Posted on 12/04/2012 8:25:22 AM PST by ksen
"Now we’re entering our 4th decade of supply side spending,"
I rest my case. Twice you equate supply side tax cuts with "deficit spending" or "supply side spending." WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I did not say tax cuts equal deficit spending. I pointed out that we’re spending like maniacs, and have been for a long time, and that spending has often been wrapped in the excuse of “supply side”. While pure theoretical supply side is about tax cuts, in practice since Reagan got elected it’s included massive spending. Which I pointed out needed to end under Bush 1.
Your language is extremely imprecise.
My language was very precise, you just didn’t bother to actually read it. Supply side in practice, Reaganomics, involved a lot of spending, spending that needed to recede in the Bush 1 admin and hasn’t. That’s what I said THE FIRST TIME and you didn’t bother to pay attention. Spend more time reading and less time assuming, because all the imprecision came out of your head, not my keyboard.
Give me ONE major supply side theorist who argues that supply side involves SPENDING.
I didn’t say it simply involved a lot of spending. In fact I specifically said it didn’t. Once again you are making up crap I didn’t say. STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID.
So now that you can't answer the points I made, you suddenly complain about the ad hominems.
Here's what you didn't deal with in our conversation:
1. You couldn't handle the clear problems with the lie that Obamacare would lower health care costs (it didn't, it won't). You even tried to claim your premiums slowed their increase, which had to be a lie, no one has had that happen, so for some reason you didn't care that you were lied to.
2. You pretended the article I linked didn't show the schizophrenia (insanity) of Bambi voters. It did. You may not be one of them, you somehow believe the stuff he does is good and fixes things, although I question anyone's sanity who thinks we can cut costs in health care by adding a huge government bureaucracy to the mix. There was no GOTCHA at all.
There were several other things you never dealt with either, so I presume you can't. As to ignoring facts and figures, you did that with anyone that posted them to you on this thread, not me.
Btw, do you know who was the first to run on and practice supply side economics before it was called that? Do you know who first proposed that by lowering tax rates we would actually gain more revenue? I bet you don't.........
Dude, I QUOTED YOU, Rescind, modify, or recant your statements, because I QUOTED YOU.
You didn’t quote what mattered. Here’s what I said:
“While pure theoretical supply side is about tax cuts, in practice since Reagan got elected it’s included massive spending. “ 141
And then you demanded:
“Give me ONE major supply side theorist who argues that supply side involves SPENDING. “ 145
Now since I said that the theory didn’t include spending, but the practice HAS, your demand goes directly against what I said.
The facts are the facts, and the fact is you’re a liar. Goodbye.
Did you or did you not say that? (You did and it is a flat out falsehood.)
Supply side does not involve ANY deficit spending because tax cuts pay for themselves in growth (in the 80s it was 40% MORE revenue after the cuts). Spending is entirely separate from revenue---a point you seem incapable of grasping. In the 20s, tax cuts were neutral---but we had surpluses because spending FELL.
Did you or did you not say "we are in our fourth decade of SUPPLY SIDE SPENDING. . ." You did and it's flat out wrong---supply side does not involve ANY spending. It is about investment. Then, rather than admit you don't know the slightest thing about supply side theory, you called names and tried to dodge.
Did you or did you not say that supply side "was supposed to be temporary"? You did and it's flat wrong. Supply side cuts are to be permanent and EVEN adjusted further downward as the economy grows. The investment side was NEVER temporary, and if you had ever listened to Art Laffer's lectures you would know that.
The fact that you are completely ignorant of supply side theory is one thing, but to blatantly lie and say you did not say what your post clearly said tells us volumes about your character---or lack thereof. I even gave you an out to say your language was imprecise, but you were too venal or stupid to take it.
Oh look another festival of lies from the liar. You’re lying about what I said AGAIN. You’re just a no good filthy lying bag of feces. I will not be reading anymore of your pathetic bags of lies, so you might as well stop.
Here’s what I said
While pure theoretical supply side is about tax cuts, in practice since Reagan got elected it’s included massive spending.
It shows that EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE in your post 150 is a FILTHY DISGUSTING PATHETIC WORTHLESS LIE. And the fact that you continue proves that you’re a worthless human being. Be gone filth.
"we are in our fourth decade of SUPPLY SIDE SPENDING. . ."
No. There is no such thing. This is simply false. It shows you just absolutely don't know what you're talking about and are too pigheaded to admit it. For the fifth time: SUPPLY SIDE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SPENDING, EITHER IN THEORY OR IN PRACTICE.
"Because supply side means a lot of deficit spending . . ."
No, it does not. Not in theory, not in practice, nowhere. You can dodge all you want, but you would be far better to admit you were making crap up and that you are clueless above clueless as to what supply side theory actually is.
Now, if "every single sentence" in my post is a "filthy disgusting pathetic worthless lie," ALL of these quotes are yours. Figure out who the liar is. And I even gave you an out yet again---that you are clueless and not a serial perjurer. But apparently you prefer to be wicked rather than stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.