Liberal Forum

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 6:55 pm » wrote: I never claimed the "issue" was minor. His role on it was unquestionably minor.

For the edification of the board, this bathroomer is NOT on my payroll. The lobs are HIS idea- not mine.

I am not responsible for this guy's masochism OR his crush on me. Hell, I can't BLAME the guy for the crush - I have a crush on me, myself.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 7:09 pm » wrote: .

Another moonbat too freaking lazy or stupid to follow the dispute.

more lying troll crap

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:14 am » wrote: Cite one single time I have ever supported a Keynesian tax cut.

What would make a tax cut Keynesian in your view Clem? As short hand, can I just divide tax cuts into those which help capitalists and those which help laborers, and assume that all of those which help working people are "Keynesian," and you oppose them?

I'll bet I have nailed it...

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 8:16 pm » wrote: What would make a tax cut Keynesian in your view Clem? As short hand, can I just divide tax cuts into those which help capitalists and those which help laborers, and assume that all of those which help working people are "Keynesian," and you oppose them?

I'll bet I have nailed it...

1) You didn't cite when I've supported a Keynesian tax cut

2) You don't know what one is.

3) And you're wrong about me not wanting to help, shades of Marxism, "laborers.

So you're zero for three.

How typical.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 8:29 pm » wrote: 1) You didn't cite when I've supported a Keynesian tax cut
he didn't claim he did, he is asking you to commit yourself, BUT you think you craftily dodged committing yourself with that cheap troll crap. Thats minus ten for failing to disguise your tricky trollery.

2) You don't know what one is.
arguing facts not in evidence. in other words, troll crap. Giving the appearance of being soooo **** organized in his comprehensive thought process as to make an enumerated list that appears efficient but is just another cheap propaganda technique... priceless, but arbitrarily assigned a minus ten because I can make phony value assessments with the best of them.

3) And you're wrong about me not wanting to help, shades of Marxism, "laborers.
arguing facts not in evidence. translation: "it is so because I say it is so"

So you're zero for three.
you are minus lots and lots because I say so

How typical.

typical that your intellect is so easily exposed for what it is, anytime I care to.

come on trollscum, show me some propaganda crap that I can't dismantle at will

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 8:29 pm » wrote:
1) You didn't cite when I've supported a Keynesian tax cut

2) You don't know what one is.

3) And you're wrong about me not wanting to help, shades of Marxism, "laborers.

So you're zero for three.

How typical.

Yes, laborers.


Shades of MARXISM. Actual LABORERS!

Anyhow, nice dodge.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 10. tax cuts.

You ignore the many tax increases. The first one was an increase in the Cigarette tax which hist the poor people for the most part.

Thank you. every time I point that out about Reagan's tax increases on labor to offset his cuts on capital, your bedfellows go to lying and screeching and flapping their effeminate arms.

But I did not "ignore" that - any more than I "ignored" that Obama owned a red bicycle when he was 11. The challenge was not - as your critique implies - to find things Obie did that Repubs would disagree with. Y'all don't seem to need a whole bunch of help in that arena. My response was to the challenge put, not to the question, "What would help feed endo's envy of Obama?" But if you'd like to MAKE such a challenge...

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote:Raising the top income tax rate actually hurt the revenue from the rich.

Do you think Eisenhower understood this when he kept taxes on capital as high as 90% for both of his terms of service? Or was he kinda stupid? I wonder if Eisenhower hated the rich, or just hated America? I HOPE neither! Don't you?

Can you think of a reason - besides "envy" or "communism," now, since Eisenhower probably wasn't envious or a communist like FDR and Truman and Kennedy and Johnson and Carter and Clinton and Obama - that capital gains might have been kept so high for 30 years - during which we prospered more than at any other time in our history? And why the heck did the nation do so well during those times that our taxes on capital were higher than the laffer curve recommends, and start losing ground when we lowered them? What the HECK??? confused face emoticon

Is there something that high capital gains taxes might cause which OFFSETS the loss of revenues from the rich? If there IS, can you think what that might be?

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote:He knew this in an interview late in 2008. He said he still wanted the rate hike just to be fair. How is cutting the revenue from the rich helping the rest of us??? David and Christina Romer are two liberal economics professors at US Berkeley. They studied financial data from 1947 to 2005. They produced an analysis in 2007 and given to the Economic Review. They produced an update of it a few years later. Part of their findings is that when the top rate goes above 33% the revenue from the rich falls thus the peak of the Laffer Curve is 33%. .

Again, "from the rich." Have you thought about my challenge? Do you think that the rich can float this nation by themselves? I think I'd better educate you a little.

If you took all of the money that the rich HAVE - 100% of ALL their wealth, that still would not pay our national debt. So you need to focus a little less on what we collect from the rich. It's a drop in the bucket, son.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 8. Increased the size of the armed forces????? That was just temporary foolish one. After a couple of years he kept on reducing the size of the military. That caused the less able National guard and the reserves of the take up the slack and take turns in the rotation. Our military is much weakened now. Why do you ignore this????

