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

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

When did I say that unemployment only went down in the latter part of Clinton's term? You might want to "vet" your own lies, little buddy

OK. You said economy took off, i said that you said unemployment went down. My error.
But, three things.
First, I admit I misread your statement. You never admit you were wrong, because your lies are so blatant. Not mistakes, oldstyle, lies.
Second, in case you had not noticed, the economy really does not take off unless the UE rate has been conquered.
And third, the economy took off in the first part of Clintons admin. In the early to mid 1990's, not in the latter 1990's. You keep trying to make it look like the economy soared LATER, and that it was not associated with the stimulus. But to do that, you have to lie. And you keep getting caught in that lie.
So, you lie again. And again. And again. Nice job, oldstyle. You can always find lies for me to vet.

Then, looking for another lie for me to vet, Oldstyle says:

I asked you to explain why Clinton dropped the top rate on capital gains from 28% to 20% in 1997 which happens to have been followed with his three budget surpluses. You keep hammering the point home that cutting taxes NEVER works

Sorry, oldstyle, you are lying again. I did not say lowering taxes never works. That would be an untrue statement, and that is you trying to put words in my mouth. Shows your lack of integrity.
Now, oldstyle, try to listen, because I HAVE said this MANY times. Lowering taxes never works to lower unemployment during a high unemployment time. But then, you know that, oldstyle. But you just continue to lie.
Now, Oldstyle, if you actually got your information by reading impartial data, you would see that Democratic presidents have lowered taxes many times, as have republican presidents. And, if the economy is doing well, and the UE rate is low to moderate, that will not have been a problem. It may have been the correct thing to do.
You see, Oldstyle, after the UE rate is under control, and the economy is doing well, private investment wil keep it doing well. Until some dipshit comes along and does something to crater the economy again. And then you get the great republican depression of 1929 or the great republican recession of 2008.

Then you said:

The recent liberal propaganda that Clinton raising taxes is what led to the economic boom in the latter part of the 90's has always amused me.

How many times are you going to try that lie, Oldstyle. I have explained to you many, many times that what led to an economic boom was stimulus spending. Clinton had to raise taxes to finance the stimulus spending. But then, you know that. Or you are just a congenital idiot. Because I have explained it to you over and over, and it is obvious to most rational people. And if you look at history, the economy took off in the early 1990's. As a result of stimulus, financed by tax increases.

The truth is that the economy took off when he CUT taxes, especially the tax on capital gains.

Yes, well, you need to explain how the economy took off even before the cut in capital gains taxes, me boy. And, why you can find NO source who is impartial and agrees with this drivel. Nice try, but another lie.

So, Oldstyle, everything you just said can be found in only one place. That would be conservative sites or opinion pieces by well know conservative mouthpieces. And coincidentally, you hear it from oldstyle. Who says he is not a conservative tool. But who can come up with NO impartial sources to prove his lies.

Here is the thing, Oldstyle. You keep coming up with statements that are not backed up by any impartial source.. Just your opinion. And you have NO economic background. Then I prove you are making untrue statements. And you do not try to defend your statement from my proof of their lack of truth. Which proves what I keep saying. If you could argue your points, you would. The fact that you can not, proves that you are lying. And, always, coincidentally your points could only come from conservative sites. dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

When did I say that unemployment only went down in the latter part of Clinton's term? You might want to "vet" your own lies, little buddy

OK. You said economy took off, i said that you said unemployment went down. My error.
But, three things.
First, I admit I misread your statement. You never admit you were wrong, because your lies are so blatant. Not mistakes, oldstyle, lies.
Second, in case you had not noticed, the economy really does not take off unless the UE rate has been conquered.
And third, the economy took off in the first part of Clintons admin. In the early to mid 1990's, not in the latter 1990's. You keep trying to make it look like the economy soared LATER, and that it was not associated with the stimulus. But to do that, you have to lie. And you keep getting caught in that lie.
So, you lie again. And again. And again. Nice job, oldstyle. You can always find lies for me to vet.

Then, looking for another lie for me to vet, Oldstyle says:

I asked you to explain why Clinton dropped the top rate on capital gains from 28% to 20% in 1997 which happens to have been followed with his three budget surpluses. You keep hammering the point home that cutting taxes NEVER works

Sorry, oldstyle, you are lying again. I did not say lowering taxes never works. That would be an untrue statement, and that is you trying to put words in my mouth. Shows your lack of integrity.
Now, oldstyle, try to listen, because I HAVE said this MANY times. Lowering taxes never works to lower unemployment during a high unemployment time. But then, you know that, oldstyle. But you just continue to lie.
Now, Oldstyle, if you actually got your information by reading impartial data, you would see that Democratic presidents have lowered taxes many times, as have republican presidents. And, if the economy is doing well, and the UE rate is low to moderate, that will not have been a problem. It may have been the correct thing to do.
You see, Oldstyle, after the UE rate is under control, and the economy is doing well, private investment wil keep it doing well. Until some dipshit comes along and does something to crater the economy again. And then you get the great republican depression of 1929 or the great republican recession of 2008.

