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

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr...has been attempting to polish this turd for a week now and it's shiny but it's still a turd.

As I've said all along...there is only one reason for coming up with a new economic statistic...jobs saved...that's what you do when your stimulus failed to create the jobs that you predicted and you need to muddy the issue. The Obama Administration did just that...and a compliant main stream media let them get away with it.

So, Pinqy, here is what I remember. From a long time ago, in the late 1960's and early 70's labor economics classes and macro economics classes. Employment was always the biggest single issue to measure the economic well being. Yes, deficit was important, but smaller then and it only got better with high employment. And yes, GNP was important, but tended to follow employment levels.

So, creation of jobs and full employment was important. But those few times that employment levels were bad, say over 7%, there were concerns and discussions of how to save jobs. Because, jobs saved was equal to jobs created as far as unemployment was concerned. From an economic policy, it was as important to stop job losses as it was to create new jobs.

Jobs Created can be measured..it's simply the positive change in the jobs level (and jobs are not the same as employment). And jobs lost is the negative change in the jobs level. But jobs saved is the number of jobs that (theoretically) would have been lost, but weren't. You can't objectively measure that. You can attribute fewer jobs lost to a political policy or an externality etc, but those are estimates based on deviation from a prediction.

That can be useful when evaluating policy, but it's not statistics and it's not the job of a statistical agency.

So I remember even 50 years ago discussing jobs saved as a periodic number. I do not remember where it was kept track of, but obviously the CBO did not exist, so it was not them. Todays attack on the jobs saved number is to me stupid. Both saved and created need to be taken into account, and both need to be part of economic policy.

I don't see how it could be a regularly published number. The problem with "jobs saved" is that you can neither confirm nor refute it as it's purely hypothetical. That's the problem with projections and predictions...for example the Obama administration projected that without the stimulus the UE rate would go over 10% and with it would stay under 8%. Well, in reality it reached 10% and took a while to get below 8%. So were the initial projections off, or was the effect of the stimulus less than expected, or both? You can't MEASURE it, only theorize based on known factors.

For example, losing the auto industry would have cost jobs. We can argue the number, but "experts" seem to agree it was over 1M jobs. Experts also pretty much universally agree that not saving that industry may well have moved us into a depression. So, we can all argue the point, but the reasoning is obviously sound. Ignoring jobs saved and job saving opportunities is just plain stupid.

It is perfectly legitimate to claim "jobs saved" in cases like the auto industry bailout (though it's not possible to know what would have happened). But to try to put a precise number and equate it with the actual measurement of new jobs is a little sketchy.

I'm not even going to bother wasting my time putting this type of question to Rshermr...but you seem to be fairly intelligent so I'll put it to you. Rshermr seems to believe that we would have lost over "1 million jobs" if we hadn't "saved" GM and Chrysler with the auto bailout. I believe that number is absurdly inflated and that very few jobs would have been lost if GM and Chrysler had simply filed bankruptcy and reorganized. What WOULD have been lost is the contracts between the car makers and the UAW.

The 1 million dollar number is rather amusing since GM has about 280,000 people TOTAL working for them in the US and Chrysler has 59,000.

 

[Rshermr]

Sorry, Oldstyle, if you use my name, you get my input. You said the following:

Rshermr seems to believe that we would have lost over "1 million jobs" if we hadn't "saved" GM and Chrysler with the auto bailout. I believe that number is absurdly inflated and that very few jobs would have been lost if GM and Chrysler had simply filed bankruptcy and reorganized.

