US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

I am shocked. You have no source for your statement.

Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
Guess what: Barack Obama has been a great president for job creation
SO THERE YOU GO. A SOURCE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA JOB CREATION, AND AN ACTUAL LINK TO AN ACTUAL IMPARTIAL SOURCE. LOOK AND LEARN.

Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President? Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.
Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President?
No. But that is what a con tool like you would have called a democratic president if he tripled the national debt, and spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
Reagan did raise taxes after his major tax reduction over a year before caused a recession. As I said in my post that you are lying about now, he raised taxes enough to wipe out 70% of his prior tax reductions. So, in net, he is, as I said, a net tax reducer. Not that anyone cares, except you.
What was important was that he was facing a major recession, recognized it, and used spending as stimulus to eradicate the problem. He did not, however, utilize Supply Side measures, or in other words, tax reductions as a method to fight the problem. He reduced no more taxes until the recession was well over. Which, me boy, is something that both republicans and democrats do when the economy is strong.

Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!
Yes, I am sure it is confusing to you. I am simply stating what he did. The facts. No lies at all. No effort to make Reagan look like what I want him to look like. I actually prefer the truth.
But, as a rational person, I like truth and do not like being wrong. If I made a mistake, let me know and provide proof.

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

The problem you have, me boy, is that you are a conservative tool. You think that anything that Obama did or does is BAD. And anything that Reagan does or did is BAD. But you could care less about truth. At all. But here is the truth:
1. He was a tax cutter. But those tax cuts were of no value when the economy was bad, in the first years. The tax cuts caused him to cut spending in non military area, which cost jobs, and caused a recession.
2. Regan was a net spend president. He cut some spending, but increased spending in other areas much more than he cut it in others. The net result was to triple the national debt. Even in the early years, after he cut taxes greatly, his spending on the military was so great that it overrode his cuts in non military areas.
3. After cutting taxes and cutting non military spending, the net effect was to increase unemployment. Within a year of the cuts, the ue rate was the second highest in the record of out economy in the past 100 years. That, again, is simply the truth. By November of 2008, the ue rate was 10.8%. I can prove that, and have for you, many, many times, if you want to act ignorant of the fact again.
4. By mid 1982, it was obvious to Reagan that it was necessary that he raise revenue to stop the increase in the national debt and to allow spending to stimulate an economy with an extremely high ue rate. And he did raise taxes over 10 times, and he did spend heavily.
5. His spending, primarily on the military, was heavy throughout his term, and the net was to spend more than all previous presidents combined.
6. Part of the national debt increase was, as always, reduced revenue. That resulted from reduced tax rates themselves, but more from a very high unemployment rate. The unemployed, you see, do not pay taxes, so as always when the ue rate is high, the national debt increased.

So, no, reagan's tax cuts of 1981 definately did not stimulate anything. At all.
And when the economy went in the toilet in 1982, reagan did not reduce taxes to get out of his mess, he simply spent and spent. And he did raise taxes to pay for some of his spending. Though most of his spending was covered by borrowing and increasing the debt.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ouch!

That really puts things into their proper perspective. Expect lying con tools to suffer convulsions over this one...

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President? Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.
Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President?
No. But that is what a con tool like you would have called a democratic president if he tripled the national debt, and spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
Reagan did raise taxes after his major tax reduction over a year before caused a recession. As I said in my post that you are lying about now, he raised taxes enough to wipe out 70% of his prior tax reductions. So, in net, he is, as I said, a net tax reducer. Not that anyone cares, except you.
What was important was that he was facing a major recession, recognized it, and used spending as stimulus to eradicate the problem. He did not, however, utilize Supply Side measures, or in other words, tax reductions as a method to fight the problem. He reduced no more taxes until the recession was well over. Which, me boy, is something that both republicans and democrats do when the economy is strong.

Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!
Yes, I am sure it is confusing to you. I am simply stating what he did. The facts. No lies at all. No effort to make Reagan look like what I want him to look like. I actually prefer the truth.
But, as a rational person, I like truth and do not like being wrong. If I made a mistake, let me know and provide proof.