Then you said:

The recent liberal propaganda that Clinton raising taxes is what led to the economic boom in the latter part of the 90's has always amused me.

How many times are you going to try that lie, Oldstyle. I have explained to you many, many times that what led to an economic boom was stimulus spending. Clinton had to raise taxes to finance the stimulus spending. But then, you know that. Or you are just a congenital idiot. Because I have explained it to you over and over, and it is obvious to most rational people. And if you look at history, the economy took off in the early 1990's. As a result of stimulus, financed by tax increases.

The truth is that the economy took off when he CUT taxes, especially the tax on capital gains.

Yes, well, you need to explain how the economy took off even before the cut in capital gains taxes, me boy. And, why you can find NO source who is impartial and agrees with this drivel. Nice try, but another lie.

So, Oldstyle, everything you just said can be found in only one place. That would be conservative sites or opinion pieces by well know conservative mouthpieces. And coincidentally, you hear it from oldstyle. Who says he is not a conservative tool. But who can come up with NO impartial sources to prove his lies.

Here is the thing, Oldstyle. You keep coming up with statements that are not backed up by any impartial source.. Just your opinion. And you have NO economic background. Then I prove you are making untrue statements. And you do not try to defend your statement from my proof of their lack of truth. Which proves what I keep saying. If you could argue your points, you would. The fact that you can not, proves that you are lying. And, always, coincidentally your points could only come from conservative sites. dipshit.

Did you just accuse me of lying again? Right after I caught you telling one? Do you know how silly that makes you look? Oh, that's right...I forgot...when YOU make a mistake, (and God knows you make a lot of them!) it's only a mistake but when someone ELSE makes what you "say" is a mistake, it's a lie! Right, little buddy?

So what's the reasoning behind Clinton dropping the capital gains tax down from 28% to 20%, Rshermr? Why WOULD he do that when raising taxes was the solution to a bad economy? And while you're "trying" to explain that? Try explaining how cutting those taxes and cutting spending ended up with 3 budget surpluses in a row? How could that BE?

 

[Oldstyle]

Then once you've explained THAT...you can take a crack at showing how what Obama is doing now...increasing taxes on everyone while increasing spending...is going to make the economy take off like it did during the latter part of Clinton's time in office.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle asks:

Did you just accuse me of lying again?

Yes.

Then Oldstyle, trying to confuse himself, asks:

So what's the reasoning behind Clinton dropping the capital gains tax down from 28% to 20%, Rshermr? Why WOULD he do that when raising taxes was the solution to a bad economy?

Because it was a good economy, dipshit. And in a good economy, reducing certain taxes can be beneficial. But, you could try reading, if you are capable, what I said when you asked this same stupid question in your last post. Dipshit.

Then, Oldstyle, having no clue, asks:

And while you're "trying" to explain that? Try explaining how cutting those taxes and cutting spending ended up with 3 budget surpluses in a row? How could that BE?

The economy ended up with 3 budget deficits in a row for a variety of reasons, mostly because revenues exceeded expenditures. Is this to hard a concept for you. Largely, also, because the economy was booming. Employment was high. Revenues were high as a result. And even though expenditures had grown some, the incoming revenues were high enough to offset expenditures. I know I must have lost you. You surely have some explanation from a bat shit crazy con tool site you like better. Put it out there, dipshit, and we will vet it. Or else stop wasting my time.
Tell me, oldstyle, would you like to explain why you are asking why the Clinton was so much better than any other presidents economy? You are completely off of the subject of this thread. Are you simply interested in amusing yourself? Why don/t you start your own thread with all of your questions? Do you think anyone would be interested???

 

[Rshermr]

Then once you've explained THAT...you can take a crack at showing how what Obama is doing now...increasing taxes on everyone while increasing spending...is going to make the economy take off like it did during the latter part of Clinton's time in office.

Nah. First off, you start off with untruths. Obvious ones. Like the one that says "increasing taxes on everyone". You know better than that one. Then, you are asking a question that any rational student of economics could answer in seconds. But, you are to incapable of understanding.

You tell me, Oldstyle. I know why, but my guess is that you have an explanation that just happens to correspond perfectly with the bat shit crazy con web sites you get your information from.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle asks:

Did you just accuse me of lying again?

