Liberal Forum

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:59 pm » wrote: If I knew what a Keynesian tax cut was, I would have said so by now. Why must you out me ON EVERY LIE I TELL, MOONBAT?

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

RichClem » 19 Oct 2014 10:59 pm » wrote:STOP OUTING ME!!!!

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 11:12 pm » wrote: He does not have an answer, except, "I know this stuff! You're dumb if you don't! Thanks for admitting you don't!"

He doesn't know.

that or, he realized that it was not going to provide the relief his argument was hoping for

Brattle Street » 19 Oct 2014 11:25 pm » wrote: that or, he realized that it was not going to provide the relief his argument was hoping for

He can't explain - he was taught to chirp it and thinks it sounds smart and assumed he would never be called on it.

But I went and checked, and it's just a republican talking point - there's no actual meaning to the empty phrase. It could just as easily be "poopy" tax cut or "not one of ours" tax cut. In this case, a more honest rendering would be "***" tax cut. But Glory Hole is not honest, as we see here:

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

Brattle Street » 19 Oct 2014 11:25 pm » wrote: that or, he realized that it was not going to provide the relief his argument was hoping for

He was fapping about Obie's tax cuts being "Keynesian," in order to try to pretend the tax cuts did not "count" on my list of stuff that Obie did which he would approve of and defend, had it been done by a white man.

When challenged, all he could do was duck. But that's what crooks do. I mean, just LOOK at this:

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

What kind of person lies like that, habitually? A bathroom republican is the answer.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 11:28 pm » wrote: He can't explain - he was taught to chirp it and thinks it sounds smart and assumed he would never be called on it.

But I went and checked, and it's just a republican talking point - there's no actual meaning to the empty phrase. It could just as easily be "poopy" tax cut or "not one of ours" tax cut. In this case, a more honest rendering would be "***" tax cut. But Glory Hole is not honest, as we see here:

it does have that madison ave. stench to it.

a nominal label built on glittered cardboard

Brattle Street » 19 Oct 2014 11:25 pm » wrote: that or, he realized that it was not going to provide the relief his argument was hoping for

I take it back. You were right. He realized that if he explained what a Keynesian tax cut was, I would call BS on him for his obvious lie, Here is the issue:

http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... -good.html

One dissenter was economist Milton Friedman. His research had led him to conclude that consumer spending was less a function of liquidity than something he called "permanent income." Friedman observed that when workers lost their jobs, they didn't immediately cut back on spending. They borrowed or drew down savings to maintain spending, in the expectation of finding a new job shortly. Conversely, consumers didn't immediately spend windfalls. They kept spending on an even keel until they achieved a promotion at work, or other increase in their long-term income expectations.
Thus Friedman predicted that the $100 to $200 checks disbursed by the Treasury Department in the spring of 1975 would have a minimal impact on spending, because they did not alter peoples' permanent income. Most likely, people would save the money or pay down debt, which is the same thing. Very little of the rebate would cause consumers to buy things they wouldn't otherwise have bought in the near term.
So, if you look at Obie's tax cuts, they were not Keynesian. The social security cut affected every W2 worker in America, lasted for a couple of years, and amounted to 2% of every affected worker's gross income. That's not Keynesian. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit was actually a reduction in withholding as well - so it increased take home pay, which is what we call a "tax cut" - a good thing when Republicans do them and a *** thing when done by democrats.

It was also not Keynesian, because of its duration - 2 years. A good example of a KEYNESIAN tax cut - or tax rebate, tax credit, etc - would be Obama's "fist time homebuyer" credit: a one time lump sum paid to anyone buying a home for the first time in three years, intended to increase consumer spending on a temporary basis. Other good examples would be most of the tax cuts that Bush ever passed - like his $600.00 happy checks at the end of several tax years during his Decidership. but those were GOOD tax cuts, implemented by a white man as God intended.

Plain and simple, the bush tax cuts were temporary (one year), had to be renewed, and affected wealthier folks more so than the working class.

Obama's cuts were temporary (two years), had to be renewed, and affected all workers equally.