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

The problem you have, me boy, is that you are a conservative tool. You think that anything that Obama did or does is BAD. And anything that Reagan does or did is BAD. But you could care less about truth. At all. But here is the truth:
1. He was a tax cutter. But those tax cuts were of no value when the economy was bad, in the first years. The tax cuts caused him to cut spending in non military area, which cost jobs, and caused a recession.
2. Regan was a net spend president. He cut some spending, but increased spending in other areas much more than he cut it in others. The net result was to triple the national debt. Even in the early years, after he cut taxes greatly, his spending on the military was so great that it overrode his cuts in non military areas.
3. After cutting taxes and cutting non military spending, the net effect was to increase unemployment. Within a year of the cuts, the ue rate was the second highest in the record of out economy in the past 100 years. That, again, is simply the truth. By November of 2008, the ue rate was 10.8%. I can prove that, and have for you, many, many times, if you want to act ignorant of the fact again.
4. By mid 1982, it was obvious to Reagan that it was necessary that he raise revenue to stop the increase in the national debt and to allow spending to stimulate an economy with an extremely high ue rate. And he did raise taxes over 10 times, and he did spend heavily.
5. His spending, primarily on the military, was heavy throughout his term, and the net was to spend more than all previous presidents combined.
6. Part of the national debt increase was, as always, reduced revenue. That resulted from reduced tax rates themselves, but more from a very high unemployment rate. The unemployed, you see, do not pay taxes, so as always when the ue rate is high, the national debt increased.

So, no, reagan's tax cuts of 1981 definately did not stimulate anything. At all.
And when the economy went in the toilet in 1982, reagan did not reduce taxes to get out of his mess, he simply spent and spent. And he did raise taxes to pay for some of his spending. Though most of his spending was covered by borrowing and increasing the debt.

Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie? Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula..."Mr I NEVER LIE!!!!"

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. And the reason Reagan is in the running is that after he created the second highest ue rate in the century, he was smart enough to increase taxes and use the revenue to spend, like crazy, from year three on. The result was what dems always have known. It stimulated the economy, and made him the third highest of the presidents for job gains.

Tends to make cons look bad, though. I can not wait to hear OS pontificate on this one.

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President? Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.
Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President?
No. But that is what a con tool like you would have called a democratic president if he tripled the national debt, and spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
Reagan did raise taxes after his major tax reduction over a year before caused a recession. As I said in my post that you are lying about now, he raised taxes enough to wipe out 70% of his prior tax reductions. So, in net, he is, as I said, a net tax reducer. Not that anyone cares, except you.
What was important was that he was facing a major recession, recognized it, and used spending as stimulus to eradicate the problem. He did not, however, utilize Supply Side measures, or in other words, tax reductions as a method to fight the problem. He reduced no more taxes until the recession was well over. Which, me boy, is something that both republicans and democrats do when the economy is strong.

Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!
Yes, I am sure it is confusing to you. I am simply stating what he did. The facts. No lies at all. No effort to make Reagan look like what I want him to look like. I actually prefer the truth.
But, as a rational person, I like truth and do not like being wrong. If I made a mistake, let me know and provide proof.

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

The problem you have, me boy, is that you are a conservative tool. You think that anything that Obama did or does is BAD. And anything that Reagan does or did is BAD. But you could care less about truth. At all. But here is the truth:
1. He was a tax cutter. But those tax cuts were of no value when the economy was bad, in the first years. The tax cuts caused him to cut spending in non military area, which cost jobs, and caused a recession.
2. Regan was a net spend president. He cut some spending, but increased spending in other areas much more than he cut it in others. The net result was to triple the national debt. Even in the early years, after he cut taxes greatly, his spending on the military was so great that it overrode his cuts in non military areas.
3. After cutting taxes and cutting non military spending, the net effect was to increase unemployment. Within a year of the cuts, the ue rate was the second highest in the record of out economy in the past 100 years. That, again, is simply the truth. By November of 2008, the ue rate was 10.8%. I can prove that, and have for you, many, many times, if you want to act ignorant of the fact again.
4. By mid 1982, it was obvious to Reagan that it was necessary that he raise revenue to stop the increase in the national debt and to allow spending to stimulate an economy with an extremely high ue rate. And he did raise taxes over 10 times, and he did spend heavily.
5. His spending, primarily on the military, was heavy throughout his term, and the net was to spend more than all previous presidents combined.
6. Part of the national debt increase was, as always, reduced revenue. That resulted from reduced tax rates themselves, but more from a very high unemployment rate. The unemployed, you see, do not pay taxes, so as always when the ue rate is high, the national debt increased.

