quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Um well okay, deficit spending. Well in measuring deficit spending you have to first measure it as a percentage of gdp not as an overall dollar amount because growth and inflation make every fiscal year different from the proceeding so when you compare deficits in this administration to deficits in previous administrations you have to measure it as percent of gdp. Bush's deficit never surpassed 30 percent of gdp and that is a gdp during a recession a much lower gdp than a prosperous time. In the last century I believe that there have been 5 or so presidents that have had more than 30 percent of gdp deficits.

I personally don’t argue that, and if anyone does I agree the argument is fallacious.. I’m well aware that federal spending as a share of GDP is around average over the last 20 or so years. However, the federal revenue as a share of GDP is what is worrisome –we haven’t seen such low levels since the 1950’s. Both the personal income and corporate taxes combined as a share of GDP are at their lowest levels since the early ‘40’s, whereas the payroll tax is very close to near record levels.

Now as a self-ascribed economist, you tell me which class gets affected most by

1. Income and corporate taxes
2. Payroll taxes

Also, we cannot merely use the deficit % of our GDP as a sole indicator of where we stand, though this does help historically. We must also consider our PERCEPTION in paying off that debt to the rest of the world as well as our creditors like China and Japan, whom are beginning to believe we will not pay off our debts anytime soon. As a consequence, the dollar continues to fall (which is good for us on imports, granted), and our creditors are starting to take up other currencies like the Euro as a result.

So if we continue to have this perception that we could care less about our deficit and trade debt, that also plays a serious role as well. Unlike the other past Republican presidents of Bush I and Reagan whom both increased taxes as a result of falling revenue, this Republican president won't have anything to do with fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

quote:

Also you have to understand that the deficit was not caused by tax cuts or Bush spending. The deficit was caused because during the recession less money was coming in to fund government programs than before during good times.

Bullshit. While true the lost revenue is the primary culprit, Bush’s tax cuts have played the monumental role in this. In 2000, revenues were 20.9% of GDP, and it’s projected they’ll decline to 16.8% this year. But according to CBO back in January, only 15% of the cost of legislation enacted since 2001 was attributed to discretionary and mandatory spending, while 48% of the cost of legislation was attributed to tax cuts:

http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=0

While it is true that lost revenue did occur as a result of the tech bust and following recession, the overriding factor was the tax cuts.

And besides, when you have the White House and Bush's Aides admitting that the tax cuts were definitely a part of the deficit, well Christ, what else need be said?:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078115
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9153&fcategory_desc=Legislation%20and%20Policy

quote:

Spending didn't increase that much during the Bush years at all.

Spending shouldn’t have increased, period. This is a fiscal conservative, right? Why is it that Clinton’s government was actually smaller than any of the last 3 Republican presidents?

quote:

Don't point to the war either because war spending was only a few hundred billion in a 2.4 trillion dollar budget.

Well, 300 billion, right? And that’s what, 8%? I could be far off on this, but I do think it is interesting that our President decided NOT to include the cost of war in his annual budget. Now why do you suppose he would do such a thing?

quote:

You see liberals don't understand the above and they also don't understand that if you lower taxes, more transactions occur which than send more money back to the government.

More transactions haven’t been occurring – at least nothing close to what was projected. And the job outlook also isn’t near as close as what you Conservatives had predicted. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors have continually had to back off their projections of job growth as a result of his tax cuts. Hell, they’re not even close to the projections WITHOUT the tax cut, as I’ve argued here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=tax+cuts+job

quote:

They make statements like that the Bush tax cuts removed x amount of money from the government which they cannot claim.

I believe I did, as did the CBO.

quote:

First of all those tax cuts mean more transactions. There is no way they can know that amount because national wealth is always changing at one month it could be x the next it could have change to be x plus or minus 20 percent, etc.

Well yeah, I guess that’s why we and even your president relies on estimates and forecasts. Your point?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-18-2005 at 21:51

Okay I have to get to some other shit here in a second so I don't have much time.

Yeah I know I said I was have given up on you guys, but I was a little board before and got drawn in again. I basically have given up and will eventually stop doing this shit soon. Pretty stupid basis to call me a liar on though. Don't impugn my integrity. And don't give me this shit that I am labeling you and shit. YOU GUYS ARE LIBERALS that isn't labeling. An asshole is a label.