Here is where I get the 1M jobs plus. I avoided left leaning sites that had often the highest numbers, and conservative sites that had few to no jobs saved or added. Here are a number of those left. Specifically, these are sources that provided jobs numbers as a result of the auto bailout:

"If the two automakers had gone out of business, it would have significantly cut taxes collected from the automakers, their suppliers and dealers, let alone from the 1.5 million suddenly unemployed workers."
3 answers to the auto bailout debate - Sep. 6, 2012

The Center for Automotive Research said today the government’s bailouts of the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone, and prevented “additional personal income losses” of nearly $97 billion combined for this year and last.
Another 314,400 jobs were saved this year ...
GM IPO: Auto Bailout Saved More Than 1 Million Jobs, Study Says - Deal Journal - WSJ

“the economic impact — in terms of jobs, compensation and tax revenues — of a major contraction involving one or more of the Detroit Three automakers,” under two separate scenarios. In both cases, there would be major short-term shocks to employment; depending on which scenario you use, a contraction of the Detroit Three would result in direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million in 2009.
How Many Jobs Depend on the Big Three? - NYTimes.com

So, you suggest that a simple bankruptcy procedure would have worked. I find NO site that is impartial that believes that. It was simply not possible. No source of money to bail the companies out. The idea is strictly a political one, not a rational one. The unanimous rational belief is that the auto companies would not have emerged in tact at all.

What WOULD have been lost is the contracts between the car makers and the UAW.

Yes, that would have been lost also. Though that is hardly the issue for rational people. By the way, though unions are the target of all of the conservative sites, and coincidentally you, oldstyle, here is one simple fact:
The union gave up the right to strike through 2015 and ended automatic pay raises. Back in 2007, it had agreed to a two-tiered wage scale that allowed the companies to hire new workers at much lower pay. Between the new wage rates and the savings from taking over retiree health costs, labor costs fell by about a third and are now on par with those of the foreign carmakers.
PolitiFact | Did President Obama save the auto industry?

The 1 million dollar number is rather amusing since GM has about 280,000 people TOTAL working for them in the US and Chrysler has 59,000.

That is because you do not want to understand the truth, Oldstyle. Those estimating the impact of the auto bailout were not stupid. They actually used their thought processes, without agenda.

The auto industry is one of the most important industries in the United States. It historically has contributed 3 – 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The industry directly employs over 1.7 million people engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, and supplying parts and components to assemble, sell and service new motor vehicles. In addition, the industry is a huge consumer of goods and services from many other sectors, including raw materials, construction, machinery, legal, computers and semi-conductors, financial, advertising, and healthcare. The auto industry spends $16 to $18 billion every year on research and product development – 99 percent of which is funded by the industry itself. Due to the industry’s consumption of products from many other manufacturing sectors, it is a major driver of the 11.5% manufacturing contribution to GDP. Without the auto sector, it is difficult to imagine manufacturing surviving in this country.
Car Research Publications | Center for Automotive Research

So, yes, there are millions of jobs that would have been affected by the failure of GM. And had GM failed, it is unlikely that the fallout would have left any US auto manufacturers.

George W. and his economic advisers supported the bailout, and felt that the lack of one may well have led to a new Great Depression:

“I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment,” Bush said. “I didn’t want to gamble. I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ And so I said, ‘No depression.’”
President Obama and George W. Bush Were Right to Bailout U.S. Auto Industry

 

[Oldstyle]

Only a complete IDIOT would think that a bankruptcy and reorganization equals complete business failure. That idiot of course is you, Rshermr...the guy that supposedly taught college economics yet can't grasp a concept like Chapter 11.

 

[Rshermr]

Only a complete IDIOT would think that a bankruptcy and reorganization equals complete business failure. That idiot of course is you, Rshermr...the guy that supposedly taught college economics yet can't grasp a concept like Chapter 11.

Perhaps, oldstyle, you should read what I said. Here is my statement:

So, you suggest that a simple bankruptcy procedure would have worked. I find NO site that is impartial that believes that. It was simply not possible. No source of money to bail the companies out. The idea is strictly a political one, not a rational one. The unanimous rational belief is that the auto companies would not have emerged in tact at all.

I do indeed know that it is possible to go through Bankruptcy without dissolving the company involved. But, assuming you could read, you would have seen that I could find no impartial source that believed that bankruptcy of the auto companies, including GM and Chrysler, would have lead to anything BUT complete failure.

So, now Oldstyle, listen carefully this time. There are more outcomes from Bankruptcy than you can count on all your fingers and toes. Does that help, Oldstyle. But in the case of the auto companies, bankruptcy would have ended in dissolution of the company itself.