So, no, reagan's tax cuts of 1981 definately did not stimulate anything. At all.
And when the economy went in the toilet in 1982, reagan did not reduce taxes to get out of his mess, he simply spent and spent. And he did raise taxes to pay for some of his spending. Though most of his spending was covered by borrowing and increasing the debt.

Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie? Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula..."Mr I NEVER LIE!!!!"

So, Oldstyle says:
Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie?
No. As I said. So, why you want to lie all the time is beyond me. Now, did you think that what he did was tax and spend? Because, as I said I did not. Or do you just like lying that much?

Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

I just gave you actual economic history. Sorry that you do not like it. Dipshit.
A person of substance would show where I have been wrong. And if you would like to try, I will show you the actual numbers, and you will loose. Up to you.

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!
Debate indicates you have facts to debate with. Intellect requires you to have a brain. You are lacking in both categories. Debate with you is like debating a con troll. For obvious reasons.

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula.
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket. Every one else, me boy, long ago learned you did not keep your part of the bargain, and are just lying again. No one else cares. And you lost long ago. And attempting to change the subject to one that you lost long ago shows your lack of integrity, again.

So, you just offered NOTHING. Just stupid, provably false, personal attacks.

I am so sorry that you do not like the actual history of the bad years of your presidential hero's history. But the good thing, me boy, is that I did not call him bad names or lie about him. Like you do about democrats. Because I have integrity. And you do not.

Since you want to question my statements, here is the problem you have. It is that the facts are against you:
"an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency. "

"And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."

"Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

"("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today.""
All of the above quotes are from:
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

So, there is some truth. Different from the drivel you have been reading in the bat shit crazy con web sites, and listening to on Fox. But sometimes, the truth hurts.

 

[Markle]

So your "authority" on Barack Obama's accomplishments is a website from India? Typical, Rshermr...

So your "authority" on Barack Obama's accomplishments is a website from India?
DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS?

DID YOU THINK THAT THEY ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS, ME BOY?

ARE YOU JUST BEING A CON TROLL AGAIN?

ARE THERE ACCOMPLISHMENTS LISTED THAT ARE UNTRUE THAT YOU CAN NAME?

ARE THERE TOO FEW ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

DID YOU FEEL THAT A WEBSITE FROM THE US WOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO LIST HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

CAN YOU PROVE THAT SOMETHING IS UNTRUE IN THE LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

"Over the period of one year, a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs were created."

Let's start with that one. Show me where Barack Obama created 3.7 new private sector jobs his first year in office!

Let's start with that one. Show me where Barack Obama created 3.7 new private sector jobs his first year in office!
It is part of the biography. The source is well respected. If they were incorrect, pleas show that they were wrong. Because now, it is simply the experts, and you. And my money is on the experts.

Term Private Sector
Jobs Added (000s)
Carter 9,041
Reagan 1 5,360
Reagan 2 9,357
GHW Bush 1,510
Clinton 1 10,884
Clinton 2 10,073
GW Bush 1 -844
GW Bush 2 381
Obama 1 2,018
Obama 2 6,9261
132 months into 2nd term: 10,389 pace.

Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Since Obama only created a little over 2 million private sector jobs in his entire first term...would you care to explain how your "experts" came up with 3.7 million for his first year?

Why do you leave this out?

 

[Oldstyle]

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President? Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.
Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President?
No. But that is what a con tool like you would have called a democratic president if he tripled the national debt, and spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
Reagan did raise taxes after his major tax reduction over a year before caused a recession. As I said in my post that you are lying about now, he raised taxes enough to wipe out 70% of his prior tax reductions. So, in net, he is, as I said, a net tax reducer. Not that anyone cares, except you.
What was important was that he was facing a major recession, recognized it, and used spending as stimulus to eradicate the problem. He did not, however, utilize Supply Side measures, or in other words, tax reductions as a method to fight the problem. He reduced no more taxes until the recession was well over. Which, me boy, is something that both republicans and democrats do when the economy is strong.

Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!
Yes, I am sure it is confusing to you. I am simply stating what he did. The facts. No lies at all. No effort to make Reagan look like what I want him to look like. I actually prefer the truth.
But, as a rational person, I like truth and do not like being wrong. If I made a mistake, let me know and provide proof.

