Liberal Forum

Let's start by clearing the air a little. You claimed that I'd "reversed myself" in my definition of a Keynesian cut. Quote where I defined it. Or f*** off....

What's this you say? You had a clear obligation to define it - brought on by YOU broaching the topic and using the term to dismiss evidence, - and you ran from your obligation, afraid to try to define your own copy-pasted iterm? And others defined it FOR you, since you were in default? Bummer, litt...

I don't know how I could reverse myself. I haven't yet defined a Keynesian tax cut. But here's a hint. That tiny payroll tax cut wasn't one....

Feeling guilty, liar? Your definition of Keynesian tax cuts PROVES I am right - and YOU brought race baiting into it. But thanks for letting us all know the real reason you are now reversing yourself on the definition of Keynesian tax cuts!...

There it is, folks, a complete and utter bungling of simple Economics, translated into race-bating psychotic bulls***....

WTF are you babbling about now, psycho?...

I never called his payroll tax conservative, because it wasn't. Its effect on the economy was minimal because the change in rates was so low, and it de-funded Social Security. which is already approaching insolvency. It was a bandaid on a bleeding wound. Wrong again, psycho....

Brattle is at it again with the foolish rants. Using demonizing rhetoric. Either she is an Alynski disciple or is having a permanent case of PMS....

if this thread is the strawberry shortcake, then all these backfiring forays into his deliberate diversions are the whip cream on top....

I take it back. You were right. He realized that if he explained what a Keynesian tax cut was, I would call BS on him for his obvious lie, Here is the issue: http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... -good.html One dissenter was economist Milton Friedman. His research had led him to conclude tha...