Yes.

Then Oldstyle, trying to confuse himself, asks:

So what's the reasoning behind Clinton dropping the capital gains tax down from 28% to 20%, Rshermr? Why WOULD he do that when raising taxes was the solution to a bad economy?

Because it was a good economy, dipshit. And in a good economy, reducing certain taxes can be beneficial. But, you could try reading, if you are capable, what I said when you asked this same stupid question in your last post. Dipshit.

Then, Oldstyle, having no clue, asks:

And while you're "trying" to explain that? Try explaining how cutting those taxes and cutting spending ended up with 3 budget surpluses in a row? How could that BE?

The economy ended up with 3 budget deficits in a row for a variety of reasons, mostly because revenues exceeded expenditures. Is this to hard a concept for you. Largely, also, because the economy was booming. Employment was high. Revenues were high as a result. And even though expenditures had grown some, the incoming revenues were high enough to offset expenditures. I know I must have lost you. You surely have some explanation from a bat shit crazy con tool site you like better. Put it out there, dipshit, and we will vet it. Or else stop wasting my time.
Tell me, oldstyle, would you like to explain why you are asking why the Clinton was so much better than any other presidents economy? You are completely off of the subject of this thread. Are you simply interested in amusing yourself? Why don/t you start your own thread with all of your questions? Do you think anyone would be interested???

So you reduce taxes in a good economy? Really? It's a foundation of Keynesian economics that you RAISE taxes in a good economy to pay back the money that you've spent in stimulus in a weak economy...you know...that stimulus that you're so enamored with? You don't know JACK about economics and you prove it every time you try to pretend that you do. Only an idiot would raise taxes in a weak economy and cut them in a good one. Only "you" would think that was good fiscal policy because only "you" is that ignorant when it comes to how economies function.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, becoming really boreing, says the following:

So you reduce taxes in a good economy? Really? It's a foundation of Keynesian economics that you RAISE taxes in a good economy to pay back the money that you've spent in stimulus in a weak economy...you know...that stimulus that you're so enamored with?

Right. When was the last time you saw a tax increased authorized by republicans? Not just a case like the current one, where all tax decreases are expiring. But an actual new federal tax increase. Republicans have signed a pledge with Grover Norquist to never raise taxes. So, you would suggest decreasing taxes and then never ever being able to raise them again. Dipshit. You know better than to ask that stupid question. In addition, you would do little to increase demand. Very, very little. So, your plan would fail, for a variety of reasons that are unique to this nation.
Now, Reagan new this. He raised taxes 11 rimes, Oldstyle, as you know, and used the revenue for deficit spending. And Clinton used this technique, with great success.

Now, the question is, why are you asking this question? I have explained this to you many times. You know the answer. So, why are you acting like you do not know the answer? We know you lack integrity. And we know you are a conservative tool. Is that it???

You don't know JACK about economics and you prove it every time you try to pretend that you do.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value the opinion of a dish washer.
By the way, you do know you are saying that Reagan is an idiot. Because, you see, he used exactly this methodology to get out of his own unemployment mess.

Only an idiot would raise taxes in a weak economy and cut them in a good one. Only "you" would think that was good fiscal policy because only "you" is that ignorant when it comes to how economies function.

Yes, well, as a dish washer, you would know. Obviously, both I and your hero, Ronnie, and his economic team, are idiots, and you are an economic expert. And a dishwasher. And oh, yeah, it did work really, really well for Clinton. His economic advisers must have been idiots also. And both he, and Ronnie, had good results and strong economies after using the technique of raising revenue with tax increases, idiots that they were. Clinton created more jobs than any president using that technique to get his economy moving. Reagan had the second most jobs created, using that technique. Idiots. they should have checked with Oldstyle, the dish washer.

Next.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, becoming really boreing, says the following:

So you reduce taxes in a good economy? Really? It's a foundation of Keynesian economics that you RAISE taxes in a good economy to pay back the money that you've spent in stimulus in a weak economy...you know...that stimulus that you're so enamored with?

Right. When was the last time you saw a tax increased authorized by republicans? Not just a case like the current one, where all tax decreases are expiring. But an actual new federal tax increase. Republicans have signed a pledge with Grover Norquist to never raise taxes. So, you would suggest decreasing taxes and then never ever being able to raise them again. Dipshit. You know better than to ask that stupid question. In addition, you would do little to increase demand. Very, very little. So, your plan would fail, for a variety of reasons that are unique to this nation.
Now, Reagan new this. He raised taxes 11 rimes, Oldstyle, as you know, and used the revenue for deficit spending. And Clinton used this technique, with great success.