Bush's were good, Obama's were bad - PRECISELY AS I PREDICTED IN MY VERY FIRST REQUEST FOR A DEFINITION!

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 12:00 am » wrote: I take it back. You were right. He realized that if he explained what a Keynesian tax cut was, I would call BS on him for his obvious lie, Here is the issue:

http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... -good.html

One dissenter was economist Milton Friedman. His research had led him to conclude that consumer spending was less a function of liquidity than something he called "permanent income." Friedman observed that when workers lost their jobs, they didn't immediately cut back on spending. They borrowed or drew down savings to maintain spending, in the expectation of finding a new job shortly. Conversely, consumers didn't immediately spend windfalls. They kept spending on an even keel until they achieved a promotion at work, or other increase in their long-term income expectations.
Thus Friedman predicted that the $100 to $200 checks disbursed by the Treasury Department in the spring of 1975 would have a minimal impact on spending, because they did not alter peoples' permanent income. Most likely, people would save the money or pay down debt, which is the same thing. Very little of the rebate would cause consumers to buy things they wouldn't otherwise have bought in the near term.
So, if you look at Obie's tax cuts, they were not Keynesian. The social security cut affected every W2 worker in America, lasted for a couple of years, and amounted to 2% of every affected worker's gross income. That's not Keynesian. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit was actually a reduction in withholding as well - so it increased take home pay, which is what we call a "tax cut" - a good thing when Republicans do them and a *** thing when done by democrats.

It was also not Keynesian, because of its duration - 2 years. A good example of a KEYNESIAN tax cut - or tax rebate, tax credit, etc - would be Obama's "fist time homebuyer" credit: a one time lump sum paid to anyone buying a home for the first time in three years, intended to increase consumer spending on a temporary basis. Other good examples would be most of the tax cuts that Bush ever passed - like his $600.00 happy checks at the end of several tax years during his Decidership. but those were GOOD tax cuts, implemented by a white man as God intended.

Plain and simple, the bush tax cuts were temporary (one year), had to be renewed, and affected wealthier folks more so than the working class.

Obama's cuts were temporary (two years), had to be renewed, and affected all workers equally.

Bush's were good, Obama's were bad - PRECISELY AS I PREDICTED IN MY VERY FIRST REQUEST FOR A DEFINITION!

if this thread is the strawberry shortcake, then all these backfiring forays into his deliberate diversions are the whip cream on top.

Brattle Street » 19 Oct 2014 10:59 am » wrote:
but hoping that people whose crime is not agreeing with the dedicated liar clemscum deserve to be raped by a pack of wild dogs is the action of a sane human?
how the **** can this worm claim to be qualified to judge who is psychotic? clemscum is subhuman ****

Brattle is at it again with the foolish rants. Using demonizing rhetoric. Either she is an Alynski disciple or is having a permanent case of PMS.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 12:00 am » wrote:So, if you look at Obie's tax cuts, they were not Keynesian. The social security cut affected every W2 worker in America, lasted for a couple of years, and amounted to 2% of every affected worker's gross income. That's not Keynesian. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit was actually a reduction in withholding as well - so it increased take home pay, which is what we call a "tax cut" - a good thing when Republicans do them and a *** thing when done by democrats.

I never called his payroll tax conservative, because it wasn't. Its effect on the economy was minimal because the change in rates was so low, and it de-funded Social Security. which is already approaching insolvency.

It was a bandaid on a bleeding wound.

Wrong again, psycho.

Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 11:38 pm » wrote: What kind of person lies like that, habitually? A bathroom republican is the answer.

WTF are you babbling about now, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 12:00 am » wrote:Plain and simple, the bush tax cuts were temporary (one year), had to be renewed, and affected wealthier folks more so than the working class.

Obama's cuts were temporary (two years), had to be renewed, and affected all workers equally.

Bush's were good, Obama's were bad - PRECISELY AS I PREDICTED IN MY VERY FIRST REQUEST FOR A DEFINITION!

There it is, folks, a complete and utter bungling of simple Economics, translated into race-bating psychotic bulls***.

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 9:14 am » wrote:
There it is, folks, a complete and utter bungling of simple Economics, translated into race-bating psychotic bulls***.

