Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:07 pm » wrote: No you haven't - and you won't, because he didn't.

Show us one shred of evidence - or just harrumph and claim you did, in another thread, on another day.

Oh gosh, the psycho has gone blind, just like trolls always do when evidence is presented.

I've left several posts with sources supporting my claim, including the one just before yours.

All you have is your psychosis.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:07 pm » wrote: No you haven't - and you won't, because he didn't.

Show us one shred of evidence - or just harrumph and claim you did, in another thread, on another day.

So what does the following mean?

The achievement of Reaganomics can only be fully understood by recalling the miserable state of affairs a quarter-century ago. Newsweek summarized the national mood when it wrote in 1981 that Reagan "inherits the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago."

That was no exaggeration. The economy was enduring a cycle of rising inflation with growing levels of unemployment. Remember 20% mortgage interest rates? Terms like "stagflation" and "misery index" entered the popular vocabulary, and declinists of various kinds were in the saddle....

The reigning Keynesian policy consensus had no answer for this predicament, and so a new group of economic ideas came to the fore.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... d_outlooks

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:10 pm » wrote:
Oh gosh, the psycho has gone blind, just like trolls always do when evidence is presented.

I've left several posts with sources supporting my claim, including the one just before yours.

All you have is your psychosis.

"Sources" to opinion pieces, dullard. As you admitted in the first post of this thread, I am using raw data to argue my case. Why do you need to lean on the OPINIONS of authority figures to argue yours, retard?

Don't you have your own? Can't you argue it from the data, by yourself?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:11 pm » wrote:
So what does the following mean?

It means you mistake opinions for data, retard.

DATA does not use phrases like "miserable conditions" - ultimately a MEANINGLESS PHRASE. More miserable than pneumonia? Somalia? Salmonella? Cruella?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:11 pm » wrote: "Sources" to opinion pieces, dullard. As you admitted in the first post of this thread, I am using raw data to argue my case. Why do you need to lean on the OPINIONS of authority figures to argue yours, retard?

Still lying that there are no acceptable facts in opeds or columns? Psychotic.

I can't even get an answer out of you as to how many full time jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect.

You're like every troll on the board. You evade, dissemble and lie to protect your stupid opinions.

Don't you have your own? Can't you argue it from the data, by yourself?

Of course I can and have, but reality never gets in the way of your psychosis.

.

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

What or who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 6:09 pm » wrote: It wasn't me posting contradictory data. That was YOU.

And then I apologized, and tried to get an agreement from you as to which set of data you are willing to stick with.

I apologize AGAIN for referencing two sets of data. That's not how I am committed to proceeding.

Will you please tell me which set of data you are willing to argue throughout our conversation, so that we can debate the topic instead of bickering over this side issue?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:54 pm » wrote:
Where in the Constitution is the fourth branch of government created. I know it has to be right before the fifth, but it's been a while since I read the document.

It isn't in the Constitution. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors requires no government approiprattions, but -- for all intensive purposes -- it works with the government on terms of monetary policy.

That command does not comment on what branch of government the fed chair is in.

You asked me why does the President appoint the Fed Chairman. I told you.

The legislature oversees my local cable company, but that doesn't make it a branch of government.

While that may be true, why does the Congress need to oversee an entity, by law, if said entity is not a part of the Government?

If it's in the government, it's in one of the 57 branches, Mr. Obama.

You are aware that an agency does not have to be under a specific branch of government to be part of the government, correct?

How do you explain the SEC, CFTC, FTC, and may others. It's really no different from the Federal Reserve.

So it is not directed by either - must be in the judiciary, possibly the pleniary or congrutive brach?

Not under a branch of government. It doesn't need to be.

My link debunked that. It's pre-debunked.

How did your link debunk anything?

1. The Federal Reserve is not under any branch of government. There are more than 25 government agencies that are independent within the government.

2. No one needs to determine the budget for the Federal Reserve. Like other Independent Government agencies (United States Postal Service, Social Security Administration), the Federal Reserve doesn't require funding.

