Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[cassandra]

not sure what the obsession with democrat republican is all about. As far as congress is concerned only about 37% of people vote for it so it has no mandate and it is about time to get rid of the 2 party system and let people have a vote for those they support rather than those that forced on them.

The debt got to the current level because of both parties. There is little difference in what these parties do and now little difference in what they say and consequently Romney and republicans have little to say because they don't disagree with what democrats are doing. Obama has taken Bush's policies to new levels but no one in the media or GOP seems to care however it has undermined the GOP's ability to offer policies that are different enough for people to think it is worth a change. A 2 party system with 2 right wing parties.

Might make more sense to talk of how this crisis started the inherent flaws and what will get us out of it. Just keep spending is obviously head in the sand stuff while cutting taxes is not going to deal with the debt and definitely won't lead to new inventions that are going to solve the crisis. Bubbles occur because there is too much money with no productive demand for it so printing more will only create more bubbles and trash the currency. When looking at inflation and gloating about how it hasn't occurred just look at the value of the USA now as opposed to pre money printing. If the dollar goes down so does the value of everything in the USA.

Seems the GOP is quite because they have no more of an idea of what to do than democrats.

 

[Rshermr]

So, oldstyle, between personal attacks, throws in this little lie:

You're the guy who espouses a Keynesian approach to government stimulus but won't admit that even Keynes only advocated tax increases in an expanding economy and specifically advised against them in a weak economy.

I do not expouse the Keynsian school, as you well know, should you have a memory. That would be your lie. And why you can not show that I ever suggested that I expouse any economic theory. Rather, I suggest the Clinton approach. Really, that of his economic team. In many cases.

So, another stupid statement, and another lie. And again, you are proven to be wrong. Next.

 

[Rshermr]

Still not touching that class schedule...are ya', Tommy! Too funny...

Funny?? Again, apparently Oldstyle humor. You make zero sense. Is it some projection problem you are having????

Obviously, Oldstyle is out of any argument having to do with economics. And is now off just trying to play games. And wasting everyones time. Because, you see, that is all he is actually capable of.

Want to explain again why that capital gains decrease was important to explaining whatever it was that you thought you were explaining? Or are you done?

Ah, I see...you claimed to have taught college economics as an undergrad four times a week but when I point out that A) undergrads don't teach college courses and B) most college courses meet for 3 hours a week...typically for an hour and a half on Tues and Thurs...and an hour on Mon, Wed and Fri...but YOUR class met only on Fridays? If it only met on Friday then why did you state earlier that you taught it four times a week? You can't keep your lies straight...can you? It's time for you to panic and decide that any further talk about your past teaching "experience" is a waste of everyone's time. You're a joke...

No wonder you got nowhere in life, my poor little dish washer:
First, i never lie in these posts. Second, I have said the same thing about teaching this class always. No difference. Five credit courses in my experience met five days per week for one hour. You just described a three credit course in my college experience. Though it must have been great for you getting 5 credits for three hours per week of call attendance. You have a definite memory problem, or maybe just more dishonesty. I said the class met in total on FRIDAY. We taught the other four days, Monday through Thursday, me poor schedule limited liar. Jesus, you are sure trying to poke at this subject you said you would not waste more time with, are you not, Oldstyle. You lack integrity, totally. But then you know that, eh oldstyle. Seems to not bother you. So here is the thing, my poor ignorant con tool: You never have to panic if you do not lie. Try it some time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Funny?? Again, apparently Oldstyle humor. You make zero sense. Is it some projection problem you are having????

Obviously, Oldstyle is out of any argument having to do with economics. And is now off just trying to play games. And wasting everyones time. Because, you see, that is all he is actually capable of.

Want to explain again why that capital gains decrease was important to explaining whatever it was that you thought you were explaining? Or are you done?

Ah, I see...you claimed to have taught college economics as an undergrad four times a week but when I point out that A) undergrads don't teach college courses and B) most college courses meet for 3 hours a week...typically for an hour and a half on Tues and Thurs...and an hour on Mon, Wed and Fri...but YOUR class met only on Fridays? If it only met on Friday then why did you state earlier that you taught it four times a week? You can't keep your lies straight...can you? It's time for you to panic and decide that any further talk about your past teaching "experience" is a waste of everyone's time. You're a joke...

