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

[ReallyMeow]

You're also the guy parroting the nonsense you gleaned from progressive sites that make you believe that Reagan was a tax and spend conservative simply because he raised a tax 11 times over an eight year period of time. What you won't admit is that those taxes were by and large all excise taxes on items such as cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline...and that Reagan fought hard to keep the rates on income taxes low.

Hiking taxes on "everyone" while slashing taxes on one specific class of people is class warfare. Reagan engaged in it, we're just taking it back.

The Middle Class is just as capable of making investments as the wealthy? Did you really just make that idiotic statement? No, the Middle Class is not just as "capable" of making investments in start up companies as venture capitalists are. First of all they don't have the large amounts of capital that start ups need and they don't have the business acumen to put together such a deal.

So there we have it kids, another resplendent example of a conservative hating Americans: "workers dont deserve the opportunity for upwards mobility, if you arnt born rich and groomed for it since birth, you are obviously a reckless degenerate and should only be paid base sustenance as a means of keeping you safely away from the stock markets, and in a persistent fugue of desperation." reminds me of the ministry of plenty.

We're not "heaping money on the rich" by the way. What we ARE doing is enticing those with capital to invest it here in the US rather than invest elsewhere or put it into tax shelters...neither one of which does anything to alleviate the lack of jobs in this country. You're not "giving" them anything...you're simply not "taking" so much from them that you dissuade them from investing in the first place.

No, we take what we need in order to keep society functional, taking less IS giving them something. If you are working a cash register and you skip scanning an item for your buddy, you arnt "not taking" something from him, you just gave him the pack of smokes for free, jackass. We spend alot of money building the infrastructure, keeping order, preping people to be trainable at all, we dont even ask for the money up front and only want a cut of the profits: but when you make it big, show some fucking gratitude.

And who's talking about "tax evasion"? The wealthy aren't breaking any tax laws when they put their money into tax shelters to avoid paying taxes. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about on this issue, do you?

tax evasion, avoid paying taxes

Just like Democrats have never shown how raising taxes will improve an economy.

Hate to point out the inconvenient truth, Toronado...but compared to the deficits that we're running now...the deficits we were running back in Dutch Reagan's time were rather minuscule. His highest was 478.8 billion which pales in comparison to the smallest that Barack Obama has done which was 885 billion...let alone his high...which was a trillion and a half.

First, BUSH'S high was a trillion and a half, this is like being mad at the fire department because the house was on fire when they showed up. Second, do you even know what inflation is? Whats 500 billion then vs 1.4 trillion now? oh snap, its dam near the same thing.
Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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.

Maybe instead of spreading this around like an old wives tale, on the merit of keynes' authority you actually produce something to substantiate your interpretation of absolutionism on the subject of not taxing more in a recession PARTICULARLY on the rich. Seeing as the upper most tax rate on income over (todays equivalent of approximately a million bucks) was 94% at its peak after WW2. They were coming out of two wars and a recession, We're coming out of two wars and a recession: tax the rich.


Also, with all this talk about "college" courses:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1445#comic

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Reagan was a Supply Sider who was mainly influenced by Jack Kemp and Arthur Laffler. And although Reagan did raise taxes 11 different times over an eight year period, the majority of those were temporary excise taxes on items like gas, cigarettes or booze. Overall he both lowered the tax rates substantially and simplified them as well. Reagan was a tax cutter...not a "tax and spend conservative" as your progressive web sites have lulled you into thinking. Now that I've answered YOUR question perhaps you can answer mine. What economic school or schools are Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi following when they demand tax increases in a bad economy? Simple question for an economics major but one you can never quite come up with.

So you weren't "paying attention" when you totally didn't realize that "schools of economics" didn't refer to an actual college? LOL Nice try, Tommy. You totally "whiffed" on that because you don't know jack squat ABOUT economics, which is why your claim to have taught the subject in college is so laughable.

You've made a string of "mistakes", Tommy. It's what happens when you pretend to be something that you're not. Every time you get caught making your latest "mistake" you whine about being "attacked". Like that's NOT going to happen when you get caught telling lies? Duh?

 

[Oldstyle]

You're also the guy parroting the nonsense you gleaned from progressive sites that make you believe that Reagan was a tax and spend conservative simply because he raised a tax 11 times over an eight year period of time. What you won't admit is that those taxes were by and large all excise taxes on items such as cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline...and that Reagan fought hard to keep the rates on income taxes low.

Hiking taxes on "everyone" while slashing taxes on one specific class of people is class warfare. Reagan engaged in it, we're just taking it back.

