level couldn't POSSIBLY be as ignorant about fiscal policy as you continually demonstrate.

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle says:

You never cease to amuse, Rshermr

Funny. i can always tell you have a lie coming my way when you say you are amused. Cause that means you have nothing of substance to say. And below you will see Oldstyle twisting himself into a pretzel and lying any way he can to try to prove what I have said to be wrong. But it was not wrong, just the honest truth. See links below. And notice, that again oldstyle is link free, as there is no proof for what he says.

You come here and accuse others of posting "dogma" and using "con sites" when they've done neither but then you yourself post that nonsense from The Guardian?

And there it is. Oldstyle attacking the source of information he does not like shown. The Guardian, old boy?? The Guardian is a paper that is mainstream as can be. It has been around since the 1800's as one of the UK's primary sources of news. So, it is to the left of FOX so to oldstyle that would be partial. And, oldstyle, the report is about information in a BOOK, so did you have some proof that something said in the BOOK is wrong? It is not, of course, as even the named participants in the little scandal do not argue the report.

You're STILL trying to use the Clinton economy as a template for what we face now and it's the height of absurdity. Clinton was able to raise taxes BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom...he did not make the Dot Com Boom HAPPEN because he raised taxes. Clinton also had a GOP led House that forced him to cut spending. Every time you trot the notion out that Clinton caused a boom by raising taxes and try to "sell it" as a solution to what we face now, the only thing you convince me of is that I'm 100% correct when I say that you're full of shit when you claim to have taught economics. Nobody who understood the subject well enough to teach it at that collegiate level couldn't POSSIBLY be as ignorant about fiscal policy as you continually demonstrate.

Wow, oldstyle. that IS a load of bullshit. You must be pretty well cleaned out now.

So, here is analysis from Bruce Bartlett.

"Republicans are adamant that taxes on the ultra-wealthy must not rise to the level they were at during the Clinton administration, as President Obama favors, lest economic devastation result. But they have a problem – the 1990s were the most prosperous era in recent history. This requires Republicans to try to rewrite the economic history of that decade.

In early 1993, Bill Clinton asked Congress to raise the top statutory tax rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent, along with other tax increases. Republicans and their allies universally predicted that nothing good would come of it. They even said that it would have no impact on the deficit.

Ronald Reagan himself was enlisted to make the case the day after President Clinton unveiled his program. Writing in The New York Times, the former president said, “Taxes have never succeeded in promoting economic growth. More often than not, they have led to economic downturns.”

Of course, Reagan himself raised taxes 11 times between 1982 and 1988, increasing taxes by $133 billion a year, or 2.6 percent of the gross domestic product, by his last year in office. Presumably he supported these measures because he thought they would raise growth; otherwise he could have vetoed them.

Speaking before the Heritage Foundation’s board on April 16, 1993, former Representative Jack Kemp, Republican of New York, predicted budgetary failure from the Clinton plan. “Will raising taxes reduce the deficit?’ he asked. “No, it will weaken our economy and increase the deficit.”

Conservative economists were often quite specific about exactly what the negative impact of the president’s plan would be. On May 8, The New York Times interviewed several. John Mueller, a Wall Street consultant, said inflation would rise to “at least 5 percent within the next two or three years.”

In fact, the inflation rate did not rise at all until 1996 and then went up to 3.3 percent before falling to 1.7 percent in 1997 and 1.6 percent in 1998.

In the same article, the economist John Rutledge also saw higher inflation from the Clinton plan and said it would raise the deficit. “Look for a higher, not lower, deficit if the Clinton package passes Congress,” he said.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit fell every year of the Clinton administration, from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 billion in 1995, $107 billion in 1996, and $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, there was a budget surplus of $69 billion, which rose to $126 billion in 1999 and $236 billion in 2000 before it was dissipated by huge tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration.

Among the most detailed economic analyses of the negative impact of the Clinton plan was one made by the economist Gary Robbins in August 1993. He predicted that G.D.P. would be $244.4 billion lower in 1998 compared with the C.B.O. baseline. He did not provide the baseline figure, so I looked it up. In its January 1993 projection, the budget office put G.D.P. at $7,953 billion in 1998. Subtracting Mr. Robbins’s estimate of the economic cost of the Clinton plan yields an estimated G.D.P. of $7,709 billion in 1998.

If one goes to the government Web site where the G.D.P. figures appear and looks up the one for 1998, one finds that it was $8,793 billion. Thus Mr. Robbins was off by more than $1 trillion. G.D.P. was 14 percent higher than he predicted.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to rely upon Mr. Robbins’s estimates of the effects of the economic impact of tax cuts, which always show hugely positive effects from tax cuts. Recently, he was the author of the 9-9-9 tax plan put forward by Herman Cain as he sought the Republican presidential nomination last year.