No wonder you got nowhere in life, my poor little dish washer:
First, i never lie in these posts. Second, I have said the same thing about teaching this class always. No difference. Five credit courses in my experience met five days per week for one hour. You just described a three credit course in my college experience. Though it must have been great for you getting 5 credits for three hours per week of call attendance. You have a definite memory problem, or maybe just more dishonesty. I said the class met in total on FRIDAY. We taught the other four days, Monday through Thursday, me poor schedule limited liar. Jesus, you are sure trying to poke at this subject you said you would not waste more time with, are you not, Oldstyle. You lack integrity, totally. But then you know that, eh oldstyle. Seems to not bother you. So here is the thing, my poor ignorant con tool: You never have to panic if you do not lie. Try it some time.

So now this course was a 5 credit honors class? But taught by an undergrad? You get more ridiculous with each lie, Rshermr. Honors classes are typically taught by prestigious faculty...not scrub undergrads that don't even know basic Keynesian economic theory. A professor might pass off an introductory Econ class to a graduate student TA but that SO isn't going to happen with an honors class...something you'd KNOW if you ever took one.

How can a course meet "in total" on Fridays but also meet 4 other times a week? You got caught telling another whopper and now you're pathetically trying to bullshit your way out of the web of lies you've concocted.

 

[RightNorLeft]

Do you mean "Republicans" or "Conservatives"?

There ya go im glad you mad that distinction. It used to be republican and conservate in term were synonomous. Now they are NIGHT AND DAY. You have the democrats on the left, you have the republicans in the middle and then you have the <few> conservatives all the way over to the right and they are as far to the right as any nutter liberal is on the left.

Many many republicans voted for obama and thats how he won because the conservatives in the party either, pissed them off, scared the shit out of them or told them upfront we are going to screw you.
Paul Ryans first fiscal plan spun many republicans to obamas side...how the hell did he and the conservatives think...you could tell america Social Security is unconstitutional...Medicare causes all the countries malais and then categorically cut everything to the middle and lower class and in the same bill give only the richest americans and corporations a huge tax cut...I dont know about anyone else but that didnt sound like Debt reduction to me...sounded like wealth distribution from the bottom to the top.
Paul Ryan not only didnt win Wisconsin for Romney...he even lost to obama in the town he and his family live in...WOW huh...

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, playing games, pretends he is asking rational questions:

So now this course was a 5 credit honors class?

Five credit, but not honors. Yes, as I have always saidit was five credits.

But taught by an undergrad?

Part of the class, for four days per week, as you well know.

You get more ridiculous with each lie, Rshermr.

Something here is a bit ridiculous. You are trying to find a lie. Which I never told. So you are trying to change my words. Which is dishonest, me boy. But no luck, oldstyle. Because I did not lie.[

Honors classes are typically taught by prestigious faculty...not scrub undergrads

Yes, but it was not an honors class, dipshit. Which is why I never said it was. It was an econ class for non majors, which I did say before.

that don't even know basic Keynesian economic theory

.
Ah, but I do. That is your opinion. An opinion of a dish washer.

A professor might pass off an introductory Econ class to a graduate student TA but that SO isn't going to happen with an honors class...something you'd KNOW if you ever took one.

Right. So what are you trying to base this class being an honors class on, me lying con. You know better than that. But lying is your style, eh, oldstyle. Nice job. Several personal accusations, all untruths and lies.

How can a course meet "in total" on Fridays but also meet 4 other times a week? You got caught telling another whopper and now you're pathetically trying to bullshit your way out of the web of lies you've concocted.

So, Oldstyle, are you really that arithmetic challenged. Is that why you still wash dishes at your age??? Each student has four classes. Monday through Thursday. Got that yet. Count on your fingers, and you will come up with four. Then, on Friday, one combined class. Now, count on your fingers again, and you should come up with FIVE.

This is Oldstyle. Caught in lies. Trying to turn this class for undergraduate non majors into an HONORS class. A new accusation based on nothing at all. Simply oldstyle dishonesty. And then making an attempt to catch me in a lie. I guess the theory would be then we would be equal. Problem is, he is talking about something that he knows is true. He also knows that I never lie. And he also knows that he needs to waste time, because he can not argue economics with me. Not because he sometimes looses, but because he ALWAYS looses.