That's a really great argument. It's elegant. Just saying stuff, with no offer of proof, saves you a lot time and effort. I could use this strategy to remove a thorn from my heel. I should just find a stupid guy, point him at Glory Hole Clem, and hit his spew-tard button. Keeps Clem busy and keeps whatever retard I find for the job busy.

Hey - want a job?

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 7. regularity of deployments has had to use the reserves and guard to do that. Your head is in the sand.

Good refutation. If you ignore that Bush had already been deploying guards and reserves from the beginning and had held people past their terms of service and had re-deployed them more frequently than promised and with less interval between deployments than their signing documents promised, and then you ignore that Obama ceased that practice, and then you just spew some drivel along the lines of, "Obama hadda use the guard and whatnot," my point seems to have been answered without ever having been addressed at all.

Good job - Very smart. You should be one of those snappy teevee people.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 6. End the abuse of the supplemental budgets? Until the most recent budget it was continuing resolutions that had an increase in the % spent in all budget areas. Thus using the first budget he had with the stimulus and the last part of the TARP was continued in the money to be used for the budget. The Democrats divided it up the way they wanted to in the first one so we had years of $1 trillion plus deficits. It has been tapered down now but still makes the Bush budgets done by Republicans look like a miser. Why do Democrats who ranted and raved about the Bush deficits go silent on the Obama deficits????? HYPOCRISY

I will alert politifact to their error. I have a hunch you correct them on a regular basis, and do so quite powerfully with links and proofs as profound and enlightening as the ones with which you have just crushed MY argument. I pity those fools at politifact, knowing they're about to get a knowledge bomb dropped on them.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 5. 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan. Too little too late. Pathetic surge.

Agreed. Obama was an idiot for listening to his generals instead of consulting you. And considering that Bush was using troops for longer rotations than agreed, with smaller intervals between rotations than agreed, and for more aggregate combat-zone rotations than agreed, staffing levels in the broken, run down, under-equipped armies Obiewan inherited were probably peachy - just peachy. Bear in mind that soldiers' FAMILIES were purchasing the armor they needed. C17 cargo plane loads of hundred dollar bills were going missing, while churches held raffles to supply our troops with armor. But I will agree with YOUR position that Obama inherited options - lots of options, - and no impediments.

Great refutation - way up there with what I have come to expect from you, son.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: he ignore the people who know what they are doing. Why does he go with political hacks instead of people who know what they are doing. The Ebola Czar is a perfect example.

Like I said, listening to his generals over you was a huge mistake. We're on the same page, kid.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 4. Never heard of this. What I leep on hearing is the devastation he keeps on causing with his green EPA actions. Coal is being killed. Counties of areas where the miners are the big majority of people living there they are mostly out of work and the newer regulations will kill all coal. Obama made a speech and is proud of this. He keeps on killing other jobs with the EPA.

West Virginia remains blue. The bad bad spill that a koch supplier had - and that company's immediate bankruptcy filing to socializ the costs of their behaviors while maintaining all of their profits from it as private - will probably help to remind them why they continue to go their own way, instead of going red as do most states below the Mason Dixon.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 3. Best practices for disabled veterans along side of the vets dying for lack of treatment.

You're introducing a separate topic, instead of addressing the one you pretend to answer. Good strategy. If you can't refute me, just answer some other fella while you're looking at me. Folks will think you really gave me what for.

Well, the stupid ones will - but those are all your pals, anyway, so who cares what a bunch of egg heads think? Readers, most of 'em. Snicker.

And it's not like I have any ready answer to your derail.. It's not like I can say that the previous president shares some blame for failing to do any planning for the V.A. to change it's capacities to account for two wars being fought at the same time over the coarse of a decade. It's not like I can talk about Walter Reed and what a slap in the face THAT was to our nation's military. Because if I DID go into that, I'd be playing along with your attempt to derail, Petunia, and I'd be ignoring the fact that your need to derail signals your incompetence to refute me - or even try.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote:2. Saved Chrysler but gutted GM. Obama killed Pontiac and Saturn then tried to kill Hummer. He violated the law and killed all of the preferred stocks that are first in line for money on a bankruptcy thus killing many peoples 401K that had investment in these stocks. Such a great President. Laws and the constitution mean nothing to him and his administration. The money given to them was paid back and then loaned back to them thus allowing the administration to say that GM paid the government back.

Good links. I will again alert politifact to your corrections.

Endoscopy » 19 Oct 2014 3:53 am » wrote: 1. Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act???? Most of the issues in the act were already being done locally. Much ado about nothing.

I would characterize the whining and screeching and apocalyptic demagoguery from the progressives on fox (and the queers who ape them) in precisely that manner. At least we agree on SOMETHING, child.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 9:57 pm » wrote: Anyhow, nice dodge.

Yes, you did try that.

Here, try again.

1) You didn't cite when I've supported a Keynesian tax cut

2) You don't know what one is.

3) And you're wrong about me not wanting to help, shades of Marxism, "laborers.

So you're zero for three.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 9:59 pm » wrote: Do you think Eisenhower understood this when he kept taxes on capital as high as 90% for both of his terms of service? Or was he kinda stupid? I wonder if Eisenhower hated the rich, or just hated America? I HOPE neither! Don't you?