Feeling guilty, liar?

Your definition of Keynesian tax cuts PROVES I am right - and YOU brought race baiting into it. But thanks for letting us all know the real reason you are now reversing yourself on the definition of Keynesian tax cuts!

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 9:38 am » wrote: Feeling guilty, liar?

Your definition of Keynesian tax cuts PROVES I am right - and YOU brought race baiting into it. But thanks for letting us all know the real reason you are now reversing yourself on the definition of Keynesian tax cuts!

I don't know how I could reverse myself. I haven't yet defined a Keynesian tax cut.

But here's a hint. That tiny payroll tax cut wasn't one.

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 9:46 am » wrote: I don't know how I could reverse myself. I haven't yet defined a Keynesian tax cut.

What's this you say? You had a clear obligation to define it - brought on by YOU broaching the topic and using the term to dismiss evidence, - and you ran from your obligation, afraid to try to define your own copy-pasted iterm? And others defined it FOR you, since you were in default?

Bummer, little girl.

I guess you will do your own work - or just don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you don't. If an adult uses a term and it sounds clever, don;t pretend to understand it, kid.

Now, then. You were assigned a definition, because of cowardice. Cry and screech about forty years of sucking dicks now.

Do it.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 9:51 am » wrote: What's this you say? You had a clear obligation to define it - brought on by YOU broaching the topic and using the term to dismiss evidence, - and you ran from your obligation, afraid to try to define your own copy-pasted iterm? And others defined it FOR you, since you were in default?

Bummer, little girl.

I guess you will do your own work - or just don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you don't. If an adult uses a term and it sounds clever, don;t pretend to understand it, kid.

Now, then. You were assigned a definition, because of cowardice. Cry and screech about forty years of sucking dicks now.

Do it.

Let's start by clearing the air a little. You claimed that I'd "reversed myself" in my definition of a Keynesian cut.

Quote where I defined it.

Or f*** off.

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 9:11 am » wrote:
I never called his payroll tax conservative, because it wasn't. Its effect on the economy was minimal because the change in rates was so low, and it de-funded Social Security. which is already approaching insolvency.

It was a bandaid on a bleeding wound.

Wrong again, psycho.

Sorry, jaggazz. Too late.

There's no arguing keynesian/not keynesian.

You had a duty to define it yesterday, not to study it all night long and pretend to understand it today, poseur.

But you can explain these lies, if you like:

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

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 9:56 am » wrote:
Let's start by clearing the air a little. You claimed that I'd "reversed myself" in my definition of a Keynesian cut.

Quote where I defined it.

Or f*** off.

Too late, jaggazz. You were peremptorily assigned a definition to which your agreement was affixed in absentia under a business friendly, pro free market Evo Morales socialist sub-regulation about boy touchers who default.

You're dismissed with your prejudice.

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 10:00 am » wrote: Too late, jaggazz. You were peremptorily assigned a definition to which your agreement was affixed in absentia under a business friendly, pro free market Evo Morales socialist sub-regulation about boy touchers who default.

You're dismissed with your prejudice.

You mal-adjusted the gronificator, the voltage is too high and the amplitude is way off.

You claimed that I'd "reversed myself" in my definition of a Keynesian cut.

Quote where I defined it.

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 9:56 am » wrote: Let's start by clearing the air a little. You claimed that I'd "reversed myself" in my definition of a Keynesian cut.

Quote where I defined it.

Or f*** off.

this is the standard troll run around… what a **** amateur…. you are busted WIDE open, kid.

RichClem » 20 Oct 2014 9:14 am » wrote: There it is, folks, a complete and utter bungling of simple Economics, translated into race-bating psychotic bulls***.

we notice that you did not provide an explanation as to WHY…. why you think it is "utter bungling of simple Economics", little liar scum. Watch little clemmie start another run around trick to avoid standing behind his own assertion. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…. come on clemmie, explain it to us… don't forget empty appeals to the authority of, your own say so.

come on clemmie…. spout some troll crap that i can't disassemble…
you are an amateur propagandist that i continually kick to the curb… why are you so afraid of me little clemscum?