My God, you are an idiot. - Page 223

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-09-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"After the stimulus? Only this big. But that's because I keep thinking about Eric Cantor."

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-09-2011, 05:27 PM

Uh oh.

LessinSF · 09-09-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed

I think that for Less "advocating payroll tax cuts because Republicans won't pass anything else" somehow means "totally loving the Laffer Curve and wanting to have like a thousand of its babies." That being said, I do not expect intellectual consistency or rigor from the Democratic party on economic theories. For that, I can read Krugman and get depressed.

or, simply, arguing that payroll tax cuts will lead to growth in the economy and therefore higher tax revenues, i.e. supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve.

But Ty knew this. He just doesn't want to admit that Obama has become Reagan and Geithner is David Stockman.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-09-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF

or, simply, arguing that payroll tax cuts will lead to growth in the economy...

This is Econ 101.

Quote:

...and therefore higher tax revenues, i.e. supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve.

With you that this is the Laffer Curve, but if any Democrat said or thinks this, I missed it.

Apropos of which, I heard Geithner on the radio this morning, or maybe it was yesterday, and thought he did a really good job of explaining the Administration's economic policy. They need him to do that more. Otherwise, the zombies will keep winning.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 09-09-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF

or, simply, arguing that payroll tax cuts will lead to growth in the economy and therefore higher tax revenues, i.e. supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve.

But Ty knew this. He just doesn't want to admit that Obama has become Reagan and Geithner is David Stockman.

Really? I thought the payroll tax cut was being budgetted as costing us money, which is why Obama also suggested cuts or revenue elsewhere.

Cite please?

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-09-2011, 07:41 PM

Appalling.

Hank Chinaski · 09-09-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Sir, I'm very concerned about the Lawtalkers Politics Board. We are getting killed. By way of illustration, if Hank Chinaski's wins stretched from the floor to the ceiling in this room, Ty and all our other operatives would only have this many total wins."

sgtclub · 09-09-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed

No, it doesn't actually. But it provides, or doesn't provide, various kinds of aid to states that do employ teachers. I am almost certain that you knew that already, because I think that you're a smart guy, and also Hank has told me that I have to leave stuff out of my posts or people get insulted that I'm talking down to them.

Guess where this quote is from:

Ha! Where is the quote from?

sgtclub · 09-09-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uh oh.

Yea, that's not going to go over very well.

Hank Chinaski · 09-09-2011, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yea, that's not going to go over very well.

worse http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09...srael-embassy/

by 11/2012 it will be very clear where Obama stands on Israel. The "I hate Jews" world is pushing based upon the weakness, or anti-semetism, that he and Hil exhibited early. They either have to step up and say the words, "Israel gets to live", or expose that they feel it doesn't. Interested in how they handle their real test of character.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-10-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

worse http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09...srael-embassy/

by 11/2012 it will be very clear where Obama stands on Israel. The "I hate Jews" world is pushing based upon the weakness, or anti-semetism, that he and Hil exhibited early. They either have to step up and say the words, "Israel gets to live", or expose that they feel it doesn't. Interested in how they handle their real test of character.

The idea that the protests in Egypt have much to do with Obama and his Secretary of State and their "weakness" or "anti-Semitism" -- really, you ought to be ashamed that you said that, but you won't be -- is the sort of narcissistic thinking that makes the rest of the world shake their heads at Americans. It must be all about us, right? It makes your crediting W. for what happened in Libya look positively sane by comparison.

SlaveNoMore · 09-10-2011, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The idea that the protests in Egypt have much to do with Obama and his Secretary of State and their "weakness" or "anti-Semitism" -- really, you ought to be ashamed that you said that, but you won't be -- is the sort of narcissistic thinking that makes the rest of the world shake their heads at Americans. It must be all about us, right? It makes your crediting W. for what happened in Libya look positively sane by comparison.

Mubarak was a royal [?] prick, but he was our prick, and he kept the Muslim Brotherhood in check. Your guy threw him under the bus, and the crazies are now taking over the asylum. And Israel is now in immediate danger as a result.

Junior DB in Syria is probably far worse than Mubarak, yet we do nothing there. Oh, and he's a Hamas (and Iran, if we're counting) puppet.

Hmm. Makes you think.

LessinSF · 09-10-2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Mubarak was a royal [?] prick, but he was our prick, and he kept the Muslim Brotherhood in check. Your guy threw him under the bus, and the crazies are now taking over the asylum. And Israel is now in immediate danger as a result.

You don't need me to tell you how wrong defending "our prick" is. More importantly, you should be out drinking with me.

LessinSF · 09-10-2011, 01:52 AM

And, the continuing saga of how well Obama's poster child treated the common worker who needs a job - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BUFF1L1RQV.DTL

Hank Chinaski · 09-10-2011, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And, the continuing saga of how well Obama's poster child treated the common worker who needs a job - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BUFF1L1RQV.DTL

that's crazy. When I first studied the company's product, I wondered how the DOE could approve it, given that it seemed a very impractical solution. (Do you know if DOE has anyone with a science degree in the vetting process?) "OHH, it's solar stuff, let's buy into it!"

Anyway, thanks for the article. Now that I see it was approved in March 2009, and that the main investor was an Obama bag man cashing his chips it makes sense. Say what you will, Obama did promise transparency and this is as transparent as it gets.