Ah, but they did not do that, nightie - it was you who claimed that in the last thread and it was debunked in #440:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416127/posts?q=1&&page=440
In case you don't remember, I had counted 11 lies you managed to put forth on that thread. Perhaps I should continue doing that as this comment clearly qualifies as yet another.
Anyone caring to check out how devious you are in your posts can go to the link given and find out about the two whoppers you put forth there (and then tried to lie your way out of them).
I can think of no reason why anyone should believe your material at all.
Ah, but they did not do that, nightie - it was you who claimed that in the last thread and it was debunked in #440:ROTFLMAO! You call that debunking? You didn't debunk doodoo. And then you lied about having "worked with this model" to make it look like you knew what the hell you were talking about when it's obvious you are completely clueless. The formula I posted clearly show that in the Jorgenson/Wilcoxen/IGEM/"Squeally worked on it first 10 years ago" model, the price of labor declines as the marginal tax rate on labor income declines - thus wages are reduced as the income tax is reduce (or eliminated). Even the other FTKs don't backup most of your asinine arguments.