This is a typical example of Oldstyle posts. He is here to post conservative dogma. When caught in it, he immediatly moves to personal attacks based on lies. And he loves to waste time, because he can do so at work where his boss does not care. Because he is that unimportant. Odd, I never had such a job.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He is here to post conservative dogma.

IF you disagree with any of Aristotle's, Jefferson;s or Friedman"s dogma why not explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

You're the perfect advertisment for the pure ignorance of liberalism

 

[Rshermr]

He is here to post conservative dogma.

IF you disagree with any of Aristotle's, Jefferson;s or Friedman"s dogma why not explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

You're the perfect advertisment for the pure ignorance of liberalism

Then, as normal, Oldstyle gets ed to jump in the middle of the posts. Because Oldstyle is in big trouble from a rational discussion point of view. So now it is just down to wasting time. And that is what Ed is good at.

Those new to this site may think it is about rational thought. And it is, but for the roughly 20 far right wing nut cases who are here only to post dogma and conservative agenda. And they waste everyone's time.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He is here to post conservative dogma.

IF you disagree with any of Aristotle's, Jefferson;s or Friedman"s dogma why not explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

You're the perfect advertisment for the pure ignorance of liberalism

Then, as normal, Oldstyle gets ed to jump in the middle of the posts. Because Oldstyle is in big trouble from a rational discussion point of view. So now it is just down to wasting time. And that is what Ed is good at.

Those new to this site may think it is about rational thought. And it is, but for the roughly 20 far right wing nut cases who are here only to post dogma and conservative agenda. And they waste everyone's time.

blah blah typical braindead liberal too stupid to say anything intelligent in defense of liberalism despite being asked 24 times. What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

 

[Toronado3800]

IF you disagree with any of Aristotle's, Jefferson;s or Friedman"s dogma why not explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

You're the perfect advertisment for the pure ignorance of liberalism

Then, as normal, Oldstyle gets ed to jump in the middle of the posts. Because Oldstyle is in big trouble from a rational discussion point of view. So now it is just down to wasting time. And that is what Ed is good at.

Those new to this site may think it is about rational thought. And it is, but for the roughly 20 far right wing nut cases who are here only to post dogma and conservative agenda. And they waste everyone's time.

blah blah typical braindead liberal too stupid to say anything intelligent in defense of liberalism despite being asked 24 times. What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

Ed, did you disagree with my post? Need me to find it for you? You just jumping in with some random Jefferson statement again?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, did you disagree with my post?

If it was liberal of course I did. That you have to ask is testimony to the liberal ignorance of 2000 year old ideas.

You just jumping in with some random Jefferson statement again?

How can Jefferson be random when he founded the Republican Party
in 1793 and addressed these issues that liberals lack the IQ to understand even today?????????

 

[Rshermr]

IF you disagree with any of Aristotle's, Jefferson;s or Friedman"s dogma why not explain or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

You're the perfect advertisment for the pure ignorance of liberalism

Then, as normal, Oldstyle gets ed to jump in the middle of the posts. Because Oldstyle is in big trouble from a rational discussion point of view. So now it is just down to wasting time. And that is what Ed is good at.

Those new to this site may think it is about rational thought. And it is, but for the roughly 20 far right wing nut cases who are here only to post dogma and conservative agenda. And they waste everyone's time.

blah blah typical braindead liberal too stupid to say anything intelligent in defense of liberalism despite being asked 24 times. What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

I can not tell you anything, ed. You are incapable of learning. Maybe if you would just read a study, by these nice students of the subject of conservative ignorance:
LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) : Gene Expression

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Alterman Study: Conservatives Display Ignorance « Nel's New Day

Just trying to help you, ed. Poor guy. Remember, your mental illness is not your fault. Just bad luck.

 

[Rozman]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

Obama and the democrat fiscal policy is $16 trillion in debt and well on our way to $20
trillion...and their way to fix it is to spend more...

 

[Rshermr]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

Obama and the democrat fiscal policy is $16 trillion in debt and well on our way to $20
trillion...and their way to fix it is to spend more...

So, bozeman. Nice post without any proof. Which is typical of con tools. Lets see how spending growth has been since Reagan. You know, Reagan, your great conservative hero. So, here you go, growth by president, ordered from highest growth to lowest growth.