Sometimes, Oldstyle, when you are trying so hard to prove someone wrong, you get just too excited. Next time, read what you are criticizing.

Relative to the Chapter 11 option that Romney was championing, part of the time, at any rate, consider the following analysis. Should you actually care, it will explain why there was no viable option left except what occurred. I suspect that you do not care, in which case you are, obviously, able to believe what you want.
Was There a Bankruptcy Alternative for the Automakers? - NYTimes.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Relative to the Chapter 11 option that Romney was championing, part of the time, at any rate, consider the following analysis. Should you actually care, it will explain why there was no viable option left except what occurred. I suspect that you do not care, in which case you are, obviously, able to believe what you want.
Was There a Bankruptcy Alternative for the Automakers? - NYTimes.com

Times is not a libturd site at all?????????

Love to see Oldstyle always beating you up this way!!

“Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Alive!” That slogan emanating from Vice President Biden, which has resonated in states, like Ohio, which could decide this upcoming election. But Gov. Romney’s call from late 2008 to send Detroit into managed bankruptcy would have saved the auto industry as well, according to expert Edward Niedermeyer.

Niedermeyer wrote today in The Wall Street Journal that:

GM and Chrysler could have averted tens of thousands of lost jobs, and the government could have preserved billions of dollars in tax revenue, by undergoing a true bankruptcy reorganization, even if the government had provided full debtor-in-possession financing.
In a true bankruptcy guided by the law rather than by a sympathetic, rule-bending political task force, GM and Chrysler would have more fully faced their competitive challenges, enjoyed more leverage to secure union concessions, and had the chance to divest money-losing operations like GM’s moribund Opel unit. True bankruptcy would have lessened the chance that GM and Chrysler will stumble again, a very real possibility in the brutally competitive auto industry.
Certainly President Obama threw enough money at GM and Chrysler to create a short-term turnaround, but if the auto makers find themselves on hard times and return to Washington with hats in hand, his policy will have been no rescue at all.
[…]
Making matters worse, the Treasury Department issued notices which let ‘New GM’ acquire $45 billion in tax write-offs from its defunct predecessor, a blatant violation of basic bankruptcy law. This not only deprived the government of billions in tax revenue, it hid the true cost of the bailout while disproportionally benefiting the UAW, an unsecured creditor.
By giving the UAW’s unsecured claims against GM and Chrysler a higher priority than those of secured creditors, the government’s reorganization further damaged bankruptcy precedent. The net result was a $26 billion transfer to a key Democratic ally and political donor, according to analysis by scholars from the Heritage Foundation and George Mason University.
Furthermore, “Mr. Romney was well aware of the risk of an industry wide collapse, arguing in his op-ed in favor of a government role in the bankruptcies, namely to "provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk, according to Neidermeyer. He also added “with government-backed warranties and guaranteed debtor-in-possession financing, the industry could have avoided a meltdown just as effectively as it did with the president's approach.”

So, Romney wouldn’t have sucked the life out of the automobile industry, which is what liberals would like the American people to believe. It was an autoworkers union bailout to consolidate support for the president’s governing coalition at the time. So, while the vice president could say that bin Laden is dead – that seldom translates into votes in this cycle.

As Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a post today on the Open Markets that:

... John Berlau and others have noted, the Obama administration’s handling of the Chrysler bailout also was flawed, ignoring better alternative rescue options with more synergies for the U.S. auto industry, and could result in the loss of American jobs and the transfer of U.S. jobs in Jeep production to Italy, home of Fiat, the troubled automaker that was given control of Chrysler by the Obama administration. (Fiat plans to “export new . . . Jeep models from Italy to prevent [Italian] plants from closing,” and “protect Italian jobs . . . by exporting premium brands from Italy to the U.S.”)
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Bader also noted that “in the bailouts, the Obama administration left GM’s uncompetitive, inefficient work rules and high labor costs largely intact to appease the UAW union, and saddled GM with future losses in the billions through massive deferral of UAW pension obligations.”