The Middle Class is just as capable of making investments as the wealthy? Did you really just make that idiotic statement? No, the Middle Class is not just as "capable" of making investments in start up companies as venture capitalists are. First of all they don't have the large amounts of capital that start ups need and they don't have the business acumen to put together such a deal.

So there we have it kids, another resplendent example of a conservative hating Americans: "workers dont deserve the opportunity for upwards mobility, if you arnt born rich and groomed for it since birth, you are obviously a reckless degenerate and should only be paid base sustenance as a means of keeping you safely away from the stock markets, and in a persistent fugue of desperation." reminds me of the ministry of plenty.



No, we take what we need in order to keep society functional, taking less IS giving them something. If you are working a cash register and you skip scanning an item for your buddy, you arnt "not taking" something from him, you just gave him the pack of smokes for free, jackass. We spend alot of money building the infrastructure, keeping order, preping people to be trainable at all, we dont even ask for the money up front and only want a cut of the profits: but when you make it big, show some fucking gratitude.




tax evasion, avoid paying taxes

Hate to point out the inconvenient truth, Toronado...but compared to the deficits that we're running now...the deficits we were running back in Dutch Reagan's time were rather minuscule. His highest was 478.8 billion which pales in comparison to the smallest that Barack Obama has done which was 885 billion...let alone his high...which was a trillion and a half.

First, BUSH'S high was a trillion and a half, this is like being mad at the fire department because the house was on fire when they showed up. Second, do you even know what inflation is? Whats 500 billion then vs 1.4 trillion now? oh snap, its dam near the same thing.
Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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.

Maybe instead of spreading this around like an old wives tale, on the merit of keynes' authority you actually produce something to substantiate your interpretation of absolutionism on the subject of not taxing more in a recession PARTICULARLY on the rich. Seeing as the upper most tax rate on income over (todays equivalent of approximately a million bucks) was 94% at its peak after WW2. They were coming out of two wars and a recession, We're coming out of two wars and a recession: tax the rich.


Also, with all this talk about "college" courses:
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

LOL...this is like a progressive "tag team" of clueless. First Rshermr aka Tommy Flanagan chimes in with his bullshit and then ReallyMeow shows up with the latest from ThinkProgress.

Here's the thing, "ReallyOutThere"...in a nutshell, your economic solutions don't work. Everything that you advocate...the whole tax the rich at 94% thing?...it's not going to fix the deficit. You could tax them at 100% and you STILL wouldn't fix the deficit because the problem isn't that we're not taking in enough revenue (because our levels of revenue being collected are currently back at nearly the same level they were before the economic collapse) but that we are spending WAY too much.

And what REALLY makes your solution absurd is something that Laffler pointed out in his famous curve...at high levels of taxation people lose the incentive to risk capital and simply don't, leading them to do what you've labeled "tax evasion" which is simply putting their money into perfectly legal tax shelters. Unless you're going to change the laws and FORCE people to invest their capital so that you can steal it to finance your progressive "vision" then what you're proposing isn't going to work.

And what do you use for the basis of your expectation that raising taxes to 94% will work? The tax rate was that following WWII? Well, I hate to burst your progressive thought bubble but the world was COMPLETELY different at the close of WWII than it is now. We were the only major industrial power that was left relatively unscathed by war. Essentially, we were the only game in town. Now contrast THAT with the world we live in today! Today we compete with places like China and India...countries that don't have capital gains taxes. If we were to raise our tax rate to what YOU think is advisable there would literally be a stampede of capital out of the US. But you're so blinded by your progressive ideology that you can't see that...can you?

 

[Oldstyle]

And your analogy of someone ringing items on a cash register is as flawed at the rest of your so called "thinking". We aren't letting the rich "steal" a pack of cigarettes that they don't own...what you're espousing is putting a gun to their heads and stealing the money that they legally earned because you think that you are "entitled" to it more than they are, rather than fix a government that is so bloated and inefficient that it's bleeding us out.

 

[Oldstyle]

"The illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax." THAT is tax evasion, Sparky!

"Any financial arrangement (as a certain kind of investment or allowance) that results in a reduction or elimination of taxes due." THAT is a tax shelter!

The fact that you think the two are synonymous shows how ignorant you are when it comes to economics as a whole. Yet you have the nerve to come on here and call OTHERS "retarded"? The truth is...if you didn't have sites like ThinkProgress and The Huffington Post to GIVE you your talking points you wouldn't be intelligent enough to come up with one.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle living in his economic wasteland, says:

Reagan was a Supply Sider who was mainly influenced by Jack Kemp and Arthur Laffler. And although Reagan did raise taxes 11 different times over an eight year period, the majority of those were temporary excise taxes on items like gas, cigarettes or booze.

