Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 170

Thread: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

  1. #121
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,263

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Your answer was both incorrect, and a very lame attempt to dodge.

    New York Federal Reserve economist Gauti Eggertsson stated in his paper, "Can tax cuts deepen a recession?"





    Source

    Not only do you fumble in your response, but then make another error in neglecting to factor the difference between our current environment (zero bound interest rate environment) and the early 1980's (double digit interest rates). So pay extra attention to pages 7 and 10 in the sourced PDF. It helps to illustrate your error.

    The reasons tax cuts were helpful in the 1980s does not apply in the current; therefore you should be a good champ, and refrain from mentioning the 80's when discussing the current economic environment. Such an error is actually quite embarrassing.



    While i do agree that tax cuts can have an impact on increasing future revenue; the fact of the matter is the market does possess a lag in how consumers internalize the tax incentive. The initial result (without cutting spending; negative GDP determinant) is increased deficits as has been shown in any post war data you care to examine.

    Yet there is research that shows the Bush tax cuts were not only inefective, they substantially increased the deficit by nearly $920 billion.





    Source


    Pay extra attention to page 10 figure K. Do you have any partisan bull**** which can explain the under-performance of the post 2003 recovery?



    Irrelevant. This recession is the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. You still cannot explain how the economy grew despite the massively progressive tax rates from 1945-1970.



    Incorrect once again. How many is this in a row? You are aware that over $280 billion of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts/breaks?



    The only one in this thread that has typed those words is you.


    Are you obtuse? The statistic (government revenues as a percentage of GDP) allows us to analyze the real revenue effects of the Reagan tax cuts. If the tax cuts boosted government revenue in the fashion you claim, we would witness an increase in government revenue as a percentage of GDP. In reality, we watched massive government spending (Keynesian!) combined with deficits even during growth years. The tax cuts a minimal effect on inducing increased tax revenue.


    Nope! I am simply analyzing the situation on the basis of reality and objectivity. Quite a shame you lack both the desire and ability to do the same.



    Incorrect once again. Actually, the revenues/GDP % had been declining since 1978, signifying the makings of a recession. The fact that they continued to fall (even in the stages of recovery) negates the fantasy world you live in. Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot look up tax revenues and state that because they happened in the same time frame as tax cuts, state with any accuracy it's those very tax cuts that is the cause. Poor economic analysis, and a juvenile argument style. Time to pick it up a notch.



    I reserve judgment based on the facts and circumstances surrounding them. Now, my generation will be forced to foot the bill for your generations inability to accept any sort of fiscal responsibility (except for the Clinton era).



    Opinion and nothing else. The Soviet system was poised for collapse due to various destabilizing economic factors that stem from a command economy.



    Glad to use this piece to illustrate your partisan blinders:



    Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com



    Already acknowledged the positive effects in regards to the stagflationary environment.



    Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right You do not even understand supply side theory



    We have already addressed how you mis-analyzed the data. Perhaps something a bit more suited to your abilities: here.



    Sad truly sad.... I don't know why i should have to explain such a simple notion. Productivity increases during recessions because firms are forced to do with less. Due to price rigidities and "labor hoarding" (might want to look it up), productivity spikes during recessions (you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone) then diminishes, giving a positive effect to labor demand. The question i have is: will you even admit your error?



    You are in no position to make such a judgment about me. I have displayed superior understanding and familiarity regarding the subject matter, where as you have struggled on a consistent basis to develop any real cause in your statement.

    Love how you post comments from people like Krugman. That gives you little credibility as you sound like a "book smart, street stupid" individual who is out of touch with reality. The one thing that liberals never understand is human behavior and the affects behavior has on the economy.

    Inflation is driven by basic supply and demand. If supply doesn't increase with the money supply inflation occurs. You can spin it any way you want but that is the reality.

    Your so called superior understanding is nothing more than quoting economists that you agree with or want to believe. Quoting economists may make you feel good and make you think you are smart but that doesn't make you an expert on the subject like you prefer to believe. I can quote you comments from other economists that refute yours but what good would it do.

    I prefer instead to quote actual facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury. Further I will put my economic record up against yours any day. When the American people keep more of what they earn they need less of so called govt. help. I prefer that any day. Tax cuts will never deepen a recession no matter what your economist friends say. Get out in the real world for a change.