Now, the question is, why are you asking this question? I have explained this to you many times. You know the answer. So, why are you acting like you do not know the answer? We know you lack integrity. And we know you are a conservative tool. Is that it???

You don't know JACK about economics and you prove it every time you try to pretend that you do.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value the opinion of a dish washer.
By the way, you do know you are saying that Reagan is an idiot. Because, you see, he used exactly this methodology to get out of his own unemployment mess.

Only an idiot would raise taxes in a weak economy and cut them in a good one. Only "you" would think that was good fiscal policy because only "you" is that ignorant when it comes to how economies function.

Yes, well, as a dish washer, you would know. Obviously, both I and your hero, Ronnie, and his economic team, are idiots, and you are an economic expert. And a dishwasher. And oh, yeah, it did work really, really well for Clinton. His economic advisers must have been idiots also. And both he, and Ronnie, had good results and strong economies after using the technique of raising revenue with tax increases, idiots that they were. Clinton created more jobs than any president using that technique to get his economy moving. Reagan had the second most jobs created, using that technique. Idiots. they should have checked with Oldstyle, the dish washer.

Next.

Still trying to peddle that nonsense, Rshermr? Yes, Reagan raised taxes on 11 different things over his two terms because he was working with a Democratically controlled House led by Tip O'Neal. Most if not all of them were excise tax increases on things like gas, cigarettes and booze. If you REALLY knew what you were talking about instead of getting your cue from your liberal web sites, you'd know that Reagan fought hard to lower overall income tax rates and subsequently to keep them from being raised again.

You still haven't explained why Clinton dropped the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% in 1997, "Tommy". If tax increases and government stimulus spending are your "magic solution" then why did Slick Willie have to lower taxes and cut spending right before he ran his three budget surpluses in a row?

Your ignorance of economics is so GLARINGLY OBVIOUS at this point that you should tuck your lying tail between your lying legs and beat a hasty retreat. Taught the subject at the college level? Too funny...

 

[Oldstyle]

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr. Supposedly you graduated with a degree in the subject so it should be simple for you to show us all the myriad economists that call for that fiscal strategy. Right? So let's see it.

 

[Rshermr]

Still trying to peddle that nonsense, Rshermr? Yes, Reagan raised taxes on 11 different things over his two terms because he was working with a Democratically controlled House led by Tip O'Neal. Most if not all of them were excise tax increases on things like gas, cigarettes and booze. If you REALLY knew what you were talking about instead of getting your cue from your liberal web sites, you'd know that Reagan fought hard to lower overall income tax rates and subsequently to keep them from being raised again.

So you do not think taxes are taxes. Got it. And they do not raise revenue. Got it. And he did not use the money for stimulus. Got it. Because, oldstyle, as a dish washer, you are an economic genius. And we should believe you. Got it.

"Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. "
" But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.
"Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

You still haven't explained why Clinton dropped the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% in 1997, "Tommy".

You know, Oldstyle, the Tommy thing is a bit stupid. And Yes, oldstyle, I have explained it several times, and at least twice in the past 24 hours. In this thread. To you. So, apparently you are incapable of reading. In general, you are talking about tax increases in a GOOD economy. Which have been done many times by democratic presidents, as well as republican ones. there, now it is at least 3 times. Now, that echo you hear will go away if you pull your head out of your ass. And pay attention. Because you are wasting my time. And it makes you look brain dead.

If tax increases and government stimulus spending are your "magic solution" then why did Slick Willie have to lower taxes and cut spending right before he ran his three budget surpluses in a row?

He did not have to. Dipshit. Which is why you can not find an impartial link to back up your assertions. Funny, though, oldstyle, the only place I can find backing for your accusations are in bat shit crazy con sites. And you. But then, you are a dish washer. So you do not count. And the others are conservative political sites, who lie as a way of life. So they do not count. Got any impartial backing for your accusations. Or do you simply admit it is your opinion? The opinion, that is, of a dishwasher.

Your ignorance of economics is so GLARINGLY OBVIOUS at this point that you should tuck your lying tail between your lying legs and beat a hasty retreat. Taught the subject at the college level? Too funny...

You know, Oldstyle, you have a very high opinion of yourself. So far, you have been proven wrong time after time after time. Do you think you won a point??? Let me know, so I have some earthly idea of what you are talking about. Because, Oldstyle, you are like a bug. You never here the crunching sound when you are crushed under my shoe. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

"The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.

But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.