Again, we have the Obama administration peddling a false narrative, media outlets covering for him, and therefore the lie becomes accepted. And it seems that Obama’s ‘Benghazi-ing’ of the auto bailout is working. Romney and Obama are polling dead even 24 hours before the nation votes.




Read more: Expert: Romney's Plan for Managed Bankruptcy Would Have Saved Industry, Taxpayers Millions | NewsBusters.org

 

[Rshermr]

Relative to the Chapter 11 option that Romney was championing, part of the time, at any rate, consider the following analysis. Should you actually care, it will explain why there was no viable option left except what occurred. I suspect that you do not care, in which case you are, obviously, able to believe what you want.
Was There a Bankruptcy Alternative for the Automakers? - NYTimes.com

Times is not a libturd site at all?????????

Love to see Oldstyle always beating you up this way!!

“Bin Laden is Dead and GM is Alive!” That slogan emanating from Vice President Biden, which has resonated in states, like Ohio, which could decide this upcoming election. But Gov. Romney’s call from late 2008 to send Detroit into managed bankruptcy would have saved the auto industry as well, according to expert Edward Niedermeyer.

Niedermeyer wrote today in The Wall Street Journal that:

GM and Chrysler could have averted tens of thousands of lost jobs, and the government could have preserved billions of dollars in tax revenue, by undergoing a true bankruptcy reorganization, even if the government had provided full debtor-in-possession financing.
In a true bankruptcy guided by the law rather than by a sympathetic, rule-bending political task force, GM and Chrysler would have more fully faced their competitive challenges, enjoyed more leverage to secure union concessions, and had the chance to divest money-losing operations like GM’s moribund Opel unit. True bankruptcy would have lessened the chance that GM and Chrysler will stumble again, a very real possibility in the brutally competitive auto industry.
Certainly President Obama threw enough money at GM and Chrysler to create a short-term turnaround, but if the auto makers find themselves on hard times and return to Washington with hats in hand, his policy will have been no rescue at all.
[…]
Making matters worse, the Treasury Department issued notices which let ‘New GM’ acquire $45 billion in tax write-offs from its defunct predecessor, a blatant violation of basic bankruptcy law. This not only deprived the government of billions in tax revenue, it hid the true cost of the bailout while disproportionally benefiting the UAW, an unsecured creditor.
By giving the UAW’s unsecured claims against GM and Chrysler a higher priority than those of secured creditors, the government’s reorganization further damaged bankruptcy precedent. The net result was a $26 billion transfer to a key Democratic ally and political donor, according to analysis by scholars from the Heritage Foundation and George Mason University.
Furthermore, “Mr. Romney was well aware of the risk of an industry wide collapse, arguing in his op-ed in favor of a government role in the bankruptcies, namely to "provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk, according to Neidermeyer. He also added “with government-backed warranties and guaranteed debtor-in-possession financing, the industry could have avoided a meltdown just as effectively as it did with the president's approach.”

So, Romney wouldn’t have sucked the life out of the automobile industry, which is what liberals would like the American people to believe. It was an autoworkers union bailout to consolidate support for the president’s governing coalition at the time. So, while the vice president could say that bin Laden is dead – that seldom translates into votes in this cycle.

As Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a post today on the Open Markets that:

... John Berlau and others have noted, the Obama administration’s handling of the Chrysler bailout also was flawed, ignoring better alternative rescue options with more synergies for the U.S. auto industry, and could result in the loss of American jobs and the transfer of U.S. jobs in Jeep production to Italy, home of Fiat, the troubled automaker that was given control of Chrysler by the Obama administration. (Fiat plans to “export new . . . Jeep models from Italy to prevent [Italian] plants from closing,” and “protect Italian jobs . . . by exporting premium brands from Italy to the U.S.&#8221
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Bader also noted that “in the bailouts, the Obama administration left GM’s uncompetitive, inefficient work rules and high labor costs largely intact to appease the UAW union, and saddled GM with future losses in the billions through massive deferral of UAW pension obligations.”