Reagan 1st 8.7%
Bush II 2nd 8.1%
Bush II 1st 7.3%
Bush I 1st 5.4%
Reagan 2nd 4.9%

Clinton 2nd 3.8%
Clinton 1st 3.2%
Obama 1st 1.4%
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/07/us-federal-spending-by-president.html

Notice the trend. Repubs have highest spending, dems lowest spending. Damned dem spend and tax guys.

 

[yidnar]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

because the senate will not vote on one .

 

[Rshermr]

I'm watching Michael Steele talk about Republican "fiscal policy". His only policy is "cut taxes". He said cutting taxes will lift people out of poverty.

No mention of education.

No mention of the job's bill Republicans blocked.

No mention of building up American infrastructure.

Just "cut taxes".

I hate to break it to him, if you don't have a job, you aren't worrying about "taxes".

So is that it? Cut taxes? Nothing else? If there is more, what is it?

because the senate will not vote on one .

You forgot the subject of your sentence. Did you have one??

 

[Oldstyle]

So Oldstyle, playing games, pretends he is asking rational questions:

So now this course was a 5 credit honors class?

Five credit, but not honors. Yes, as I have always saidit was five credits.

But taught by an undergrad?

Part of the class, for four days per week, as you well know.

Something here is a bit ridiculous. You are trying to find a lie. Which I never told. So you are trying to change my words. Which is dishonest, me boy. But no luck, oldstyle. Because I did not lie.[

Yes, but it was not an honors class, dipshit. Which is why I never said it was. It was an econ class for non majors, which I did say before.
.
Ah, but I do. That is your opinion. An opinion of a dish washer.

A professor might pass off an introductory Econ class to a graduate student TA but that SO isn't going to happen with an honors class...something you'd KNOW if you ever took one.

Right. So what are you trying to base this class being an honors class on, me lying con. You know better than that. But lying is your style, eh, oldstyle. Nice job. Several personal accusations, all untruths and lies.

How can a course meet "in total" on Fridays but also meet 4 other times a week? You got caught telling another whopper and now you're pathetically trying to bullshit your way out of the web of lies you've concocted.

So, Oldstyle, are you really that arithmetic challenged. Is that why you still wash dishes at your age??? Each student has four classes. Monday through Thursday. Got that yet. Count on your fingers, and you will come up with four. Then, on Friday, one combined class. Now, count on your fingers again, and you should come up with FIVE.

This is Oldstyle. Caught in lies. Trying to turn this class for undergraduate non majors into an HONORS class. A new accusation based on nothing at all. Simply oldstyle dishonesty. And then making an attempt to catch me in a lie. I guess the theory would be then we would be equal. Problem is, he is talking about something that he knows is true. He also knows that I never lie. And he also knows that he needs to waste time, because he can not argue economics with me. Not because he sometimes looses, but because he ALWAYS looses.

This is a typical example of Oldstyle posts. He is here to post conservative dogma. When caught in it, he immediatly moves to personal attacks based on lies. And he loves to waste time, because he can do so at work where his boss does not care. Because he is that unimportant. Odd, I never had such a job.

Dude...you're right about me not being able to argue economics with you. You can't argue a topic with someone who knows next to nothing ABOUT the topic. Your knowledge of economics is SO woefully inadequate that it's almost laughable. Need I remind you that you're the idiot that thought a school of economics was an actual place. Duh?

So you're not in the Keynesian school but in the Clinton school of economics? Gee little buddy...I don't think that IS a Clinton school of economics. Thanks for playing though. Johnny, what parting gifts do we have for Tommy Flanagan?

 

[Rshermr]

So, as I predicted, having been caught in lies again, Oldstyle moves quickly to personal attacks. Funny thing is, he even gets that wrong. So, he says:

So you're not in the Keynesian school but in the Clinton school of economics? Gee little buddy...I don't think that IS a Clinton school of economics.

Of course there is not a clinton economic theory. But there is a clinton experience, and a Bush experience, and another Bush experience, and a Reagan experience. And many theories. Now here is the tough part for you, me poor ignorant con tool. Because in your simple little mind you are looking for a theory that will cover every part of economic thought. And be correct in all areas. Kind of like a perfect religion. But, none of those presidents and their economic team followed any single economic theory. None, Oldstyle. Only you believe that they should. Or that they did. Only you. You, Oldstyle, the dishwasher. The guy who questions others understanding of economics. Which to everyone who listens to you, makes you an idiot.