  2. #122
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Congress should financially handle themselves before they even think about trying to regulate Wall Street. Thank you Republicans for preventing the Dems from trying to ram through more garbage.
    what garbage, specifically?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #123
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,263

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    what garbage, specifically?
    The garbage that ignores Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the real fraud in this country which is a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. and growing. We have a govt. today that will add 3 trillion dollars to the debt in two years yet is more worried about attacking private industry. That is what this Administration does, attack private business and expands the role of govt.

  4. #124
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,263

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Your answer was both incorrect, and a very lame attempt to dodge.

    New York Federal Reserve economist Gauti Eggertsson stated in his paper, "Can tax cuts deepen a recession?"





    Source
    What you and economists ignore are actual results created by consumer behavior. Could it be that arrogant liberal economists don't believe they should get actual data before spouting their rhetoric and theory?

    Here are the facts. Notice there is a difference between a tax cut and a tax rate cut. The tax cuts that Obama gave us was NOT a rate cut thus was actually paid back as withholding tables weren't changed and people paid less tax than they owed in many cases. The Bush tax RATE cut went into effect in July 2003. Notice GDP and Unemployment rates AFTER those tax cuts. GDP grew from 10.6 trillion to over 14 trillion dollars during the Bush term and prior to the recession that was caused by poor Congressional oversight Unemployment dropped from 6.0 percent to 4.4% so don't give me liberal economist theory, deal in facts.

    GDP

    2001 10286
    2002 10642
    2003 11142
    2004 11867
    2005 12638
    2006 13398
    2007 14077
    2008 14441

    http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Tabl...=2010&Freq=Qtr


    Unemployment Rate

    2001 4.2
    2002 6.0
    2003 5.7
    2004 5.4
    2005 4.9
    2006 4.4
    2007 5.0

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

    The reasons tax cuts were helpful in the 1980s does not apply in the current; therefore you should be a good champ, and refrain from mentioning the 80's when discussing the current economic environment. Such an error is actually quite embarrassing.
    What is embarrassing is a so called expert that ignores the power of the American consumer and entreprenuers. What you and economists ignore is behavior and always will because all aren't the elitist that these economists think they are.



    While i do agree that tax cuts can have an impact on increasing future revenue; the fact of the matter is the market does possess a lag in how consumers internalize the tax incentive. The initial result (without cutting spending; negative GDP determinant) is increased deficits as has been shown in any post war data you care to examine.

    Yet there is research that shows the Bush tax cuts were not only inefective, they substantially increased the deficit by nearly $920 billion.
    Here are the tax revenue during that period of time as well so your so called facts are lies. Any tax rate cut that grows revenue has nothing to do with deficits. Only those that fear the American people spending their own money and becoming less dependent on the govt. should be concerned and usually are. What is Krugman's vision of America and the role of Govt?

    2003 2163.7
    2004 2002.1
    2005 2047.9
    2006 2213.2
    2007 2546.8
    2008 2807.4

    http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Tabl...=2010&Freq=Qtr



    Source


    Pay extra attention to page 10 figure K. Do you have any partisan bull**** which can explain the under-performance of the post 2003 recovery?

    BEA.gov disagrees with you and captures actual data that destroys economic theory.


    Irrelevant. This recession is the most severe economic downturn since the great depression. You still cannot explain how the economy grew despite the massively progressive tax rates from 1945-1970.
    That is a lie, the only thing created was a crisis and we all know Obama's feelings about crisis, never let one go to waste. The economic conditions when Reagan took office was much worse than when Obama took office and Obama made it worse. The GDP growth during Obama's first two years was mostly due to growing the size of govt. not growing the private sector and real GDP.



    Incorrect once again. How many is this in a row? You are aware that over $280 billion of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts/breaks?
    Do you know the difference between a tax cut and a tax rate cut? Apparently not. Did you pay your taxes this year or do you earn income? Obama gave the American people a tax cut but didn't cut rates therefore withholding wasn't changed thus millions under paid their taxes and had to make up for it on April 15. Thanks Obama for nothing. By the way, tax revenue thanks to obama has been down every quarter since he took office.


    Are you obtuse? The statistic (government revenues as a percentage of GDP) allows us to analyze the real revenue effects of the Reagan tax cuts. If the tax cuts boosted government revenue in the fashion you claim, we would witness an increase in government revenue as a percentage of GDP. In reality, we watched massive government spending (Keynesian!) combined with deficits even during growth years. The tax cuts a minimal effect on inducing increased tax revenue.
    What the hell does govt. revenue as a percentage of GDP have to do with anything. Percentages are affected by the size of the pot. Real dollars is all that matters. Govt. revenue doubled in the 80's as did GDP. Explain how that happened?