Right. So what you are saying is that he believed in an economic theory that is almost non existent in our colleges today. However, followed economic methods that have nothing at all to do with Supply Side when the economy was bad. And, unlike what SS Economics suggests, instead of shrinking the government, he borrowed enough to nearly triple the national debt. More than all the presidents before him combined. And INCREASE the size of the federal government.
So, in a bad economy he tried SS economics with disasterous results. Then used some other theory, perhaps, thought you do not know what, to correct the mess he created with the economic theory you say he firmly believed in.

HUH!!!

Overall he both lowered the overall tax rates substantially and simplified them as well. Reagan was a tax cutter...not a "tax and spend conservative" as your progressive web sites have lulled you into thinking.

So, when the economy was somewhat bad, he followed SS theory, and lowered taxes. Then, when the UE rate was at its worst since the great depression, he RAISED TAXES. He did not LOWER TAXES. And you can not seem to come to terms with WHY. Simply stated, he followed quite different theory, using tax increases and HEAVY BORROWING to do STIMULUS SPENDING to get beyond the obviouse trouble he was in. All of which were OPPOSITE of the theory you say he followed.

Then you say that I said that he was a tax and spend conservative. Which I got from progressive web sites. Sorry, Oldstyle. Nice lie. Just can not post without a few lies, can you. I never, in any post said any such thing. Which is why, of course, you can not show such a statement from me. What I do say is that he used tax increases, and heavy borrowing, to improve the economy. Which you try to ignore. But which I have proven to you NOT with opinion, and not with data from left wing web sites, but with government numbers for unemployment, and deficit size, and spending numbers. Just facts, oldstyle. Those things you ignore so well.

So, you really have said nothing, me poor economic clown. Except that he loved the idea of SS economic theory, but was completely unable to use it successfully to get the economy healed, and only used it when the economy was bad to make it MUCH, MUCH WORSE. He used components of Keynsian economics, though perhaps it was really part of some other economic theory or an amalgamation of concepts that were part of any of a number of economic theories. You see, Oldstyle,Reagan forgot to tell you what economic theory he was using. You simply want to believe that he was following SS, because you are so economically ignorant. But he was following NO ONE ECONOMIC THEORY. Which is reality, me boy, and what every single president you can find has done.

Now that I've answered YOUR question perhaps you can answer mine. What economic school or schools are Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi following when they demand tax increases in a bad economy? Simple question for an economics major but one you can never quite come up with.

Now that IS funny. You did not answer my question. OBVIOUSLY. Nice try, but in no way did you answer it. That you are stupid enough to believe that you did is telling. What you did is what I knew you would do. You tried and lied, and failed. And never admitted that he used no single economic theory. And, dipshit, I have answered your question over and over. Sorry you are too ignorant to understand it.

You've made a string of "mistakes", Tommy. It's what happens when you pretend to be something that you're not. Every time you get caught making your latest "mistake" you whine about being "attacked". Like that's NOT going to happen when you get caught telling lies? Duh?

I make no mistakes that I do not take credit for. And I never, ever lie. nice try. And I never, ever pretend to be something I am not. People who do that are very small people. Those who claim to have a degree in, say, history, but at their advanced age are still washing dishes. Only you, my poor small con, are impressed with me because of anything that I have said. I certainly am not.

If I wanted, i could talk about much more impressive things I have accomplished. Not world beating. No big deal. But you are saying something that is rally interesting, in a sad sort of way. Embellishing myself, talking about an economics class I had the ability to teach part of 45 years ago??? My poor insignificant person, if I wanted to embellish myself, I could hardly find something less significant in my past to do so with than this. Do you understand why I say you are funny??? And sad??

But you are, my boy, an economic wasteland. And funny to boot.

 

[Oldstyle]

You keep repeating that same claim, Rshermr...that you "never, ever lie" but you got caught telling what is obviously a total fabrication...your teaching college economics as an undergrad even though you didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I referred to schools of economics. When you make glaring mistakes like that...mistakes that even someone like myself that only took introductory Econ classes in college wouldn't have made...you show yourself to be a complete fraud.