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

The problem you have, me boy, is that you are a conservative tool. You think that anything that Obama did or does is BAD. And anything that Reagan does or did is BAD. But you could care less about truth. At all. But here is the truth:
1. He was a tax cutter. But those tax cuts were of no value when the economy was bad, in the first years. The tax cuts caused him to cut spending in non military area, which cost jobs, and caused a recession.
2. Regan was a net spend president. He cut some spending, but increased spending in other areas much more than he cut it in others. The net result was to triple the national debt. Even in the early years, after he cut taxes greatly, his spending on the military was so great that it overrode his cuts in non military areas.
3. After cutting taxes and cutting non military spending, the net effect was to increase unemployment. Within a year of the cuts, the ue rate was the second highest in the record of out economy in the past 100 years. That, again, is simply the truth. By November of 2008, the ue rate was 10.8%. I can prove that, and have for you, many, many times, if you want to act ignorant of the fact again.
4. By mid 1982, it was obvious to Reagan that it was necessary that he raise revenue to stop the increase in the national debt and to allow spending to stimulate an economy with an extremely high ue rate. And he did raise taxes over 10 times, and he did spend heavily.
5. His spending, primarily on the military, was heavy throughout his term, and the net was to spend more than all previous presidents combined.
6. Part of the national debt increase was, as always, reduced revenue. That resulted from reduced tax rates themselves, but more from a very high unemployment rate. The unemployed, you see, do not pay taxes, so as always when the ue rate is high, the national debt increased.

So, no, reagan's tax cuts of 1981 definately did not stimulate anything. At all.
And when the economy went in the toilet in 1982, reagan did not reduce taxes to get out of his mess, he simply spent and spent. And he did raise taxes to pay for some of his spending. Though most of his spending was covered by borrowing and increasing the debt.

Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie? Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula..."Mr I NEVER LIE!!!!"

So, Oldstyle says:
Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie?
No. As I said. So, why you want to lie all the time is beyond me. Now, did you think that what he did was tax and spend? Because, as I said I did not. Or do you just like lying that much?

Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

I just gave you actual economic history. Sorry that you do not like it. Dipshit.
A person of substance would show where I have been wrong. And if you would like to try, I will show you the actual numbers, and you will loose. Up to you.

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!
Debate indicates you have facts to debate with. Intellect requires you to have a brain. You are lacking in both categories. Debate with you is like debating a con troll. For obvious reasons.

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula.
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket. Every one else, me boy, long ago learned you did not keep your part of the bargain, and are just lying again. No one else cares. And you lost long ago. And attempting to change the subject to one that you lost long ago shows your lack of integrity, again.

So, you just offered NOTHING. Just stupid, provably false, personal attacks.

I am so sorry that you do not like the actual history of the bad years of your presidential hero's history. But the good thing, me boy, is that I did not call him bad names or lie about him. Like you do about democrats. Because I have integrity. And you do not.

Since you want to question my statements, here is the problem you have. It is that the facts are against you:
"an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency. "

"And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."

"Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

"("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today.""
All of the above quotes are from:
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

So, there is some truth. Different from the drivel you have been reading in the bat shit crazy con web sites, and listening to on Fox. But sometimes, the truth hurts.

You know what's really pathetic, Rshermr? You've had your ass handed to you so badly in this string...that you've given up even trying to convince anyone that Barack Obama has been good at creating jobs and run back to your "go to" liberal talking points about a President who hasn't been in office for over twenty years.

I guess that's what you DO though...when you've been caught lying about A-B=Jobs Saved and want to save face...right?

 

[Rshermr]

As I predicted, here is OS pontificating on this one. This is not going to end well for OS.
Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President! ...despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!

Funny. You call obama all sorts of names, blame him for every malady ever, and then suggest that I am being unfair to your hero, Reagan. Now, here is a problem. You are again lying. Lets consider:

Only the truly ignorant attempt to portray Ronald Reagan as a "tax and spend" President!
Please provide the location in any post I have ever made that called Reagan a tax and spend president. You are lying again, me boy.

Which of course is why YOU hold that idea as gospel!
Since I never said such a thing and since I do not believe it to be true, how did you get that impression?

Reagan was a net tax cutter
Yes, and did you think I disagreed with that? The net in his term was more cuts than increases. Increases were about 70% of his cuts.

despite the amusing attempts to paint him as a Keynesian Poster Child!
When did you think I tried to paint him as the above? Looks like you are having problems with reality again.