    Nope! I am simply analyzing the situation on the basis of reality and objectivity. Quite a shame you lack both the desire and ability to do the same.
    You are right, I can see that BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites have no impact on your so called analysis. How dare me use actual numbers which I did above.



    Incorrect once again. Actually, the revenues/GDP % had been declining since 1978, signifying the makings of a recession. The fact that they continued to fall (even in the stages of recovery) negates the fantasy world you live in. Correlation does not equal causation. You cannot look up tax revenues and state that because they happened in the same time frame as tax cuts, state with any accuracy it's those very tax cuts that is the cause. Poor economic analysis, and a juvenile argument style. Time to pick it up a notch.
    You have missed your calling, you need to go to work for the NON PARTISAN BEA and tell them they are wrong in reporting economic numbers and revenue. Another correlation does not equal causation defense. Think that is a winner? Think the American people give a damn about your theory? They care about real dollars and giving people more of their money back in EACH paycheck beats a rebate and more govt. spending.


    I reserve judgment based on the facts and circumstances surrounding them. Now, my generation will be forced to foot the bill for your generations inability to accept any sort of fiscal responsibility (except for the Clinton era).
    "Your" generation is very poorly schooled on behavior, human activity, and how our economy works. yours is based upon theory that ignores actual facts. My Generation did quite well but did create part of the problem, we gave people like you way too much that you failed to earn thus do not respect. Tax rate cuts did not cause the deficits, irresponsible spending did, the idea that everyone deserves to own a house did, that it is the governments role to provide cradle to grave coverage, and that there are no consequences for personal failure.


    Opinion and nothing else. The Soviet system was poised for collapse due to various destabilizing economic factors that stem from a command economy.
    Tell that to Gorby who disagrees with you in his own book. Of course your economists know better.



    Glad to use this piece to illustrate your partisan blinders:



    Reagan and revenue - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
    Again debunked above and an example where theory ignores actual results.

    Such black and white thinking renders you both subjective and boring. Although it is fun to intellectually outpoint the partisan right You do not even understand supply side theory
    You are indeed a legend in your OWN mind.


    Sad truly sad.... I don't know why i should have to explain such a simple notion. Productivity increases during recessions because firms are forced to do with less. Due to price rigidities and "labor hoarding" (might want to look it up), productivity spikes during recessions (you can only squeeze so much blood from a stone) then diminishes, giving a positive effect to labor demand. The question i have is: will you even admit your error?
    I will always admit when wrong but theory doesn't do it. Actual results from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the checkbook of the United States refutes your theory. All elite economists are doing is making you look foolish as facts always trump theory.


    You are in no position to make such a judgment about me. I have displayed superior understanding and familiarity regarding the subject matter, where as you have struggled on a consistent basis to develop any real cause in your statement.
    What you have proven is that economist theory and ignorance of actual data makes you look foolish. When you address actual data I will be happy to continue the re-education of someone like you.
    Last edited by Conservative; 05-04-10 at 12:46 PM. Reason: Added links

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    05-19-10 @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    496

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    You're dealing with a statist Keynesian hack here, conservative. There is no possibility for a rational debate with an elitist leftist posing as a libertarian...

  6. #126
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,263

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by 1984 View Post
    You're dealing with a statist Keynesian hack here, conservative. There is no possibility for a rational debate with an elitist leftist posing as a libertarian...
    Probably, that is why I went back and edited the post to put in the links so he can find for himself actual numbers. Doubt it will make a difference because people like him don't understand or want to understand human behavior and how behavior destroys theory.

    It does seem that far too many prefer one taxpayer paying $1000 in taxes to 2 taxpayers paying $500 each. Although the initial tax revenue is the same the end result is different. There is a multiplier effect of those tax cuts since you now have two taxpayers buying goods and services vs. one, basics of good management

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    05-19-10 @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    496

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Probably, that is why I went back and edited the post to put in the links so he can find for himself actual numbers. Doubt it will make a difference because people like him don't understand or want to understand human behavior and how behavior destroys theory.

    It does seem that far too many prefer one taxpayer paying $1000 in taxes to 2 taxpayers paying $500 each. Although the initial tax revenue is the same the end result is different. There is a multiplier effect of those tax cuts since you now have two taxpayers buying goods and services vs. one, basics of good management
    Lower taxes means less government involvement in the economy, which his type finds objectionable; the government must allocate funds because the average Americans is too stupid to know what's good for them; he's an elitist who never got the memo: Central management sucks.