The difference between you and I is that I'm comfortable with what I am and what I know...you feel the need to embellish your "credentials" with things like being an executive with a private secretary who corrected all of your spelling errors and being the only undergrad I've ever heard of that taught a college level course. You are the PROTOTYPICAL internet bull shit artist...a loser who needs to pump themselves up with phony degrees, businesses they own, and super models they date.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, having just been beaten like a drum, tries desperately to change the subject. And, of course, he goes back to one of the same old charges that he has made of me, over and over. Because, though he knows I told the truth, it is the only thing he can think of to attack. So, he says:

You keep repeating that same claim, Rshermr...that you "never, ever lie" but you got caught telling what is obviously a total fabrication...your teaching college economics as an undergrad even though you didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I referred to schools of economics. When you make glaring mistakes like that...mistakes that even someone like myself that only took introductory Econ classes in college wouldn't have made...you show yourself to be a complete fraud.

But you lie again. those issues have been addressed. you simply keep on them because you can not argue economics. You just got your claim that reagan followed the supply side economic theory stuffed back down your throat. Funny you are not addressing that again. Just happened in the past couple hours. Must still hurt some.
But instead you go off on issues you can not prove, and that have no pertinance to economics. Just personal attacks.

The difference between you and I is that I'm comfortable with what I am and what I know...you feel the need to embellish your "credentials" with things like being an executive with a private secretary who corrected all of your spelling errors and being the only undergrad I've ever heard of that taught a college level course. You are the PROTOTYPICAL internet bull shit artist...a loser who needs to pump themselves up with phony degrees, businesses they own, and super models they date.

Nice. move to personal attacks, as predicted. Sorry, oldstyle. I do not lie. I have proven you have, time after time after time. You simply can not prove i did. Because, me boy, I do not.

The really really funny one is your continual attempt to change the nature of, and somehow try to make my having taught a part of an econ class over 45 years ago somehow pumping up my credentials. that just does not pass the giggle test. But it suggests two things: 1. You need to change the subject again, because you just had your economic argument shoved down your throat. And, 2. That you must have a very, very insignificant life. That part of my life is hardly impressive to anyone I have ever talked to about it, and certainly not myself. But, to a guy who says he has a history degree but now has a very unimportant job as a dish washer, maybe that is impressive. Damn if I know.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you just had your economic argument shoved down your throat.

of course if there is a conservative /libertarian economic argument that does not make you would not be so afraid to say what it is.
Please try or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

You're always the perfect example of pure liberal ignorance!!

 

[Rshermr]

I know you are trying to help Oldstyle, Ed. But he pretty much augered in.

Here, read these, and you will find liberals are smart. It is the Cons that are ignorant. You will understand yourself better:
U of Arkansas study Study ?Proves? Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here, read these, and you will find liberals are smart.

of course we have asked you 32 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and you have been very afraid to even try??

What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

 

[Rshermr]

Here, read these, and you will find liberals are smart.

of course we have asked you 32 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and you have been very afraid to even try??

What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

that I am intelligent enough that I do not have to converse with congenital idiots, ed. Which gives me the massive freedom and great flexibility of not needing to discuss things with someone as stupid as you.

Honestly, I just tried to help you, ed. But you are just fated, I am afraid, to go on through life in your current condition. Not your fault, ed. Just bad luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here, read these, and you will find liberals are smart.

of course we have asked you 32 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and you have been very afraid to even try??

What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

that I am intelligent enough that I do not have to converse with congenital idiots, ed. Which gives me the massive freedom and great flexibility of not needing to discuss things with someone as stupid as you.

Honestly, I just tried to help you, ed. But you are just fated, I am afraid, to go on through life in your current condition. Not your fault, ed. Just bad luck.

of course we have asked you 33 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and you have been very afraid to even try??

What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

do you think a conservative or libertarian would have to run from the question????

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, having just been beaten like a drum, tries desperately to change the subject. And, of course, he goes back to one of the same old charges that he has made of me, over and over. Because, though he knows I told the truth, it is the only thing he can think of to attack. So, he says:

You keep repeating that same claim, Rshermr...that you "never, ever lie" but you got caught telling what is obviously a total fabrication...your teaching college economics as an undergrad even though you didn't have a clue what I was talking about when I referred to schools of economics. When you make glaring mistakes like that...mistakes that even someone like myself that only took introductory Econ classes in college wouldn't have made...you show yourself to be a complete fraud.

But you lie again. those issues have been addressed. you simply keep on them because you can not argue economics. You just got your claim that reagan followed the supply side economic theory stuffed back down your throat. Funny you are not addressing that again. Just happened in the past couple hours. Must still hurt some.
But instead you go off on issues you can not prove, and that have no pertinance to economics. Just personal attacks.