The facts are simple, me boy. Reagan initiated a huge tax cut in mid 1981. The result was the reduction of many projects in the private sector, though he spent hugely in the military (Public) sector, and initiated extreme job losses. By less than a year after the tax decreases, he was facing decreasing revenue, increasing debt, and an unemployment rate that was the highest in the US in the century, excepting that of the great republican depression of 1929. The ue rate went to 10.8%, and reagans popularity was suddenly just above that of a turd in a punch bowl. So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED.
So, that is the TRUTH (look the word up). Plain and simple. But in the end, the spending helped and the economy soared.
The net was that the last 5 years were great, after the spending began. The first three years were in the toilet.

Sorry, but that is the absolute truth. Reagan tried Supply Side economics first, and it failed. He then reversed to more conventional Demand Side economics, and it worked. Smart moves.

"So, his team decided they needed to increase taxes, and SPEND like CRAZY. Reagan TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BY ANY PRESIDENT BEFORE OR AFTER. AND, HE SPENT MORE THAN ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM COMBINED."

Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President? Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.
Gee, Rshermr...if you increase taxes and spend like crazy...do you think you would fit the definition of a "tax and spend" President?
No. But that is what a con tool like you would have called a democratic president if he tripled the national debt, and spent more than all the presidents before him combined.
Reagan did raise taxes after his major tax reduction over a year before caused a recession. As I said in my post that you are lying about now, he raised taxes enough to wipe out 70% of his prior tax reductions. So, in net, he is, as I said, a net tax reducer. Not that anyone cares, except you.
What was important was that he was facing a major recession, recognized it, and used spending as stimulus to eradicate the problem. He did not, however, utilize Supply Side measures, or in other words, tax reductions as a method to fight the problem. He reduced no more taxes until the recession was well over. Which, me boy, is something that both republicans and democrats do when the economy is strong.

Were those your words that I quoted? If you're not calling Reagan a tax and spend President then I don't know what you ARE doing!
Yes, I am sure it is confusing to you. I am simply stating what he did. The facts. No lies at all. No effort to make Reagan look like what I want him to look like. I actually prefer the truth.
But, as a rational person, I like truth and do not like being wrong. If I made a mistake, let me know and provide proof.

Once again...your portrayal of what Reagan WAS is totally warped. He was an overall tax cutter and it was those tax cuts that stimulated the longest uninterrupted period of growth in our nation's history.

The problem you have, me boy, is that you are a conservative tool. You think that anything that Obama did or does is BAD. And anything that Reagan does or did is BAD. But you could care less about truth. At all. But here is the truth:
1. He was a tax cutter. But those tax cuts were of no value when the economy was bad, in the first years. The tax cuts caused him to cut spending in non military area, which cost jobs, and caused a recession.
2. Regan was a net spend president. He cut some spending, but increased spending in other areas much more than he cut it in others. The net result was to triple the national debt. Even in the early years, after he cut taxes greatly, his spending on the military was so great that it overrode his cuts in non military areas.
3. After cutting taxes and cutting non military spending, the net effect was to increase unemployment. Within a year of the cuts, the ue rate was the second highest in the record of out economy in the past 100 years. That, again, is simply the truth. By November of 2008, the ue rate was 10.8%. I can prove that, and have for you, many, many times, if you want to act ignorant of the fact again.
4. By mid 1982, it was obvious to Reagan that it was necessary that he raise revenue to stop the increase in the national debt and to allow spending to stimulate an economy with an extremely high ue rate. And he did raise taxes over 10 times, and he did spend heavily.
5. His spending, primarily on the military, was heavy throughout his term, and the net was to spend more than all previous presidents combined.
6. Part of the national debt increase was, as always, reduced revenue. That resulted from reduced tax rates themselves, but more from a very high unemployment rate. The unemployed, you see, do not pay taxes, so as always when the ue rate is high, the national debt increased.

So, no, reagan's tax cuts of 1981 definately did not stimulate anything. At all.
And when the economy went in the toilet in 1982, reagan did not reduce taxes to get out of his mess, he simply spent and spent. And he did raise taxes to pay for some of his spending. Though most of his spending was covered by borrowing and increasing the debt.

Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie? Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula..."Mr I NEVER LIE!!!!"

So, Oldstyle says:
Still pretending Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend President, Georgie?
No. As I said. So, why you want to lie all the time is beyond me. Now, did you think that what he did was tax and spend? Because, as I said I did not. Or do you just like lying that much?

Don't you get tired of showing how ignorant you are when it comes to history and economics?

I just gave you actual economic history. Sorry that you do not like it. Dipshit.
A person of substance would show where I have been wrong. And if you would like to try, I will show you the actual numbers, and you will loose. Up to you.