Okay as far as providing specific resources or whatever yeah I am not going to go around and dig up every damn place I have gotten info from. I watch, read, etc. to much shit for me to go and spend a couple hours to dig all the shit up again. If you guys say something I have the belief that you have gotten it from sources, etc., but to make you guys happy any of these that I remember off the top of my head I'll point out.

Entitlement argument conservative talk radio don't remember which one.

The turf war was reported from multiple sources. I think 3 different broadcasts on fox news, conservative talk radio, and I think Drudge too.

The population thing was commented on, on Fox News Hannity and Colmes where Allan Colmes("King of Liberal Media") was talking to democratic stategist(don't rem name) this was like 3 months ago I think.

The many black and latino leaders spiel was broadcast on Fox News. I don't quite remember how it went down, but I think yet again a democrat strategist mad at his parties actions towards Rice and Gonzalez quoted a prominant (undisclosed)black leader on his comments where he(that leader) used the word many. This black leader being also a liberal was mad that so many of his constituants(including other black leaders) were mad about the treatment of Condi. And this strategist said that he recieved many comments regarding the treatment of Gonzalez too.

I find it strange that all the cabinet appointings are evil diabolical wizards that are in it for themselves, but the black chick gets an appointment and she's just dumb according to liberals when the woman was the president of Stanford for crying out loud. It seems I'm not the one accusing of blacks being dumb. Now blacks aren't dumb for wanting a black to be vp because shes black. Since minority advancement is held dearly by many minorities, they want to see people of their race to be "first ofs" all the time.

A couple of highly esteemed democrats(don't remember the names) have written pieces for newspapers and maybe magazines(idk)saying that their party is going down the tubes. The talk of that has even shifted to what the democrat party will reamerge as down the road. Heck Carville just came out a little bit ago and said that the party is done also.

Just to clarify the anti Janet Jackson stuff is what that REAMERGED DEM PARTY IS PROJECTED to look like. That is what they will become to WIN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS. That is why Hillary makes the statements against all this porn, etc. there is out there.

"For the rest of your arguments, you either generalize about "liberals" and what ideas we have or claim that every poor person fits a certain stereotype you just made up." You see this shit is what is starting to piss me off. DON'T PUT FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I DIDN'T SAY(the same thing with the above paragraph). I was pointing out that the most destatute make up only a small, small percentage of the people below the poverty line. I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards, is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living. Now I hope you can understand this argument. You failed to understand it the first time I put it out there by the comment you made, but what do I expect. Don't call me a black and white simpleton if you can't fucking understand simple arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hey how did you get it?? Lemme try: 1/2

½

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay I have to get to some other shit here in a second so I don't have much time. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Dude, are you still talking?

Well you asked me to talk about Phillips Curve and shit are you going to answer back?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I will do whatever I can as a U.S. Citizen to make my country better. It is both my right and my moral obligation to do so.

Great...Just try to do it without oppressing me with your authoritarian economic policies, ok?

Well, it's a good thing Opus knows where I stand on the issue of Moral/Categorical imperatives.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Yeah I know I said I was have given up on you guys, but I was a little board before and got drawn in again. I basically have given up and will eventually stop doing this shit soon.

Do you trolls have the same playbook or manual or something?

quote:

Pretty stupid basis to call me a liar on though. Don't impugn my integrity.

Well when you decide to show some, I’ll try my best not to impugn it, deal?

quote:

And don't give me this shit that I am labeling you and shit. YOU GUYS ARE LIBERALS that isn't labeling. An asshole is a label.

You succumb all liberal ideas as either wrong or stupid, and nearly every one of your posts demean liberals in some way or another. You’ve specifically called liberals “stupid” in an earlier post here.

That is the very definition of labeling – painting everyone who disagrees with you with a broad stroke, and effectively calling them stupid for doing so.

quote:

Okay as far as providing specific resources or whatever yeah I am not going to go around and dig up every damn place I have gotten info from. I watch, read, etc. to much shit for me to go and spend a couple hours to dig all the shit up again. If you guys say something I have the belief that you have gotten it from sources, etc., but to make you guys happy any of these that I remember off the top of my head I'll point out.

Any day now would be nice.

quote:

Entitlement argument conservative talk radio don't remember which one.