In my posts on May 22, 2012, and Nov. 22, 2011, I presented other data on the positive economic consequences of President Clinton’s high-tax policies compared with the poor economic consequences of President Bush’s low-tax policies. Nevertheless, it is conservative dogma that we need more policies like President Bush’s and must not, under any circumstances, replicate President Clinton’s policies.

However, there are still a few people around old enough to remember the 1990s and 2000s. Even without looking up government statistics, they know that the 1990s were a time when the economy boomed, while the 2000s were a period of economic stagnation.

This has created a problem for Republicans, leading to economic revisionism."
Bruce Bartlett: The Clinton Tax Challenge for Republicans - NYTimes.com

So, oldstyle. Lies again. You will want, no doubt, to attack the above. But remember who Bruce Bartlett is:
Bruce Reeves Bartlett is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Google

The last sentence, above, pretty much describes what you continually do, Oldstyle. And what you tried in the above paragraph. Economic revisionism, as I have said before. Nice try, Oldstyle, but you look like what you are: A con tool posting con dogma trying to revise history to match the very dogma that you are posting.

 

[Oldstyle]

Economic revisionism? Too funny!

I simply point out the OBVIOUS...that Clinton was working with a booming economy and a Congress that was cutting spending...while Obama is working with a sputtering economy and a Congress that refuses to cut spending...but you continue to make the case that raising taxes on the wealthy will fix our "problems"? Who's REALLY guilty of "economic revisionism"?

You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs, Rshermr and you never will because it's bad fiscal policy. You can't admit that though...can you? So you keep trotting out MORE laughable cites from progressive friendly sites like the NY Times...all the while babbling about "con tools" and "dogma".

Here's the glaring problem of your "solution", Rshermr...

For tax increases NOT to have a negative effect on the economy we need the equivalent of a Dot Com Boom to happen at the same time. Where will the boom that you're anticipating come from? I see NOTHING on the horizon even remotely resembling the Dot Com Boom.

We'll also need a Congress that is pushing spending cuts as took place during the Clinton years. Are you also making the point that you expect THAT to happen with the Democrats controlling the Senate and Obama ready with his veto pen? Because THAT is some amusing shit you're selling!

 

[Oldstyle]

This whole notion of yours...that if we just did what Clinton did...we'd get the same results never fails to amuse me.

Years ago I was playing golf with a friend at a course I'd never been on before. I hit a great drive on a hole and was sitting out in the middle of the fairway on a par 5 trying to decide whether or not to go for the green in two. My friend smiles at me and says "I went for it from here last time we played here and made it."
Now I'm WAY longer than my friend so I decide if "he" could make it then of course I can make it as well. I step up, hit a beautiful shot and watch as it drops into the water in front of the green, twenty yards short. I look at him and say "You are so full of shit! There is no way you reached that green from here!" And he looks at me with a grin and says "Last time I played here it was cold as hell and that water was frozen. That ball just bounced right across that ice and right on up onto the green."

The gist of my "story", Rshermr is that different situations call for different approaches. You're standing in the fairway WITHOUT ice on that pond telling us to "go for it" because someone got it on the green WITH ice on the pond. Clinton was able to raise taxes without harming the economy because the Dot Com Boom had the economy going crazy. If Obama attempts the same thing, his "ball" and the economy are about to get dunked.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

Economic revisionism? Too funny!

Not my quote, oldstyle. Came from a conservative source, Bruce Bartlett.
Here is who he is again, Oldstyle, as though you did not know:
Bruce Reeves Bartlett is an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.
Google

I simply point out the OBVIOUS...that Clinton was working with a booming economy and a Congress that was cutting spending...while Obama is working with a sputtering economy and a Congress that refuses to cut spending...but you continue to make the case that raising taxes on the wealthy will fix our "problems"? Who's REALLY guilty of "economic revisionism"?

Sorry, oldstyle. Again, you are into revisionism. As was shown in the last post. The congress, oldstyle, that Clinton was working with was a democratic house and senate at the time that he passed the tax increase, in his first year as president. Which is why you are dealing with revisionism. There was no pressure to reduce spending. There was plenty of pressure to stop tax increases, my boy. As Mr. Bartlett pointed out. But the stimulus worked, old boy. And the economy soared. And the repubs, who in unison opposed the tax increase, all stood around with egg on their faces, just as you do today.

You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs, Rshermr and you never will because it's bad fiscal policy. You can't admit that though...can you? So you keep trotting out MORE laughable cites from progressive friendly sites like the NY Times...all the while babbling about "con tools" and "dogma".

Yes, I have, oldstyle. And I have shown you the times that it has worked. Which is every time, oldstyle. And I have given you the times that tax decreases and cuts in spending have not worked. Which is Every time they have been tried in a bad economy. So, lying again, oldstyle Trying to change the history of your heroes, the repubs of the past.
So, lets be clear, oldstyle. Though you are trying to change my words as hard as you can, you know what I have said in the past. And I am tired of having to restate it over and over so that you can lie about it again.
It is not, and has never been, about raising taxes, oldstyle. As you well know. Raising taxes is simply a method of providing revenue to allow STIMULATIVE SPENDING. Which almost every economic theory understands. Only Supply Side economics says that you starve a recession. And that has never, ever worked except to make the wealthy more so.