Who care what Eisenhower knew or didn't about Economics. No one except the monbat left is even considering such a stupid tax rate.
Are you advocating it?

If not, what's your point?

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 9:59 pm » wrote: Thank you. every time I point that out about Reagan's tax increases on labor to offset his cuts on capital, your bedfellows go to lying and screeching and flapping their effeminate arms. .

How typically stupid that you call that "Reagan's" tax hike.

It was Tip O'Neil's and Democrats' demand, to which Reagan only conceded in exchange for spending cuts that Tip O'Neil promised.

O'Neil broke his word, and Reagan called the deal the biggest mistake of his presidency.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:22 pm » wrote:
How typically stupid that you call that "Reagan's" tax hike.

It was Tip O'Neil's and Democrats' demand, to which Reagan only conceded in exchange for spending cuts that Tip O'Neil promised.

O'Neil broke his word, and Reagan called the deal the biggest mistake of his presidency.

Good link. Great meme.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:15 pm » wrote: Who care what Eisenhower knew or didn't about Economics.

Apparently, the person I responded to did. He brought up the laffer curve. Do you not care about the laffer curve?

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:15 pm » wrote: No one except the monbat left is even considering such a stupid tax rate.

Link?

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:15 pm » wrote: Are you advocating it?

If not, what's your point?

Abner? Is that you, Abner?

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:09 pm » wrote:
Yes, you did try that.

Here, try again.

1) You didn't cite when I've supported a Keynesian tax cut

2) You don't know what one is.

3) And you're wrong about me not wanting to help, shades of Marxism, "laborers.

So you're zero for three.

Nice dodge, kid.

Your response to, "What would be a Keynesian tax cut" is. I did NOT! Prove it!

You don;t even know what it is!

Laborers? MARXISM!

Keep dancing, kid.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:28 pm » wrote: Good link. Great meme.

Wow, so slapping the term "meme" on that refutes documented history, right? Because that deal has been recorded in many accounts of the Reagan presidency.

Now do your little troll dance.

Brattle Street » 19 Oct 2014 9:44 pm » wrote: typical that your intellect is so easily exposed for what it is, anytime I care to.

come on trollscum, show me some propaganda crap that I can't dismantle at will

It's pretty obvious that little richie's programmers, when confronted with Obie cutting taxes, groused that those were poopy tax cuts, not "good" tax cuts. And then, finding no way on earth to tie Saul Alinski to tax cuts, one of the talking heads that moron listens to ran this gambit: "Obama's tax custs are KEYNESIAN!"

And richie had a new meme. He's going to duck and dodge, but he is not going to explain what a Keynesian tax cut is because he does not know - he just knows that if he says *** tax cut, he'll catch hell.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:32 pm » wrote: Nice dodge, kid.

Your response to, "What would be a Keynesian tax cut" is. I did NOT! Prove it!

You don;t even know what it is!

Laborers? MARXISM!

Keep dancing, kid.

What a complete and utter waste of time you are.

Either you bury your opponent in babbling bulls*** or you just lie through your teeth.

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:35 pm » wrote:
Wow, so slapping the term "meme" on that refutes documented history, right? Because that deal has been recorded in many accounts of the Reagan presidency.

Now do your little troll dance.

Well, heck - If I can't take the word of an actual police state supporter and Pinochet cheerleader, who can I trust?

Will you AT LEAST go along with me referring to 1081 - 1989 as the Tip O'Neal presidency, since the buck always stops with him?

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:37 pm » wrote:
What a complete and utter waste of time you are.

Either you bury your opponent in babbling bulls*** or you just lie through your teeth.

Oh, goodie. A projecto-tard.

I asked you what was a Keynesian tax cut 15 posts back, and we've had a cummulative 7 back and forths, counting Brattle's response to your dancing, you little progressive commie symp.

If you knew, you'd answer. You don't, so you dance.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:37 pm » wrote: It's pretty obvious that little richie's programmers, when confronted with Obie cutting taxes, groused that those were poopy tax cuts, not "good" tax cuts. And then, finding no way on earth to tie Saul Alinski to tax cuts, one of the talking heads that moron listens to ran this gambit: "Obama's tax custs are KEYNESIAN!"

And richie had a new meme. He's going to duck and dodge, but he is not going to explain what a Keynesian tax cut is because he does not know - he just knows that if he says *** tax cut, he'll catch hell.

It's so cute when psychotics find comfort in each other's paranoid delusions.

I "don't know" what a Keynesian tax cut is? I was debating their effect when Clinton was president, imbecile.

And I've read about Economics for almost four decades. Think I've learned what one is by now?

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 10:42 pm » wrote: Oh, goodie. A projecto-tard.

I asked you what was a Keynesian tax cut 15 posts back, and we've had a cummulative 7 back and forths, counting Brattle's response to your dancing, you little progressive commie symp.

If you knew, you'd answer. You don't, so you dance.

Oh gosh, the troll who has evaded every single question I've asked is going to whine that I haven't answered his stunningly easy question?

Here's a hint. What subject do I most often debate other than politics?

You get three guesses, and the first two don't count.