But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, Oldstyle says:

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

So, let me see if I understand this. You want me to investigate the curiculum of colleges to see which ones suggest raising taxes in a poor economy. And, oldstyle, why would I do that. As you know, the issue is not taxes, it is STIMULUS. And even you know that pretty much ANY college economics class dealing with macro economics discusses stimulus. How that stimulus is paid for is not generally the issue that college classes discus. But perhaps, Oldstyle, since you think this is a bad idea, you should find some of Reagans economists. Or Clingons economists.

Now, lets see if we can make anything of the statement that indicates that Oldstyle does not believe that lowering taxes in a good economy makes any sense. Apparently, again, Reagan's economists believed it made sense. Certainly his tax decrease in a good economy in 1986 would make you think so.

So, Oldstyle. Again. As a dish washer, you think you have the prescription for tax increases and decreases, and that the economists of Reagan and Clinton were wrong. My, my, my. You certainly have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. Especially since you have no background. I mean in economics, not dish washing.

You see, oldstyle, you raise taxes to pay for stimulus, if you want to pay for it as you go. Or, you borrow, and increase the national debt. And let your children pay for the stimulus. Reagan actually did both. Dems do not like to borrow to pay for stimulus.
And when an economy is good, you may indeed want to lower taxes to sustain the good economy, or make it better. Is this too hard a concept for you, Oldstyle.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still trying to peddle that nonsense, Rshermr? Yes, Reagan raised taxes on 11 different things over his two terms because he was working with a Democratically controlled House led by Tip O'Neal. Most if not all of them were excise tax increases on things like gas, cigarettes and booze. If you REALLY knew what you were talking about instead of getting your cue from your liberal web sites, you'd know that Reagan fought hard to lower overall income tax rates and subsequently to keep them from being raised again.

So you do not think taxes are taxes. Got it. And they do not raise revenue. Got it. And he did not use the money for stimulus. Got it. Because, oldstyle, as a dish washer, you are an economic genius. And we should believe you. Got it.

"Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. "
" But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.
"Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

You still haven't explained why Clinton dropped the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% in 1997, "Tommy".

You know, Oldstyle, the Tommy thing is a bit stupid. And Yes, oldstyle, I have explained it several times, and at least twice in the past 24 hours. In this thread. To you. So, apparently you are incapable of reading. In general, you are talking about tax increases in a GOOD economy. Which have been done many times by democratic presidents, as well as republican ones. there, now it is at least 3 times. Now, that echo you hear will go away if you pull your head out of your ass. And pay attention. Because you are wasting my time. And it makes you look brain dead.

If tax increases and government stimulus spending are your "magic solution" then why did Slick Willie have to lower taxes and cut spending right before he ran his three budget surpluses in a row?

He did not have to. Dipshit. Which is why you can not find an impartial link to back up your assertions. Funny, though, oldstyle, the only place I can find backing for your accusations are in bat shit crazy con sites. And you. But then, you are a dish washer. So you do not count. And the others are conservative political sites, who lie as a way of life. So they do not count. Got any impartial backing for your accusations. Or do you simply admit it is your opinion? The opinion, that is, of a dishwasher.

Your ignorance of economics is so GLARINGLY OBVIOUS at this point that you should tuck your lying tail between your lying legs and beat a hasty retreat. Taught the subject at the college level? Too funny...

You know, Oldstyle, you have a very high opinion of yourself. So far, you have been proven wrong time after time after time. Do you think you won a point??? Let me know, so I have some earthly idea of what you are talking about. Because, Oldstyle, you are like a bug. You never here the crunching sound when you are crushed under my shoe. Dipshit.

You're now disputing the fact that the capital gains tax was dropped from 28% to 20% in 1997? That's something you can't "find"? Really?

My guess is that you didn't like what you saw when you actually went and looked what happened in 1997 because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've bought into...the narrative that you've taken from your liberally slanted web sites and The New York Times.
So what is a Googlemaster like you to do, little buddy? Pretend you can't find it? You're amusing as always, "Tommy".

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

"The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.

But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.

But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, Oldstyle says:

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

So, let me see if I understand this. You want me to investigate the curiculum of colleges to see which ones suggest raising taxes in a poor economy. And, oldstyle, why would I do that. As you know, the issue is not taxes, it is STIMULUS. And even you know that pretty much ANY college economics class dealing with macro economics discusses stimulus. How that stimulus is paid for is not generally the issue that college classes discus. But perhaps, Oldstyle, since you think this is a bad idea, you should find some of Reagans economists. Or Clingons economists.

Now, lets see if we can make anything of the statement that indicates that Oldstyle does not believe that lowering taxes in a good economy makes any sense. Apparently, again, Reagan's economists believed it made sense. Certainly his tax decrease in a good economy in 1986 would make you think so.