Having an intellectual debate with you is like kicking a puppy!
Debate indicates you have facts to debate with. Intellect requires you to have a brain. You are lacking in both categories. Debate with you is like debating a con troll. For obvious reasons.

How long are we going to have to wait for you to tell us all what the A and the B stand for in your "A-B=Jobs Saved" formula.
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket. Every one else, me boy, long ago learned you did not keep your part of the bargain, and are just lying again. No one else cares. And you lost long ago. And attempting to change the subject to one that you lost long ago shows your lack of integrity, again.

So, you just offered NOTHING. Just stupid, provably false, personal attacks.

I am so sorry that you do not like the actual history of the bad years of your presidential hero's history. But the good thing, me boy, is that I did not call him bad names or lie about him. Like you do about democrats. Because I have integrity. And you do not.

Since you want to question my statements, here is the problem you have. It is that the facts are against you:
"an increase in the federal workforce of more than 60,000 people during his presidency. "

"And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget."

"Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal."

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

"("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today.""
All of the above quotes are from:
Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

So, there is some truth. Different from the drivel you have been reading in the bat shit crazy con web sites, and listening to on Fox. But sometimes, the truth hurts.

[/QUOTE]
You know what's really pathetic, Rshermr? You've had your ass handed to you so badly in this string...that you've given up even trying to convince anyone that Barack Obama has been good at creating jobs and run back to your "go to" liberal talking points about a President who hasn't been in office for over twenty years.
I guess that's what you DO though...when you've been caught lying about A-B=Jobs Saved and want to save face...right?

OS, coming back with personal attacks, says:

You know what's really pathetic, Rshermr?
Yes, you are, Oldstyle. Only personal attacks, absolutely no economic argument. That is indeed pathetic.

You've had your ass handed to you so badly in this string..
Hardly, me boy. The fact that you have no defense against the truth I post is the opposite of having one's ass handed to them. But it does show that you are either totally dishonest, or delusional.

that you've given up even trying to convince anyone that Barack Obama has been good at creating jobs and
You have said over and over and over that Obama has not created jobs. And have been unable to provide a single link to an expert source agreeing with that untrue statement. I, on the other hand, have simply stated what the expert impartial sources all say. Which is that his team has created and saved millions and millions of jobs. And I provided links to those sources. Lying has again not worked for you. You loose, again, me boy. Badly.

run back to your "go to" liberal talking points
I am unaware of and would never use liberal talking points. If I had done so, you should link to them and prove that those "liberal talking points" exist.
You see, oldstyle, there are many con talking points, they are at conservativetalkingpoints.com, and you use them often.
What I use, based on my integrity, is the truth backed by expert sources which I link to. What you use, based on your lack of integrity, is con talking points backed up by no sources and no links.

about a President who hasn't been in office for over twenty years.
Unlike you, OS, I do not believe that any economic history should be hidden. It is all open to analysis, and should be. The sources that I have used include his friends and those in his administration. And they agree that what happened should not be hidden by small minded con trolls like yourself.

I guess that's what you DO though...when you've been caught lying about A-B=Jobs Saved and want to save face...right?
Being caught lying is a bad thing. It is, however, simple to do. This board saves our posts for months. If I owe you an answer on that simple equation, it will be in those posts and you could prove your statement. The problem is, you are the one lying. Because I did not promise you a description of the equation. Ever. And you know it. And that is why you simply make untrue statements and lie and lie and lie. Because, me boy, you have NO INTEGRITY.
And, as you actually know, I never, ever lie.

There is and should be no president, no administration, in the history of our country, that is off limits to analysis. It is how you learn about how policies worked under various economic conditions. What you choose is fiction. And no analysis of economic policies should ever be based on falacies.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still no A or B, Georgie? Sucks when you get caught lying...doesn't it!
I'm curious...you say that you don't owe an explanation of what A and B equal because you didn't promise to do so? Then you blather on about integrity? Do you not understand that when you provide a "formula" that you have assured us is legitimate...that your promise that it's legitimate is what obligates you to name A and B? When you don't...THAT is the epitome of a lack of integrity!

Of course I understand why you CAN'T name A and B! It's obvious that your formula is as made up as the figures the Obama White House came up with for "Jobs Saved". You can't admit you lied though...can you? Not after your scores of declarations that you NEVER LIE! If you were to do that you're admitting that your full of shit in general.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what's it going to be this time? Caps? Red font? Bold type? More declarations that you NEVER lie? Or you going to pretend to put me ignore again because of "personal attacks"?