3. I've already said that the Congressional Banking Committee overseas the actions conducted by the Federal Reserve

4. The last point is so ridiculous, it's not even worth pointing out.

5. How exactly does your source debunk me when it even supports what I've said all along. "Independent within the government?" Check the second to last sentence.

Oh, and that's ****.

All of Unicef's money goes to charity - except the 90% for "overhead" (whoring).

It's far from bull.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/moneta...instmt2012.pdfEvery year the Federal Reserve releases one of these: A Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement (Or Independent Auditors Report). Inside are all of the financial activities conducted by the Federal Reserve for the entire year. Every loan it's ever made (and to whom or what), what types of assets it's purchasing, the type of income generated from each investment, etc (Page 6 if you want to follow along).

First you'll have its interest income (loans, bonds, etc). Majority of the money made by the Federal Reserve is through US Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities. That was a total of $82.5 Billion Dollars. Then you have Interest Expense, most of which are through Deposits into other banks (Banks which make money by accumulating excess reserves). That was a total of -$4,170, which makes net interest income $77.8 Billion. Now you also have Non-Interest Income (Dividends, Services, Capital Gains, etc) as well as Operating Expenses (Salaries, etc), all of which are calculated together.After this is all calculated, it is all remitted to the U.S. Treasury. In 2012, the Federal Reserve made a grand total of $90.5 Billion dollars. The Federal Reserve remitted $88.4 Billion of those dollars to the US Treasury. All Together, the Net Income of the Federal Reserve was $2 Billion dollars. Like any other business, the Federal Reserve has expenses and all expenses are paid before it actually makes a profit. But the profits are then remitted to the US Treasury. This is not new, it's been going on for decades. The Treasury now makes more money from the Federal Reserve due to it's OMO (or POMO).

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:19 pm » wrote:
Still lying that there are no acceptable facts in opeds or columns?

No. I am arguing that they are not, in and of themselves, facts.

We are now arguing facts, and our opinions of what those facts mean - not OTHER FOLKS' opinions, presented as if the are, in and of themselves, facts.

Try to join us, retard. Wipe the drool and jump right in.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:12 pm » wrote: It means you mistake opinions for data, retard.

DATA does not use phrases like "miserable conditions" - ultimately a MEANINGLESS PHRASE. More miserable than pneumonia? Somalia? Salmonella? Cruella?

Oh, so you have no idea what the conditions were. Thanks for admitting that.

Inflation that peaked at roughly 12%.

A recession Carter's last year in office.

A Prime Rate that exceeded 20%.

Plummeting incomes his last couple years in office.

A rising Misery Index, that fell under Reagan.

The Misery Index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun, and found by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation create economic and social costs for a country.

Jimmy Carter +7.00

Ronald Reagan -9.61

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_ind ... onomics%29

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:21 pm » wrote: No. I am arguing that they are not, in and of themselves, facts.

We are now arguing facts, and our opinions of what those facts mean - not OTHER FOLKS' opinions, presented as if the are, in and of themselves, facts.

Lying, as usual. You have not only refused to accept the facts before, but won't even address them in this thread.

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

Try to join us, retard. Wipe the drool and jump right in.

Psychotic.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 6:20 pm » wrote: It isn't in the Constitution.

Then it's not the "fourth branch" of the government. New branches of government require a Constitutional Amendment. Google it.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 6:20 pm » wrote:The Federal Reserve Board of Governors requires no government approiprattions, but -- for all intensive purposes -- it works with the government on terms of monetary policy.

WITH? Not AS, but WITH? Okay. So does my cable monopoly. Which branch of government is THAT privately held corporation in?

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 6:20 pm » wrote:While that may be true, why does the Congress need to oversee an entity, by law, if said entity is not a part of the Government?

Because the private entity has been granted a franchise by government - a monopoly, which requires oversight.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 6:20 pm » wrote: You are aware that an agency does not have to be under a specific branch of government to be part of the government, correct?

Incorrect. Neither of us is aware of that, though one of us seems misinformed on the issue.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 6:20 pm » wrote:How do you explain the SEC, CFTC, FTC, and may others. It's really no different from the Federal Reserve.