  8. #128
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,263

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by 1984 View Post
    Lower taxes means less government involvement in the economy, which his type finds objectionable; the government must allocate funds because the average Americans is too stupid to know what's good for them; he's an elitist who never got the memo: Central management sucks.
    The real battle right now is between those that support small govt. against those that support big govt. Notice that no one will truly respond to their vision of the govt. and its role.

    I believe we need a smaller central govt. and a part time legislature like many states have. The govt's role is to protect this country from foreign and domestic enemies and to promote individual wealth creation. It is through individual wealth creation that people prosper and need less govt.

  9. #129
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What you and economists ignore are actual results created by consumer behavior. Could it be that arrogant liberal economists don't believe they should get actual data before spouting their rhetoric and theory?
    Liberal ignorant? I call that nothing short of partisan hackery. Because you are unable to defend your position with any sort of accuracy, you resort to attacking the authors of published economic works. Great strategy!

    Here are the facts. Notice there is a difference between a tax cut and a tax rate cut. The tax cuts that Obama gave us was NOT a rate cut thus was actually paid back as withholding tables weren't changed and people paid less tax than they owed in many cases. The Bush tax RATE cut went into effect in July 2003. Notice GDP and Unemployment rates AFTER those tax cuts. GDP grew from 10.6 trillion to over 14 trillion dollars during the Bush term and prior to the recession that was caused by poor Congressional oversight Unemployment dropped from 6.0 percent to 4.4% so don't give me liberal economist theory, deal in facts.

    GDP

    2001 10286
    2002 10642
    2003 11142
    2004 11867
    2005 12638
    2006 13398
    2007 14077
    2008 14441

    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
    And you still have yet to wrap your mind around the fact that correlation does not equal causation. Just because the tax cuts happened before a recovery does not mean tax cuts caused the recovery. To make such a statement, you will need to take a more sophisticated approach and chain weight the time series, and then differentiate specific categories and their respective growth rates against the averaged bands of previous recessions.


    Unemployment Rate

    2001 4.2
    2002 6.0
    2003 5.7
    2004 5.4
    2005 4.9
    2006 4.4
    2007 5.0

    Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Again, you cannot link a causative effect because there is none.

    What is embarrassing is a so called expert that ignores the power of the American consumer and entreprenuers. What you and economists ignore is behavior and always will because all aren't the elitist that these economists think they are.
    And what you are doing is ignoring American consumption patterns while holding the role of the entrepreneur constant. US spending did in fact grow following tax cuts, as did imports Is there an income effect as the result of a higher propensity to consume foreign goods? Most likely, but to what effect and how much of that carries over to domestic goods? All legitimate questions that have to be answered before you can make such broad and bold exclamations.

    Here are the tax revenue during that period of time as well so your so called facts are lies. Any tax rate cut that grows revenue has nothing to do with deficits. Only those that fear the American people spending their own money and becoming less dependent on the govt. should be concerned and usually are. What is Krugman's vision of America and the role of Govt?

    2003 2163.7
    2004 2002.1
    2005 2047.9
    2006 2213.2
    2007 2546.8
    2008 2807.4

    U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
    Must we repeat this exercise? You have yet to show any bit of cause. Yet something does not match:

    Current receipts
    2003: 3,043.4
    2004: 3,265.7
    2005: 3,659.3
    2006: 3,995.2
    2007: 4,209.2
    2008: 4,057.6
    2009: 3,745.5
    source

    Your "source" gives the years of 2009 and 2010. So i reserve serious doubts about your integrity or accuracy. Personal taxation receipts do not match either.

    Something else that is interesting. In 2000, tax receipts were about 89% of consumption expenditures and transfer payments; in 2003, tax receipts were 66% of consumption expenditures and transfer payments; in 2007 it was up slightly (at the peak of the bubble) to 74% of CE and TP. Which illustrates that the result of tax cuts never lived up to the promise, and massive deficits occurred (DURING PERIODS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH). When the tax receipts face a drop of 2 standard deviations relative to expenditure during growth year differentials (2000 and 2006), your argument falls apart.

    What we did witness was economic growth having a positive relationship to increases in public and private debt. Such a policy and type of growth pattern is/was unsustainable.