So, bailing, eh. Thought you might. Must be tired out as a result of all of those, uh, wins of arguments regarding economics. Oh, hold on, oldstyle, you won zero. None. And here you were a great economic power, in your own mind. I will be laughing at you, for weeks.

Next time you care to play, try a little truth. All the lies make you too easy to beat. like a drum, oldstyle, like a drum.

 

[Oldstyle]

Have you noticed that every time Rshermr is called upon to provide an answer which a real Econ major would be able to rattle off in a heart beat he gets all vague and rambling in his answers. Why? Obviously because he doesn't REALLY know what he's talking about.

I ask him to tell me what economic school it is that advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy as a means of stimulating growth and he starts talking about "experience". The Clinton experience...the Bush experience...the Reagan experience... What the heck is he talking about? If anyone else out there understands his gibberish...feel free to explain it to me because whenever the board's resident Tommy Flanagan tries to impress with his knowledge of economics it invariably turns into incoherent, nonsensical double talk. The following is a perfect example...

"I do not expouse the Keynsian school, as you well know, should you have a memory. That would be your lie. And why you can not show that I ever suggested that I expouse any economic theory. Rather, I suggest the Clinton approach. Really, that of his economic team. In many cases."

So what economic theory did the Clinton economic team employ? Rshermr doesn't have the faintest idea. I ask him to give me a school of economic thought that advocates the raising of taxes in a bad economy and what does he do? He starts babbling about no one economic theory is used exclusively by any Administration which is a complete dodge of the question. If Clinton's team employed different theories from different economic schools then simply explain which ones and while you're at it...show which one it is that advocates the raising of taxes in a bad economy. You can't DO that though, you George Costanza wannabe...because there is no such animal.

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...w=193&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:85

But then again...when you're trying to pass yourself off as something that you obviously aren't, and you get challenged on it...talking gibberish is about as good as it's going to get.

 

[Rshermr]

Poor Oldstyle. Back for another attack. Personal of course. I never, ever claimed to be an econ expert. I do have a degree in econ, from 1969. So, I am not an economist. Spent my years in the business world.
So, Oldstyle says he has a history degree. And TWO classes in economics. And then he tries to make me look like I do not know what I am talking about.

Problem is, i do. And oldstyle, being ignorant of economics, but heavy on con dogma, is trying as hard as he can to make it seem as though every presidency must be based on some economic theory. Which, as I said on my last post to poor old Oldstyle, is simply not true.

So Oldstyle knows little of Economics. Which causes him to loose every discussion on economics. So off he goes on tangents. He says economic school that taught raising taxes. I did not pay real close attention, because I had already answered similar, and the same, question many times for poor Oldstyle. But he meant economic schools of thought, or economic theories. No big deal to most, but heaven to Oldstyle. He has not stopped on it yet. Must have posted on that subject at least 15 times. But that is what you do when you can not argue economic issues.

Then there is the question that Oldstyle has posted at least 20 times by now, and again here, as to what school teaches raising taxes in a bad economy. And I keep saying to him over and over that raising taxes is not part of the theory, but the stimulus that it funds IS part and parcel of the theories relative to stimulus spending. Poor guy just keeps digging in on what economic school suggests raising taxes, and is way to lazy to look for himself. '

So, oldstyle, tell me which economic theory Reagan and his team followed. Or which theories. And which theory said he should have raised taxes 11 times when his economy went bad. You will not me boy, because they will not tell you. Nor me. Which is why your question about why clinton raised taxes so stupid. We will never know what economic theory or theories his team followed. So your question is REALLY STUPID. Apparently you think that there is some economic reason to know this, so go find out about Reagan. You will be wrong. But you can try to lie, see if you can get it past me. And just think, OLDSTYLE, how much time you can waste while you talk about crap that is of no importance at all.

Poor Oldstyle. Can not argue economics. Just attacks. If I make a mistake, or if anyone I know is wrong, they go back to their mistake when caught on it and admit and/or clarify. Oldstyle just changes direction and starts the personal attacks. Oldstyle has been caught in lie after lie after lie after lie. Dead caught. But he simply attacks again. Same subjects every time. Pathetic. Because most people your age understand integrity, and try to maintain it. Unless they are simple classless clowns. Sound familiar, Oldstyle?

Sad, Oldstyle, history degree and you must be in your 50's and still no meaningful job. Maybe you just need to get back to washing those dishes.