Again, we have the Obama administration peddling a false narrative, media outlets covering for him, and therefore the lie becomes accepted. And it seems that Obama’s ‘Benghazi-ing’ of the auto bailout is working. Romney and Obama are polling dead even 24 hours before the nation votes.




Read more: Expert: Romney's Plan for Managed Bankruptcy Would Have Saved Industry, Taxpayers Millions | NewsBusters.org

Nice partial sites, dipshit. And no, the times is not a liberal site, except to cons where everything to the left of FOX is a liberal site. Back to your meds, dipshit. But hang on, let me go to moveon.org and get you some quotes. But then, I will not. Because I have integrity. Look it up, dipshit. Integrity.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And no, the times is not a liberal site, except to cons where everything to the left of FOX is a liberal site.

dear, is the Times a good enough site to prove how stupid you are???? Sorry.


THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT

"OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."


don't worry when you see evidence of how brainwashed you actually are, just ignore it like any Nazi would!!

 

[Rshermr]

And no, the times is not a liberal site, except to cons where everything to the left of FOX is a liberal site.

dear, is the Times a good enough site to prove how stupid you are???? Sorry.


THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT

"OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."


don't worry when you see evidence of how brainwashed you actually are, just ignore it like any Nazi would!!

I see brainwashing all the time. And you are it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And no, the times is not a liberal site, except to cons where everything to the left of FOX is a liberal site.

dear, is the Times a good enough site to prove how stupid you are???? Sorry.


THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT

"OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."


don't worry when you see evidence of how brainwashed you actually are, just ignore it like any Nazi would!!

I see brainwashing all the time. And you are it.

a college professor??????????????????????? Do you really need to be a liberal all your life????????????????? Do you have any pride at all??

 

[Rshermr]

dear, is the Times a good enough site to prove how stupid you are???? Sorry.


THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT

"OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."


don't worry when you see evidence of how brainwashed you actually are, just ignore it like any Nazi would!!

I see brainwashing all the time. And you are it.

a college professor??????????????????????? Do you really need to be a liberal all your life????????????????? Do you have any pride at all??

I am not, nor have I ever said I was, a college professor? Are you having delusional issues again? Not your fault, Ed. Mental illness is just plain bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I see brainwashing all the time. And you are it.

a college professor??????????????????????? Do you really need to be a liberal all your life????????????????? Do you have any pride at all??

I am not, nor have I ever said I was, a college professor? Are you having delusional issues again? Not your fault, Ed. Mental illness is just plain bad luck.

dear, is the Times a good enough site to prove how stupid you are???? Sorry.

 

[Oldstyle]

I see brainwashing all the time. And you are it.

a college professor??????????????????????? Do you really need to be a liberal all your life????????????????? Do you have any pride at all??

I am not, nor have I ever said I was, a college professor? Are you having delusional issues again? Not your fault, Ed. Mental illness is just plain bad luck.

Nah, Rshermr would NEVER make a claim like THAT! He would however claim to be that rarest of breed...the "undergraduate that teaches college courses". You gotta love "Tommy".

Tommy Flanagan Videos - Jon Lovitz As Tommy Flanagan - Zimbio

 

[Rshermr]

a college professor??????????????????????? Do you really need to be a liberal all your life????????????????? Do you have any pride at all??

I am not, nor have I ever said I was, a college professor? Are you having delusional issues again? Not your fault, Ed. Mental illness is just plain bad luck.

Nah, Rshermr would NEVER make a claim like THAT! He would however claim to be that rarest of breed...the "undergraduate that teaches college courses". You gotta love "Tommy".

Tommy Flanagan Videos - Jon Lovitz As Tommy Flanagan - Zimbio

Now, having been caught lying on multiple occasions, and having made stupid accusations and having those accusations proven to be simply con dogma, Oldstyle simply reverts to personal attacks. And being a simple dish washer, and having accomplished nothing of import in his entire life, oldstyle feels threatened. Because he has nothing but the life of a con tool to fall back on, and no one but friends like ed to rely on for assistance.

And when you have to rely on ed for help, you are in deep shit.