Here's the glaring problem of your "solution", Rshermr...

For tax increases NOT to have a negative effect on the economy we need the equivalent of a Dot Com Boom to happen at the same time. Where will the boom that you're anticipating come from? I see NOTHING on the horizon even remotely resembling the Dot Com Boom.

That, apparently, is the Oldstyle economic theory. Perhaps you have an impartial source that backs that theory up? Of course not, oldstyle, because it has nothing to do with truth. Again.

We'll also need a Congress that is pushing spending cuts as took place during the Clinton years. Are you also making the point that you expect THAT to happen with the Democrats controlling the Senate and Obama ready with his veto pen? Because THAT is some amusing shit you're selling!

Well, Oldstyle, that is the problem with you. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. then you get amused. Which always tells me that you are about to or have, just lied. In this case you are lying before being amused. As I mentioned, and as I have said many times before, you raise taxes to get capital to do stimulus spending when the economy is BAD. As it was at the beginning of the Clinton term. When the economy turns around, and the economy is good, then you do not use stimulus spending, generally. Instead, you decrease spending, and you may want to decrease tax rates. Because the economy is good. Unemployment is down. But you know that, or should, because I have told you so many, many times.
Sorry to have to do this to all that have an understanding of economic history. This is for our little problem child, Oldstyle:

Unemployment Rates in 1993

January 1993 - 7.3%
February 1993 - 7.1%
March 1993 - 7%
April 1993 - 7.1%
May 1993 - 7.1%
June 1993 - 7%
July 1993 - 6.9%
August 1993 - 6.8%
September 1993 - 6.7%
October 1993 - 6.8%
November 1993 - 6.6%
December 1993 - 6.5%
So, at his inauguration, the UE was high, 7.3% and the economy was stagnent. The tax increase was in Jan, '93.

Unemployment Rates for 1994

January 1994 - 6.6%
February 1994 - 6.6%
March 1994 - 6.5%
April 1994 - 6.4%
May 1994 - 6.1%
June 1994 - 6.1%
July 1994 - 6.1%
August 1994 - 6%
September 1994 - 5.9%
October 1994 - 5.8%
November 1994 - 5.6%
December 1994 - 5.5%
Mission accomplished. UE down to 5.5% and dropping. Good economy.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

So, I am sure you will be back twisting yourself into pretzels again trying to lie your way into supporting the con dogma. Because, oldstyle, you just continue to prove yourself to be a con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

This whole notion of yours...that if we just did what Clinton did...we'd get the same results never fails to amuse me.

Years ago I was playing golf with a friend at a course I'd never been on before. I hit a great drive on a hole and was sitting out in the middle of the fairway on a par 5 trying to decide whether or not to go for the green in two. My friend smiles at me and says "I went for it from here last time we played here and made it."
Now I'm WAY longer than my friend so I decide if "he" could make it then of course I can make it as well. I step up, hit a beautiful shot and watch as it drops into the water in front of the green, twenty yards short. I look at him and say "You are so full of shit! There is no way you reached that green from here!" And he looks at me with a grin and says "Last time I played here it was cold as hell and that water was frozen. That ball just bounced right across that ice and right on up onto the green."

The gist of my "story", Rshermr is that different situations call for different approaches. You're standing in the fairway WITHOUT ice on that pond telling us to "go for it" because someone got it on the green WITH ice on the pond. Clinton was able to raise taxes without harming the economy because the Dot Com Boom had the economy going crazy. If Obama attempts the same thing, his "ball" and the economy are about to get dunked.

Uh, nice golf story I guess. Dipshit. So, you have given up entirely trying to support your dogma with actual economic history. Now we get to hear golf stories. You are really desperate, me boy.

And no, oldstyle. It will not get Dunked. As it never has when stimulus has been used in a bad economy. As every republican obstructionist knows. They block stimulus because they want the economy to fail, and they know that stimulus will help the economy get better. As most americans understand by now. but you will never, ever understand. Because you are a con tool, posting con dogma. And though you can not show where starving a bad economy has ever worked, you will continue to push that idea. That con idea. That very, very dishonest idea. That idea, should it continue to be shoved down our throats by the tea party wing of the repub party, will continue to make millions of americans suffer due to unemployment. But that is your want, oldstyle, because you are a con tool. And you want the wealthier to get more so. Because they foster your beliefs. Regardless of what continues to happen to the middle class.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are such a blatant liar at this point it's not even funny. You gave me the school of economic thought that advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs? When did that take place? Since you've already DONE that, it should be easy for you to give it to me again...right? (eye-roll)

So what economic school advocates tax raises in a weak economy to create jobs, Rshermr?