So, Oldstyle. Again. As a dish washer, you think you have the prescription for tax increases and decreases, and that the economists of Reagan and Clinton were wrong. My, my, my. You certainly have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. Especially since you have no background. I mean in economics, not dish washing.

You see, oldstyle, you raise taxes to pay for stimulus, if you want to pay for it as you go. Or, you borrow, and increase the national debt. And let your children pay for the stimulus. Reagan actually did both. Dems do not like to borrow to pay for stimulus.
And when an economy is good, you may indeed want to lower taxes to sustain the good economy, or make it better. Is this too hard a concept for you, Oldstyle.

When I talk about "schools of economics", I'm referring to things like Keynesians and Austrians and Modernists, you buffoon!

Here's a piece of advice, "Tommy"...

The next time you want to portray yourself as something you're not...like someone who taught economics at the college level? Pick something that you at least know SOMETHING about!

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

You're now disputing the fact that the capital gains tax was dropped from 28% to 20% in 1997? That's something you can't "find"? Really?

You really do need to learn to read, oldstyle. What I said was that that tax decrease was during a good economy. Nice try, now go read what I said. And quit lying. It is getting really really old.

My guess is that you didn't like what you saw when you actually went and looked what happened in 1997 because it doesn't fit the narrative that you've bought into...the narrative that you've taken from your liberally slanted web sites and The New York Times.
So what is a Googlemaster like you to do, little buddy? Pretend you can't find it? You're amusing as always, "Tommy".

See above, dipshit.

i do indeed know that Clinton decreased taxes in 1997. And I also know that all of the con tool crazy sites try to push that the 1997 tax decrease was the reason the economy did well under clinton. heritage, AEI, and a host of others are pushing that lie. But, try to find an impartial site that comes up with that idea, and you come up dry. But, there is Oldstyle, in lock step again with the bat shit crazy con tool sites. Perfect lock step. And, not surprisingly, he can find no impartial sources to back him up.
But Oldstyle says he is not a con tool But, in EVERY SINGLE POST, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OLDSTYLE'S CONTENTION, THEY ARE IN PERFECT ALLIGNMENT WITH THE BAT SHIT CRAZY CON TOOL SOURCES. Must be just a coincidence. Because Oldstyle says he is not a con.

But, on the other hand, I have proven him a liar over and over.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

"The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.

But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.

But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, Oldstyle says:

Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.

So, let me see if I understand this. You want me to investigate the curiculum of colleges to see which ones suggest raising taxes in a poor economy. And, oldstyle, why would I do that. As you know, the issue is not taxes, it is STIMULUS. And even you know that pretty much ANY college economics class dealing with macro economics discusses stimulus. How that stimulus is paid for is not generally the issue that college classes discus. But perhaps, Oldstyle, since you think this is a bad idea, you should find some of Reagans economists. Or Clingons economists.

Now, lets see if we can make anything of the statement that indicates that Oldstyle does not believe that lowering taxes in a good economy makes any sense. Apparently, again, Reagan's economists believed it made sense. Certainly his tax decrease in a good economy in 1986 would make you think so.

So, Oldstyle. Again. As a dish washer, you think you have the prescription for tax increases and decreases, and that the economists of Reagan and Clinton were wrong. My, my, my. You certainly have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. Especially since you have no background. I mean in economics, not dish washing.

You see, oldstyle, you raise taxes to pay for stimulus, if you want to pay for it as you go. Or, you borrow, and increase the national debt. And let your children pay for the stimulus. Reagan actually did both. Dems do not like to borrow to pay for stimulus.
And when an economy is good, you may indeed want to lower taxes to sustain the good economy, or make it better. Is this too hard a concept for you, Oldstyle.

When I talk about "schools of economics", I'm referring to things like Keynesians and Austrians and Modernists, you buffoon!

Here's a piece of advice, "Tommy"...

The next time you want to portray yourself as something you're not...like someone who taught economics at the college level? Pick something that you at least know SOMETHING about!

Uh, yeah, oldstyle.

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century British..

An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia

Keynesian economics is the theory developed by John Maynard Keynes.....
What are Keynesian economics? - Yahoo! Answers

Keynsian economics and the others you mention are generally known as theories, dipshit. Schools teach, theories do not. And oldstyle, schools of economics teach economic theories. Like Keynsian theory.

When I talk about "schools of economics", I'm referring to things like Universities. Which teach.

Here's a piece of advice, "Tommy"...

The next time you want to portray yourself as something you're not...like someone who has some basic understanding of economics, pick something that you at least know SOMETHING about! Like washing dishes.