Same old...same old, Rshermr!

 

[Rshermr]

And Oldstyle, the consummate liar says:
Still no A or B, Georgie? Sucks when you get caught lying...doesn't it!

So, you say I owe you a response to your question of what a or b. But we all know you are asking for elements of a formula that I offered you on the following condition:
you must provide proof of a bill that republicans brought forward to address the damages of The Great Republican Recession of 2008. And, OS, you agreed to provide that condition, but did not do so.
So, you failed. You failed to provide the answer you promised, which was a requirement that you agreed to. You simply make the same untrue claim over and over and over, which is that I owe you an answer. You loose, oldstyle. You failed to meet your condition many weeks ago, but still try to say there was no condition. And I am sure you will do so again. Because, me boy, you have no integrity. None at all.

Your post that I am now responding to is, however, illustrative. It fully illustrates what you are all about. Which is that you simply want to win points by lying. Which you do again and again. And that you have no ability to respond to thread topics. And that you are incapable of making economic arguments.

And again, I never ever lie. Which is why I do not have to worry about you proving that I did so. Unlike you, oldstyle.

 

[Oldstyle]

Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

 

[Rshermr]

Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

Nice try, Dipshit. The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all. As I have proven conclusively. But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say. That you do not is because you can not. BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. And because you have NO INTEGRITY.

 

[Oldstyle]

Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

Nice try, Dipshit. The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all. As I have proven conclusively. But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say. That you do not is because you can not. BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. And because you have NO INTEGRITY.

"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie! Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything! Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr. You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist!

 

[Oldstyle]

Also note that I provided not one but TWO GOP bills that would have decreased unemployment but you decided that they didn't count. You obviously did so because you don't have a formula to determine "Jobs Saved" but are too embarrassed to admit that you lied.

 

[Oldstyle]

Then you tried to float that joke of a formula...like THAT was going to get you off the hook!

But that's what liars like you DO, Georgie...you tell one lie and then you have to tell another in an attempt to cover up the first...and on and on...

Now you're so invested in your lies that you can't simply admit that you were talking out of your ass in the first place!

 

[Oldstyle]

So get back to me when you're ready to tell us all what A and B equal in the formula that you provided with no requirements means!

That's what someone with "integrity" would do. Which of course is why you'll never do it!

 

[Rshermr]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14628528, member: 31215"

]Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

Nice try, Dipshit. The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all. As I have proven conclusively. But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say. That you do not is because you can not. BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. And because you have NO INTEGRITY.

"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie! Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything! Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr. You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist![/QUOTE]
Wow. A swing and a miss. You first asked for the condition on May 4 of this year in this thread, and it was Post 696!!!

Then on post 700, SAME DAY, I said: "As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008."

So NO, oldstyle, it had nothing to do with post 1776 which was many weeks later. Again, proving you are a lying con troll.
I provided you an equation, in jest. Because that is what you were bugging me about in post after post for week after week . And you take that joke, and pretend that it was an attempt to answer your question. Dipshit. But you continued to ask for the actual formula time after time after time even after that point. You have continued this completely dishonest thread of pretending that I owe you an answer. Total dishonesty on your part. And that you did not agree to the condition. Total dishonesty on your part. As I again proved above.

 

[Oldstyle]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14628528, member: 31215"

]Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

Nice try, Dipshit. The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all. As I have proven conclusively. But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say. That you do not is because you can not. BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. And because you have NO INTEGRITY.

"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie! Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything! Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr. You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist!

Wow. A swing and a miss. You first asked for the condition on May 4 of this year in this thread, and it was Post 696!!!

Then on post 700, SAME DAY, I said: "As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008."

So NO, oldstyle, it had nothing to do with post 1776 which was many weeks later. Again, proving you are a lying con troll.
I provided you an equation, in jest. Because that is what you were bugging me about in post after post for week after week . And you take that joke, and pretend that it was an attempt to answer your question. Dipshit. But you continued to ask for the actual formula time after time after time even after that point. You have continued this completely dishonest thread of pretending that I owe you an answer. Total dishonesty on your part. And that you did not agree to the condition. Total dishonesty on your part. As I again proved above.[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now the formula was a "jest"? Is that Georgie-speak for fabrication? Something you made up? So now weeks after posting your pathetic formula and repeatedly declaring that it was legitimate...you're here to tell us that it was really a "jest"?

