Search results

I clarified, my case was not destroyed, yours was. I in fact was only refuting you. If you have any shred of intellectual honesty... nah forget it.

1. I said they forced clinton to be more fiscally conservative, the entire budget and regulatory process changed 2. I pointed out several times I did it both with and without 97, both cases refute you soundly so why you continue to pound this point is beyond senseless, it's bordering on...

study not handled correctly. Its about income and the type of taxes, not net worth. I could be a retired millionaire raking $75K a year, I will not be affected much unless they go after property taxes on my house. The real question is will companies move out or not, and if you really...

We've known for quite some time about the demographic time bomb, democrats refuse to address it. 2 things are about to happen each with 50% chance 1. Sequestration 2. A massive can-kicking charade. It will temporarily soothe everyone. I can predict with certainty what will not...

that is in place already. If I could redo SSI I would do the following. Your SSI income derives from 2 sources: a forced savings IRA trust or your taxing your own kids at a certain %. 2 ways to get it large, work and save, or give the world productive kids. Didn't raise good kids or...

the country is still split pretty evenly despite how good democrats feel. people are not in a compromise mood. If you really want to solve an entitlement problem, then the cause must be addressed. It will not be of course, so they will do what they do best, kick the can. Republicans can...

it doesn't matter what is politically doable, if you don't change the current trajectory we are dead.

1. SSDI is exploding and needs to stop now 2. SSI all by just itself would be ok, but it's all the other giveaways busting the budget. 3. people need to be told that they are not entitled to medical care, if you can't convince them, then there is no use trying to solve this civilization...

1 we were talking 95-97, you can't seem to follow along even simple concepts 2. I said fall 97, I gave the number without 97, I figure since the numbers show you to be an even larger fool than you already are that you would want to drop this... my bad for overestimating you 3. when you...

let's review: 1. you have repeated, twice, that GDP growth rate after fall 97 was lower than in 93-95 even though the data is right in front of you and I have shown you twice. Once you are shown to be numerically wrong, but you continue to insist, then you are an incredibly stupid liar...

ah, yes, that's why I dropped it.

I did no such thing.

taking it out weakens your argument, i have already ceded the point, but your lying continues

forcing more spending cuts than otherwise would have occurred well dumbass, as I pointed out earlier I could take it out but that makes your argument weaker. They started fall 1997. you said that you could asses with certainty the effects of tax cuts on GDP, the only way to do that is...

fall 1997 you dipshit

FY 98 starts in the fall of 1997, there was no slide, and no start of a slide in 1999. GDP growth in 2000 was 4.1%. You are absolutely full of shit when you say a slide started 1 year later than oct. 1997. You cannot grasp simple arithmetic and have no business even talking about this topic...

you lie about what you just wrote, the call me disingenuous? LOL

The comment about easing into a recession in 1998 should disqualify a person from speaking and breeding.

1. Read some history about the 1995 budget showdown that forced clinton say in 1996 "the era of big government is over" 2. wow, just wow Here is our exchange: The data: Average GDP growth rate 93-94 = 3.5% Average GDP growth rate 97-2000 4.45% that's right...

1. they forced clinton to the middle and reshaped the budget 2. why do you take yourself seriously when you misquote your own data?you claimed GDP growth was higher pre 1997 when all you had to do was check it 3. It not a rant, it is the fact of the matter. Models are how one calculates...