Funny thing is, you do not feel like an idiot. Because ignorance is simply your normal state.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
.

too stupid but perfectly liberal

1) by the liberals own standard the Times is not a legitimate source since it admits to its own huge leftwing bias

2) obviously taxing the productive capital away from the rich and giving it to the poor will prevent growth not encourage it. THe less money out there for new ventures the fewer new ventures there will be! Would you bleed a man to make him healthy????

3) Even the article you cited said the Marxist idea that taxing the rich would do no harm was a minority idea among economists so you in effect lied, as usual.

From your times article:
Economists today broadly accept this understanding of people’s actions. This belief has supported big declines in tax rates around the developed world, from Japan to Britain and the United States to Sweden.

 

[Rshermr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
.

too stupid but perfectly liberal

1) by the liberals own standard the Times is not a legitimate source since it admits to its own huge leftwing bias

2) obviously taxing the productive capital away from the rich and giving it to the poor will prevent growth not encourage it. THe less money out there for new ventures the fewer new ventures there will be! Would you bleed a man to make him healthy????

3) Even the article you cited said the Marxist idea that taxing the rich would do no harm was a minority idea among economists so you in effect lied, as usual.

From your times article:
Economists today broadly accept this understanding of people’s actions. This belief has supported big declines in tax rates around the developed world, from Japan to Britain and the United States to Sweden.

I know oldstyle needs help. But not your help, ed. He needs help from someone who is not mentally ill. Which eliminates you immediately. So, tell me, ed. Do you show your list of con web site dogma with oldstyle. He is getting about as bad at posting drivel as you. Just wondering.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
.

too stupid but perfectly liberal

1) by the liberals own standard the Times is not a legitimate source since it admits to its own huge leftwing bias

2) obviously taxing the productive capital away from the rich and giving it to the poor will prevent growth not encourage it. THe less money out there for new ventures the fewer new ventures there will be! Would you bleed a man to make him healthy????

3) Even the article you cited said the Marxist idea that taxing the rich would do no harm was a minority idea among economists so you in effect lied, as usual.

From your times article:
Economists today broadly accept this understanding of people’s actions. This belief has supported big declines in tax rates around the developed world, from Japan to Britain and the United States to Sweden.

I know oldstyle needs help. But not your help, ed. He needs help from someone who is not mentally ill. Which eliminates you immediately. So, tell me, ed. Do you show your list of con web site dogma with oldstyle. He is getting about as bad at posting drivel as you. Just wondering.

Quote from your NYTIMES article:

"Economists today broadly accept this understanding of people’s actions. This belief has supported big declines in tax rates around the developed world, from Japan to Britain and the United States to Sweden."


And lets remember even the luxury tax on yachts had to be repealed because it killed the industry thus demonstrating supply side economics once again.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:



Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

"The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.

But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.

But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/b...aising-top-tax-rates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, Oldstyle says:


So, let me see if I understand this. You want me to investigate the curiculum of colleges to see which ones suggest raising taxes in a poor economy. And, oldstyle, why would I do that. As you know, the issue is not taxes, it is STIMULUS. And even you know that pretty much ANY college economics class dealing with macro economics discusses stimulus. How that stimulus is paid for is not generally the issue that college classes discus. But perhaps, Oldstyle, since you think this is a bad idea, you should find some of Reagans economists. Or Clingons economists.

Now, lets see if we can make anything of the statement that indicates that Oldstyle does not believe that lowering taxes in a good economy makes any sense. Apparently, again, Reagan's economists believed it made sense. Certainly his tax decrease in a good economy in 1986 would make you think so.

So, Oldstyle. Again. As a dish washer, you think you have the prescription for tax increases and decreases, and that the economists of Reagan and Clinton were wrong. My, my, my. You certainly have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. Especially since you have no background. I mean in economics, not dish washing.

You see, oldstyle, you raise taxes to pay for stimulus, if you want to pay for it as you go. Or, you borrow, and increase the national debt. And let your children pay for the stimulus. Reagan actually did both. Dems do not like to borrow to pay for stimulus.
And when an economy is good, you may indeed want to lower taxes to sustain the good economy, or make it better. Is this too hard a concept for you, Oldstyle.

When I talk about "schools of economics", I'm referring to things like Keynesians and Austrians and Modernists, you buffoon!

Here's a piece of advice, "Tommy"...

The next time you want to portray yourself as something you're not...like someone who taught economics at the college level? Pick something that you at least know SOMETHING about!

Uh, yeah, oldstyle.

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century British..

An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia

Keynesian economics is the theory developed by John Maynard Keynes.....
What are Keynesian economics? - Yahoo! Answers

Keynsian economics and the others you mention are generally known as theories, dipshit. Schools teach, theories do not. And oldstyle, schools of economics teach economic theories. Like Keynsian theory.