    BEA.gov disagrees with you and captures actual data that destroys economic theory.
    And you go and **** up your "correlation equals causation" argument by not reporting the data with any sort of accuracy, and then improperly analyze the data.

    That is a lie, the only thing created was a crisis and we all know Obama's feelings about crisis, never let one go to waste. The economic conditions when Reagan took office was much worse than when Obama took office and Obama made it worse. The GDP growth during Obama's first two years was mostly due to growing the size of govt. not growing the private sector and real GDP.
    Incorrect, although not shocking. Credit markets, for the first time since the end of the GD ground to almost a halt. Financial institutions with assets managed to the tune of nearly $1 trillion dollars were collapsing and on the brink of collapse. The TED spread was at its highest in recorded history. Between August 2008 and March 2009, nearly $20 trillion of US wealth disappeared (130% of GDP). So face the facts, and take your lame partisan hackery elsewhere.

    Do you know the difference between a tax cut and a tax rate cut? Apparently not. Did you pay your taxes this year or do you earn income? Obama gave the American people a tax cut but didn't cut rates therefore withholding wasn't changed thus millions under paid their taxes and had to make up for it on April 15. Thanks Obama for nothing. By the way, tax revenue thanks to obama has been down every quarter since he took office.
    Withholdings did in fact change, not in a massive tune, and not for higher income demographics. Tax revenue tends to take a dive when unemployment peaks. Thanks for further exemplifications of your ignorance

    What the hell does govt. revenue as a percentage of GDP have to do with anything. Percentages are affected by the size of the pot. Real dollars is all that matters. Govt. revenue doubled in the 80's as did GDP. Explain how that happened?
    Mostly from inflation and the steady state (population increases). As Krugman elegantly pointed out, the real rate (factor out population increases and inflation) was 19%! Good lord are you dense.

    You are right, I can see that BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites have no impact on your so called analysis. How dare me use actual numbers which I did above.
    LOL, actual numbers that mean nothing in regards to proving causation, and actual numbers that do not represent the reality. Now try again to post both the real numbers

    You have missed your calling, you need to go to work for the NON PARTISAN BEA and tell them they are wrong in reporting economic numbers and revenue. Another correlation does not equal causation defense. Think that is a winner? Think the American people give a damn about your theory? They care about real dollars and giving people more of their money back in EACH paycheck beats a rebate and more govt. spending.
    And here is what you miss on a consistant basis. I am not stating their numbers are wrong, or that tax revenue did not increase et al. I am stating that you cannot attribute the tax cuts for causation siting the numbers if and of themselves. Remember, correlation does not equal causation, and until you show any, you will continue to come of as a senile old fart obsessed with the past.

    "Your" generation is very poorly schooled on behavior, human activity, and how our economy works. yours is based upon theory that ignores actual facts. My Generation did quite well but did create part of the problem, we gave people like you way too much that you failed to earn thus do not respect. Tax rate cuts did not cause the deficits, irresponsible spending did, the idea that everyone deserves to own a house did, that it is the governments role to provide cradle to grave coverage, and that there are no consequences for personal failure.
    Nobody from my generation is a major political player, or had a hand in bringing down the financial system. Im 26 years old. It was you and your lot that ****ed everything up. And now you do not even have the decency to admit it, and attack my generation on the basis of reckless bias.

    Tell that to Gorby who disagrees with you in his own book. Of course your economists know better.
    Are you serious??? This is your rebuttal? Well, at least you are consistent.

    Again debunked above and an example where theory ignores actual results.
    Where? You made a comment not backed by any sound facts, nor the quote itself. FAIL!

    You are indeed a legend in your OWN mind.
    No, i am careful not to post my opinions in discussion such as these.

    I will always admit when wrong but theory doesn't do it. Actual results from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the checkbook of the United States refutes your theory. All elite economists are doing is making you look foolish as facts always trump theory.
    And must i repeat myself? Show causation or admit your error.

    What you have proven is that economist theory and ignorance of actual data makes you look foolish. When you address actual data I will be happy to continue the re-education of someone like you.
    You cannot even admit that tax cuts have a deflationary effect. Maybe you should just piss off and enjoy your old age.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #130
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Financial Reform Talks Near Collapse, Some GOPers Threaten To Defect

    Quote Originally Posted by 1984 View Post
    You're dealing with a statist Keynesian hack here, conservative. There is no possibility for a rational debate with an elitist leftist posing as a libertarian...
    Four Ad Homs in two sentences; nothing short of class! It would be best you make a relevant point regarding the discussion.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •