Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
John, TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN? LMFAO.
John i will address what you wrote in due time. Completley dishonest,one sided ideological crap on your part as usual. However, i am not going to let you get away with your evasiveness on Laffer. I love how you ignore the facts when it is proven you are wrong.

Your Hero lost the bet and was wrong and has been discredited. That means your economic knowledge base which comes from Laffer is worthless. i know its painful to lose face but you are going to have to act like a mature individual for once.


Once again you never do your research. So what was the GDP for July of 2006??? Haaa thats right, GDP was 4.7%. So ether you consider a GDP of 4.7% a bad thing (which would put you in the dumbass catagory).

OR


Maybe you looked at what the unemployment rate was then?????????

Opps I guess not,,,,, that just dropped from 5% to 4.9%.


"According to the latest labour force statistics released today (August 17) by the Census and Statistics Department, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate declined from 5.0% in April - June 2006 to 4.9% (provisional figure) in May - July 2006. The underemployment rate also declined from 2.7% to 2.6% (provisional figure) between the two periods."

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/2...0608170127.htm


Now what was considerd full employment during the Clinton years?????? Ho thats right, 5% wasn't it. So according to your own liberial economist we were not just at full employment we had a better then full employment rate. So according to the Clinton administration the impossible just happen better then full employment.


I just showed you the facts of the economy back when Laffer made his comment. We just had a 4.7% GDP growth rate and better then FULL employment. What else would you call an economy with those two things going for it. By the way those are the main TWO stats that are used to measure the health of the economy. Hey as for the future of 2008 maybe Laffer had figured the democrats would not be that stupid to vote to filibuster a vote to put regulation on Fanny and Freddy to stop all the sub prime mortgages. Then again who in there right mind would have figured Obama and many other democrats would vote to FILIBUSTER the VERY SAME (finanial regulation) bill they will vote for almost 1.5 years later. Can you explain that one????????? some how I dont think so.