When I talk about "schools of economics", I'm referring to things like Universities. Which teach.

Here's a piece of advice, "Tommy"...

The next time you want to portray yourself as something you're not...like someone who has some basic understanding of economics, pick something that you at least know SOMETHING about! Like washing dishes.

Funny thing is, you do not feel like an idiot. Because ignorance is simply your normal state.

LOL...so I ask you to name some schools of economics that advocate raising taxes in a bad economy and lowering them in a good one...and you're so clueless about economics you start babbling about not knowing what is in different university courses? You didn't even know that schools of economic thought refers to the different approaches that economists subscribe to. "I" know that and I only took two economics classes in college! You don't know that and you supposedly TAUGHT the subject at the college level? You're becoming a joke, Rshermr. The following is from Wikipedia. It lists the different schools of economic thought. You might want to read up on them if you're going to pretend to be something that you're OBVIOUSLY not!

"Schools of economic thought describes the variety of approaches in the history of economic theory noteworthy enough to be described as a 'school of thought'. While economists do not always fit into particular schools, particularly in modern times, classifying economists into schools of thought is common. Economic thought may be roughly divided into three phases: premodern (Greco-Roman, Indian, Persian, Arab, and Chinese), early modern (mercantilist, physiocrats) and modern (beginning with Adam Smith and classical economics in the late 18th century). Systematic economic theory has been developed mainly since the beginning of what is termed the modern era.
Currently, the great majority of economists follow an approach referred to as mainstream economics (sometimes called 'orthodox economics'). Within the mainstream, distinctions can be made between the Saltwater school (associated with Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale), and the more laissez-faire ideas of the Freshwater school (represented by the Chicago school of economics, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Rochester and the University of Minnesota). Both of these schools of thought are associated with the neoclassical synthesis. Some influential approaches of the past, such as the historical school of economics and institutional economics, have become defunct or have declined in influence, and are now considered heterodox approaches.
Contents [hide]
1 Ancient economic thought
2 Islamic economics
3 Scholasticism
4 Mercantilism
5 Physiocrats
6 Classical political economy
7 American (National) School
8 French liberal school
9 German historical school
10 English historical school
11 French historical school
12 Utopian economics
13 Marxian economics
14 State socialism
15 Ricardian socialism
16 Anarchist economics
17 Distributism
18 Institutional economics
19 New institutional economics
20 Neoclassical economics
21 Lausanne school
22 Austrian school
23 Stockholm school
24 Keynesian economics
25 Chicago school
26 Carnegie school
27 Neo-Ricardianism
28 Modern schools
29 Current heterodox schools
30 Other 20th century schools

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...so I ask you to name some schools of economics that advocate raising taxes in a bad economy and lowering them in a good one...and you're so clueless about economics you start babbling about not knowing what is in different university courses? You didn't even know that schools of economic thought refers to the different approaches that economists subscribe to. "I" know that and I only took two economics classes in college! You don't know that and you supposedly TAUGHT the subject at the college level? You're becoming a joke, Rshermr. The following is from Wikipedia. It lists the different schools of economic thought. You might want to read up on them if you're going to pretend to be something that you're OBVIOUSLY not!

Which economic theory taught you something. dipshit???? Or, did you learn something about an economic theory in a school that taught you something. So, you found a source that said economic theories may be refered to as schools of economics. Now, having seen your regurgitation, you know, oldstyle, that theories of economics are generaly called just that. Theories.

See, Oldstyle, it did have some use. It sent you on a rather useless look to try to prove that a school refers to a theory, and you found that there were 30 theories. Did you find out yet which ones teach raising taxes in a bad unemployment economy??? You need to spend about 8 years in an actual school, or university, studying intensively to understand a bit about all of the theories you listed. But, it was good. As a dish washer, that list construction probably doubled your economic knowledge.

By the way, dipshit. If you were to really care, what most of the "schools" listed among the 30 total are not Economic Theories. But they are actual SCHOOLS. I believe you would find all actually teach multiple economic theories. All or nearly all teach, for instance, Keynesian economic theory. And, my poor ignorant con, you will notice that Keynesian economic theory is listed simply as keynsian economics, not the keynsian school of economics. Not that you could not find it so listed, but by far, most of the time it is listed as a theory.

Now, did you have a point?? At this point I seem to be conversing with a dish washer who likes to go out and make lists from wickipedia, but has no point at all. You long since lost your argument, Oldstyle. You just do not know how to argue your point, so you go off and spend your time on tangents. Again, do you have a point? Maybe having something to do with the subject of this thread. Because, my poor delusional conservative tool, this is getting really, really boring.