Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm obnoxious when people lie and insult me, it's true.

Sue me.

ETA: Oh, and I forgot: when people try to change the subject by making it about me instead of about the subject of the thread. It's called gaming the system, and it's a common practice of people who don't know what they're talking about. I call them cranks.

Your first post in response to me was obnoxious and insulting. Don't even pretend otherwise. It's your gig.

And, if you would be so kind as to not attack me personally, and make the thread about what you think I know and don't know, then we wouldn't have an issue. It's plain to anyone reading these posts that you made this thread about me, rather than just addressing the issue at hand. Now you're trying to claim I'm making it about you? What a joke.

Again - your first post toward me on this thread was a personal attack upon me. You can't seriously contend some right to attack people with impunity. Well, perhaps you can - your capacity for cognitive dissonance is does seem quite highly developed.

[Schneibster]

If anybody wants to read some actual economics by an actual professor of economics at Berkeley, try Brad DeLong's blog. The chart in the upper right hand corner is enough to show Coitus here hasn't got a fucking clue, either about what's wrong, or about what to do about it. Unfortunately, neither, to all appearances, does Obama, but he at least appears at long last to be getting one. I suspect ol' Coitus there never will, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

I would absolutely love to read your explanation of the civilian employment-population ratio chart, and how, exactly, that shows I don't have a clue. Feel free. I bet you won't, though.

Let me explain it to you though, and see if you can get why it doesn't support anything you've been saying. The chart shows the ratio of employed civilians to the total population. Right now, it's about 58% which is the lowest its been in about 31 years. So, if you'd like to explain how this chart dropping from about 63% in 2008 to 58% now, and still on a downward trend, shows I don't have clue, or that you have one, I'd be quit interested...

OK. You managed not to lie in this one (we'll overlook the rhetorical lie that you would absolutely love to read the explanation).

I haven't lied at all,

Next?

[Schneibster]

I'm obnoxious when people lie and insult me, it's true.

Sue me.

ETA: Oh, and I forgot: when people try to change the subject by making it about me instead of about the subject of the thread. It's called gaming the system, and it's a common practice of people who don't know what they're talking about. I call them cranks.

Your first post in response to me was obnoxious and insulting.

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told NBC's "Meet the Press." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ogram.html

Are you laughing because you think she's wrong, or because the idiot teabaggers holding the country hostage will never vote for it?

Fair warning: I'm a member of the hippie caucus.

Next?

[Warren Dew]

I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie.

And yet, you continued posting after you said that the U.S.'s AA rating was below the maximum junk bond rating of BB.

[Schneibster]

I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie.

And yet, you continued posting after you said that the U.S.'s AA rating was below the maximum junk bond rating of BB.

I'll be charitable and assume you didn't see this. This will be the only time you get the benefit of the doubt. Use it wisely.

[Coito ergo sum]

If anybody wants to read some actual economics by an actual professor of economics at Berkeley, try Brad DeLong's blog. The chart in the upper right hand corner is enough to show Coitus here hasn't got a fucking clue, either about what's wrong, or about what to do about it. Unfortunately, neither, to all appearances, does Obama, but he at least appears at long last to be getting one. I suspect ol' Coitus there never will, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

I would absolutely love to read your explanation of the civilian employment-population ratio chart, and how, exactly, that shows I don't have a clue. Feel free. I bet you won't, though.

Let me explain it to you though, and see if you can get why it doesn't support anything you've been saying. The chart shows the ratio of employed civilians to the total population. Right now, it's about 58% which is the lowest its been in about 31 years. So, if you'd like to explain how this chart dropping from about 63% in 2008 to 58% now, and still on a downward trend, shows I don't have clue, or that you have one, I'd be quit interested...

OK. You managed not to lie in this one (we'll overlook the rhetorical lie that you would absolutely love to read the explanation).

I haven't lied at all,

Next?

Prove it. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make you right, except perhaps in your own mind. I have a feeling your just trolling anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm obnoxious when people lie and insult me, it's true.

Sue me.

ETA: Oh, and I forgot: when people try to change the subject by making it about me instead of about the subject of the thread. It's called gaming the system, and it's a common practice of people who don't know what they're talking about. I call them cranks.

Your first post in response to me was obnoxious and insulting.

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) told NBC's "Meet the Press." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ogram.html

Are you laughing because you think she's wrong, or because the idiot teabaggers holding the country hostage will never vote for it?

Fair warning: I'm a member of the hippie caucus.