Yeah, it's total dishonestly all right...total dishonesty on your part!

 

[Oldstyle]

While I was going back through this string looking for your lie about the formula I discovered your lie about putting me on ignore.

"You are incapable of conversation, or debate, me boy. Totally. And your insults are getting old. As of now, in deference to others who may want to actually engage in discussion about the subject of this thread, you are now officially on ignore. Knock yourself out with your drivel, me boy."
That would be post #840...one more example of you lying when you claimed that you never pretended to put me on ignore!

 

[Rshermr]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14628528, member: 31215"

]Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

Nice try, Dipshit. The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all. As I have proven conclusively. But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say. That you do not is because you can not. BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. And because you have NO INTEGRITY.

"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie! Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything! Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr. You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist!

Wow. A swing and a miss. You first asked for the condition on May 4 of this year in this thread, and it was Post 696!!!

Then on post 700, SAME DAY, I said: "As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008."

So NO, oldstyle, it had nothing to do with post 1776 which was many weeks later. Again, proving you are a lying con troll.
I provided you an equation, in jest. Because that is what you were bugging me about in post after post for week after week . And you take that joke, and pretend that it was an attempt to answer your question. Dipshit. But you continued to ask for the actual formula time after time after time even after that point. You have continued this completely dishonest thread of pretending that I owe you an answer. Total dishonesty on your part. And that you did not agree to the condition. Total dishonesty on your part. As I again proved above.

Oh, so now the formula was a "jest"? Is that Georgie-speak for fabrication? Something you made up? So now weeks after posting your pathetic formula and repeatedly declaring that it was legitimate...you're here to tell us that it was really a "jest"?

Yeah, it's total dishonestly all right...total dishonesty on your part![/QUOTE]

 

[Rshermr]

[QUOTE="Oldstyle, post: 14628528, member: 31215"

]Nice try, Georgie...too bad your "conditions" came AFTER you gave us all your "A-B=Jobs Saved" which was essentially laughed off of the chat site!

Why do you even bother coming here? You've got nothing but evasions and more lies.

Nice try, Dipshit. The condition came before my a-b+jobs saved. And there was no laughter at all. As I have proven conclusively. But, if you were not lying, it would be very easy to bring back those original posts and prove what you say. That you do not is because you can not. BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. And because you have NO INTEGRITY.

"The condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

That was your post 1776 in this string, Georgie...when you first gave me your "formula" that was nothing but a lie! Notice that you provided that formula of your own free will while not requiring me to do anything! Yet, once I asked you what A and B stood for...you immediately went back to hiding behind "conditions".

You're a bullshit artist, Rshermr. You always have been and you continue to BE a bullshit artist!

Wow. A swing and a miss. You first asked for the condition on May 4 of this year in this thread, and it was Post 696!!!

Then on post 700, SAME DAY, I said: "As soon as you give me a name of a bill from the republican congress meant to support recovery from the Great Republican Recession of 2008."

So NO, oldstyle, it had nothing to do with post 1776 which was many weeks later. Again, proving you are a lying con troll.
I provided you an equation, in jest. Because that is what you were bugging me about in post after post for week after week . And you take that joke, and pretend that it was an attempt to answer your question. Dipshit. But you continued to ask for the actual formula time after time after time even after that point. You have continued this completely dishonest thread of pretending that I owe you an answer. Total dishonesty on your part. And that you did not agree to the condition. Total dishonesty on your part. As I again proved above.

Oh, so now the formula was a "jest"? Is that Georgie-speak for fabrication? Something you made up? So now weeks after posting your pathetic formula and repeatedly declaring that it was legitimate...you're here to tell us that it was really a "jest"? Well, you are apparently trying to get someone to believe that you are really stupid. That is possible.

Yeah, it's total dishonestly all right...total dishonesty on your part.

So, are you simply trying to prove that you are a stupid con troll. Because that is a good way to do it.
You had been asking for the formula over and over and over. Lying your ass off, saying you had it coming. Then I say:

Oh, hell. Here is one. Not here is the formula. Not here is the formula you wanted. Are you really that stupid. I am tired of your endless begging. Did you think that I was simply getting you off of your game playing? Nah, that would be to obvious.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it."

And then you kept asking for the formula. Proving you knew that the formula I gave you was a joke. Dipshit.

You are a true fucking lying troll.