 

[Oldstyle]

I am not, nor have I ever said I was, a college professor? Are you having delusional issues again? Not your fault, Ed. Mental illness is just plain bad luck.

Nah, Rshermr would NEVER make a claim like THAT! He would however claim to be that rarest of breed...the "undergraduate that teaches college courses". You gotta love "Tommy".

Tommy Flanagan Videos - Jon Lovitz As Tommy Flanagan - Zimbio

Now, having been caught lying on multiple occasions, and having made stupid accusations and having those accusations proven to be simply con dogma, Oldstyle simply reverts to personal attacks. And being a simple dish washer, and having accomplished nothing of import in his entire life, oldstyle feels threatened. Because he has nothing but the life of a con tool to fall back on, and no one but friends like ed to rely on for assistance.

And when you have to rely on ed for help, you are in deep shit.

Hey Tommy...your wife, Morgan Fairchild called! She wants you to pick up some milk on the way home.

 

[Rshermr]

Nah, Rshermr would NEVER make a claim like THAT! He would however claim to be that rarest of breed...the "undergraduate that teaches college courses". You gotta love "Tommy".

Tommy Flanagan Videos - Jon Lovitz As Tommy Flanagan - Zimbio

Now, having been caught lying on multiple occasions, and having made stupid accusations and having those accusations proven to be simply con dogma, Oldstyle simply reverts to personal attacks. And being a simple dish washer, and having accomplished nothing of import in his entire life, oldstyle feels threatened. Because he has nothing but the life of a con tool to fall back on, and no one but friends like ed to rely on for assistance.

And when you have to rely on ed for help, you are in deep shit.

Hey Tommy...your wife, Morgan Fairchild called! She wants you to pick up some milk on the way home.

And here you see the real Oldstyle. Nothing left. Just stupid childish posts.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...you want me to have a "serious" debate with someone who thinks undergraduates teach college courses? Really?

Sorry, Tommy but you thinking THAT is almost as amusing as you thinking that the New York Times doesn't lean heavily to the left.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...you want me to have a "serious" debate with someone who thinks undergraduates teach college courses? Really?

Sorry, Tommy but you thinking THAT is almost as amusing as you thinking that the New York Times doesn't lean heavily to the left.

You can not have a discussion with a con tool. Like Oldstyle, they simply lie and use no links to what they say. Then they lie again, and never go back to the lies to explain themselves. And, like oldstyle, they work as hard as possible at attacking the source of information. And if possible, they would like to eliminate any source of facts out there, so only their opinions are heard. But, then they look like Oldstyle. Just con tools, who lie without compunction.

You are a sad case, Oldstyle. Cmon back, and we will discuss another of your lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

Con tools and dogma. That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. That and a propensity to "embellish" who you are.

You're the guy who taught college courses in economics but is a little vague on basic Keynesian principles and has the grammar skills of a sixth grader but only because your "secretary" always proofed your correspondence.

You're just another internet "Tommy Flanagan", little buddy...trying to impress with bullshit rather than substance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're the guy who taught college courses in economics.

I believe it, to teach in college you have know that choking a man will help him breath and taxing an economy will help it grow!!

Further, to teach college economics you have to know that taxing money away from Steve Jobs and giving it to libturd soviet make-work bureacrats to invest in Solyndra, Fiskar, Abound Solar, Range Fuels, and A123 Systems will stimulate the economy!!

Also, you have to know that temporary demand stimulated by taxing or borrowing money for welfare checks and food stamps will create real demand while letting people spend their own hard earned money won't create real demand and stimulate the economy!!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You're the guy who taught college courses in economics.

I believe it, to teach in college you have know that choking a man will help him breath and taxing an economy will help it grow!!

Further, to teach college economics you have to know that taxing money away from Steve Jobs and giving it to libturd soviet make-work bureacrats to invest in Solyndra, Fiskar, Abound Solar, Range Fuels, and A123 Systems will stimulate the economy!!

Funny. I have a graduate degree and never once in my years in college was I taught that choking a man would help him breath.

Damn. Now I have to go after my doctorate and find out if there is any truth to that.