Next?

I should have said that yours was the first attack in our exchange. I didn't remember that nonsense you reminded me of.

Here's your next post:

"I guess you're new to the whole economics thing, huh?" And, "Maybe you missed that small detail."

And, "Welcome to Econ 101." And, "You're pretending the bond vigilantes will attack;"

"Again. Oh, you forgot?"

"Sorry, I'm a lot more interested in the people who have whole brains."

"...so we don't elect the nigger again."

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 75#p967633


And, the next one: "Because you don't appear to have read any."

"When you've actually read some economics, come back and we'll chat."
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 75#p967742

"Your argument is internally inconsistent; dismissed." (false)

But, no, go on and keep pretending you weren't obnoxious, insulting and keep pretending you didn't make this thread about me, instead of the issue.


Then, of course, as soon as someone opts to respond in any way to your nonsense, you go running home to mama: "I have a policy: when someone becomes obnoxious, I only respond until the first lie." http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 75#p967811

[Schneibster]

I proved it in the very next post.

You said I insulted you in my first post. I posted my first post and there was no insult. It's pretty straightforward and easy to understand, and nothing you say is going to change that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Alright - I've about had it. Your SECOND post was a first attack against me. Something is seriously wrong with you, and I'm not inclined to waste my time further with your nonsense. I see what you're doing - you're one of those folks who can't discuss issues civilly and always go for personal attacks to try to drive people away. Keep on keepin' on, my friend.

The fact remains, you started lobbing personal attacks. Yours was the first attack. Yes, you did it in your SECOND post in response to mine. I had forgotten about your first post because of its inanity. So, call that a victory, my silly friend. It's the only one you can claim. Now crawl back home, I think there are some billy goats trip trapping over your bridge.

[Schneibster]

Look, if you don't want to talk, it's OK. Just stop posting propaganda, I'll stop proving it's propaganda and we can both go on our way.

Sorry you think debunking propaganda is an attack on you.

[Coito ergo sum]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-300 ... 51413.html

According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president's proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.

The White House is also considering a tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed. That could cost about $30 billion. Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction. Advocates of that plan have called for spending of $50 billion, but the White House proposal is expected to be smaller.

Obama also is expected to continue for one year a tax break for businesses that allows them to deduct the full value of new equipment. The president and Congress negotiated that provision into law for 2011 last December.
Though Obama has said he intends to propose long-term deficit reduction measures to cover the up-front costs of his jobs plan, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama would not lay out a wholesale deficit reduction plan in his speech.

[Coito ergo sum]

Look, if you don't want to talk, it's OK. Just stop posting propaganda, I'll stop proving it's propaganda and we can both go on our way.

Sorry you think debunking propaganda is an attack on you.

I've not posted propaganda. And, you've not proved a single thing, with exception of that the fact that your second, rather than your first, post to me was a personal attack and obnoxious, insulting garbage.

Further, I just reviewed the posts to which you responded. The only external item I posted to which you responded were quotes and video recordings of Maxine Waters and her $1 trillion dollar Stimulus nonsense, and Obama's quote about how unpatriotic and unamerican it is to raise the debt as much as he has. That's factual, it's not propaganda.

Propaganda isn't "stuff I don't like." It's "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." Posting what Maxine Waters actually said, or what Obama actually said, is not "propaganda." Think about it.

[Schneibster]

So basically you have no answer to my previous posts but to either start out your response by lying, or change the subject.

OK. We'll keep that in mind.

Here's something to put the problem in perspective: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0 ... -stimulus/

Hmmm, the savings rate jumped, and the rate of new home starts crashed. Savings rate is still high, new home starts still low. How to get consumers to start spending those savings? Gee, that's a tough one. Guess they'll need to have some dependable income. You know, just like the businesses are all saving their money, and need some dependable income to start spending it again.

And keep saying so. In public. And keep getting ignored by the Republicans running the House of Representatives who want to reduce the deficit so they can make the nigger look bad so he won't get elected again.

Do you know what the "velocity of money" means?

[Schneibster]

I've not posted propaganda.

First lie, sport.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've not posted propaganda.

First lie, sport.

See above. You must be applying some weird definition of "propaganda" peculiar to your "Hippie Caucus" of which you claimed to be a part. Because nothing I've posted meets the actual, English definition of the word. Try again.

Moreover, since you have a habit of calling me a liar, the fact that you are calling this a "first lie" constitutes your admission that your previous accusations toward me in that regard were false.