The SEC is part of the executive, as is the FTC. I am not familiar with the CFT.

I think your confusion is that government can give certain powers to corporations - for example, a department store can collect taxes on behalf of government. But that does not make department stores government agencies as part of a secret or nonexistent branch of government.

We have three branches of government, and 57 states. I think you have those numbers mixed up.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 6:20 pm » wrote: 5. How exactly does your source debunk me when it even supports what I've said all along. "Independent within the government?" Check the second to last sentence.

The one where it calls **** on that position?

We’d suggest the phrase “independent within the government” is much too ambiguous and has the effect of conveying great power while avoiding responsibility.

THAT ONE? Is that the part of my link that buttresses your position?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:32 pm » wrote:Then it's not the "fourth branch" of the government. New branches of government require a Constitutional Amendment. Google it.
WITH? Not AS, but WITH? Okay. So does my cable monopoly. Which branch of government is THAT privately held corporation in?
Because the private entity has been granted a franchise by government - a monopoly, which requires oversight.
Incorrect. Neither of us is aware of that, though one of us seems misinformed on the issue.
The SEC is part of the executive, as is the FTC. I am not familiar with the CFT.
I think your confusion is that government can give certain powers to corporations - for example, a department store can collect taxes on behalf of government. But that does not make department stores government agencies as part of a secret or nonexistent branch of government.
We have three branches of government, and 57 states. I think you have those numbers mixed up.
The one where it calls **** on that position?

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?


What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:34 pm » wrote:
How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?



What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

From my past conversations with you, the understanding I have is the the democrat congress owns Reagan's results.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:37 pm » wrote:
From my past conversations with you, the understanding I have is the the democrat congress owns Reagan's results.

Oh look, the troll dissembles and evades again, writing his customary bulls*** and lies.

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:39 pm » wrote:
Oh look, the troll dissembles and evades again, writing his customary bulls*** and lies.

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

Speak up, son.

I already answered you - the democrat congress owns all results between 81 and 89, whenever YOU AND I are disputing history.

I'm keeping you consistent, son.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:41 pm » wrote: Speak up, son.

I already answered you - the democrat congress owns all results between 81 and 89, whenever YOU AND I are disputing history.

I'm keeping you consistent, son.

I'm asking for a number regarding the first question. I see bulls***, but no number.

Nor do I see one bit of Economics regarding the second.

You're a psychotic empty suit and a liar, as all on the board are seeing.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:43 pm » wrote:
I'm asking for a number regarding the first question. I see bulls***, but no number.

Nor do I see one bit of Economics regarding the second.

You're a psychotic empty suit and a liar, as all on the board are seeing.

Harrumph, clem.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:44 pm » wrote:
Harrumph, clem.

What happened to Mr. Economics Expert?

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:45 pm » wrote:
What happened to Mr. Economics Expert?

How many jobs were created after Reagan's CONGRESS' tax cuts took full effect?

What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?

I can just as easily sit here and ask you, over and over, HOW MUCH WAS THE DEBT WHEN REAGAN CAME IN? DID HE TRIPLE IT? YES/NO.

Of course, you will just blame the congress. So, I can tell you, the answer to your question is: CONGRESS.

Live with it, bitch.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 6:53 pm » wrote:
I can just as easily sit here and ask you, over and over, HOW MUCH WAS THE DEBT WHEN REAGAN CAME IN? DID HE TRIPLE IT? YES/NO.

Of course, you will just blame the congress. So, I can tell you, the answer to your question is: CONGRESS.

Live with it, bitch.

Uh, actually, no. Aside from that you never asked, I gave a direct answer to who I thought bears most of the blame for that debt, like it or not.

So as usual, you're writing bulls***, lying and evading. The self-professed Economics expert who'll bleat forever about what tangential issues he wants to cherry pick, will stonewall two key questions.

How many jobs were created after Reagan's tax cuts took full effect?

What policies and who caused the recessions of 1980 and 1981-2?