The difference between you and I is that I'm comfortable with what I am and what I know...you feel the need to embellish your "credentials" with things like being an executive with a private secretary who corrected all of your spelling errors and being the only undergrad I've ever heard of that taught a college level course. You are the PROTOTYPICAL internet bull shit artist...a loser who needs to pump themselves up with phony degrees, businesses they own, and super models they date.

Nice. move to personal attacks, as predicted. Sorry, oldstyle. I do not lie. I have proven you have, time after time after time. You simply can not prove i did. Because, me boy, I do not.

The really really funny one is your continual attempt to change the nature of, and somehow try to make my having taught a part of an econ class over 45 years ago somehow pumping up my credentials. that just does not pass the giggle test. But it suggests two things: 1. You need to change the subject again, because you just had your economic argument shoved down your throat. And, 2. That you must have a very, very insignificant life. That part of my life is hardly impressive to anyone I have ever talked to about it, and certainly not myself. But, to a guy who says he has a history degree but now has a very unimportant job as a dish washer, maybe that is impressive. Damn if I know.

The really pathetic thing is that I don't have to prove that you lie, Rshermr...you do that all by yourself! You make statements about how you used to teach college economics when you don't know basic Keynesian fundamentals or what I'm referring to when I spoke about schools of economics which makes it obvious that you don't know enough about the subject to have ever taught it at ANY level.

The person with the "insignificant life" would be the person trying to pass himself off as something that he isn't. That's you, me boy! You're just an internet George Costanza...only instead of an architect...you're trying to pass as someone who has a clue about economics.

 

[Rshermr]

of course we have asked you 32 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and you have been very afraid to even try??

What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

that I am intelligent enough that I do not have to converse with congenital idiots, ed. Which gives me the massive freedom and great flexibility of not needing to discuss things with someone as stupid as you.

Honestly, I just tried to help you, ed. But you are just fated, I am afraid, to go on through life in your current condition. Not your fault, ed. Just bad luck.

of course we have asked you 33 times for a substantive example of the intelligence in liberalism and you have been very afraid to even try??

What does that tell us about the liberal IQ and character??

do you think a conservative or libertarian would have to run from the question????

Ed, me boy, you do not understand conversation. You just post dogma. That is what you are paid for. I understand you have to make a living. But, me poor con tool, I do not have to talk to you. Because I do not enjoy talking to congenital idiots.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Dogma...con tool...you lie..."

That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. What's amusing is that NOBODY here regurgitates more talking point dogma than you ( how many times have you posted that same nonsense about the IQ's of conservatives?)...nor does anyone lie as much as you do...which pretty much makes you the ultimate "tool".

 

[Staidhup]

The fact is they have, however, those dependent upon pandering for their political existence refuse to listen or simply lack the financial and economic background to comprehend the gravity of the situation.

Its hard to talk intelligently with a liberal because they fail to understand the difference between social theory and financial and economic reality.

This is the very reason liberal scream and jump up and down like spoiled little children that they are.

 

[Rshermr]

"Dogma...con tool...you lie..."

That pretty much sums you up, Rshermr. What's amusing is that NOBODY here regurgitates more talking point dogma than you ( how many times have you posted that same nonsense about the IQ's of conservatives?)...nor does anyone lie as much as you do...which pretty much makes you the ultimate "tool".

Is that your contribution to the thread for the day, me boy. Calling me a few names. But of course, I never lie. Ever. And you have never been able to catch me in a lie, over all these months. Because i know I am not smart enough to keep from getting caught if I did lie. And I would not much like myself if I did, either. You, on the other hand.......

Well, oldstyle, is that your contribution to the thread for the day??? Just a few more lies. Giving up on substantive stuff. Must be hard to swallow the fact that you really do not know economics. Funny.

 

[Rshermr]

The fact is they have, however, those dependent upon pandering for their political existence refuse to listen or simply lack the financial and economic background to comprehend the gravity of the situation.

Its hard to talk intelligently with a liberal because they fail to understand the difference between social theory and financial and economic reality.

This is the very reason liberal scream and jump up and down like spoiled little children that they are.

That post must have made sense to someone. Looks like just a piece calling liberals names. Profound.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is they have, however, those dependent upon pandering for their political existence refuse to listen or simply lack the financial and economic background to comprehend the gravity of the situation.

Its hard to talk intelligently with a liberal because they fail to understand the difference between social theory and financial and economic reality.

This is the very reason liberal scream and jump up and down like spoiled little children that they are.

That post must have made sense to someone. Looks like just a piece calling liberals names. Profound.

dear, 95% of your posts are pure name calling. Do you really not know that and it how indicates you were defeated long ago when you claimed Reagan proved liberalism was correct!!??