Which, of course, always means the argument is valid. Sorry for doubting, kind sir.: rolleyes:

quote:

The turf war was reported from multiple sources. I think 3 different broadcasts on fox news, conservative talk radio, and I think Drudge too.

Ahh yes, my 3 favorite places too. And once again, of course all 3 sources are always valid. How silly of me.

A thousand pardons, dear sir.

quote:

The population thing was commented on, on Fox News Hannity and Colmes where Allan Colmes("King of Liberal Media") was talking to democratic stategist(don't rem name) this was like 3 months ago I think.

1. If you think pissant little Alan Colmes is the “King of Liberal Media”, you’ve got very little understanding of that darn “liberal” media.

2. Again I think you need to verify your claims a bit more. More than ½ of their so-called Democratic liberal strategists are often times centrists and do not speak very well for the Democratic party in general.

quote:

The many black and latino leaders spiel was broadcast on Fox News. I don't quite remember how it went down, but I think yet again a democrat strategist mad at his parties actions towards Rice and Gonzalez quoted a prominant (undisclosed)black leader on his comments where he(that leader) used the word many. This black leader being also a liberal was mad that so many of his constituants(including other black leaders) were mad about the treatment of Condi. And this strategist said that he recieved many comments regarding the treatment of Gonzalez too.

Out of blind curiousity, do you happen to watch or read any sources outside of conservative-leaning media?

quote:

I find it strange that all the cabinet appointings are evil diabolical wizards that are in it for themselves, but the black chick gets an appointment and she's just dumb according to liberals when the woman was the president of Stanford for crying out loud.

Logical fallacy: straw man.

Well I know you’re speaking in generalizations, once again, but this is NOT the central argument that liberals had against Rice. Rather, that she was deliberately deceitful and withheld evidence that did not help bolster the WMD case for going to war with Saddam.

No one argues that she isn’t intelligent. If they do then that is a fallacious argument. Could you please cite such a case for me? Thanks.

quote:

It seems I'm not the one accusing of blacks being dumb. Now blacks aren't dumb for wanting a black to be vp because shes black. Since minority advancement is held dearly by many minorities, they want to see people of their race to be "first ofs" all the time.

So what? What on earth is your point here?

quote:

A couple of highly esteemed democrats(don't remember the names) have written pieces for newspapers and maybe magazines(idk)saying that their party is going down the tubes. The talk of that has even shifted to what the democrat party will reamerge as down the road. Heck Carville just came out a little bit ago and said that the party is done also.

Again, if you take the word of Carville and the individuals you are referring to who write for the New Republic like Jonathon Chait or the leader of the DLC, Marshall Whitmann (BullMooseblog), you do not understand the reformation of the Democratic movement one bit, and neither is Faux News, Hannity, or any other conservative pundit willing to concede it either. And why is that, exactly? Could it be that these conservative pundits like folks like Carville, Chait, Witmann, Liebermann, and so forth who continually go after the Democrats, rather than go after our true adversary – the Republicans? Could it be that Faux News and the conservative mouthpieces like these folks because they have shown time and again through their own miscalculations and hirings of the same fucking Washington consultants how to keep LOSING elections to the Republicans?

Naah, who would think such a thing?

quote:

Just to clarify the anti Janet Jackson stuff is what that REAMERGED DEM PARTY IS PROJECTED to look like. That is what they will become to WIN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS. That is why Hillary makes the statements against all this porn, etc. there is out there.

Red Herrings really do seem to be your choice of logical fallacies, don’t they?

quote:

"For the rest of your arguments, you either generalize about "liberals" and what ideas we have or claim that every poor person fits a certain stereotype you just made up." You see this shit is what is starting to piss me off. DON'T PUT FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I DIDN'T SAY(the same thing with the above paragraph). I was pointing out that the most destatute make up only a small, small percentage of the people below the poverty line. I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards,

By whose standards? Yours? Mine? Do you have any idea what it’s like to live in poverty?

quote:

is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living. Now I hope you can understand this argument.

Oh I understand it – the problem is your argument is pretty weak from the getgo. I reiterate, do you have any concept of what it’s like to live in poverty?

quote:

You failed to understand it the first time I put it out there by the comment you made, but what do I expect. Don't call me a black and white simpleton if you can't fucking understand simple arguments.

Your arguments were piss-poor and barely cogent to begin with. Don’t blame me for that. So now you handwave away poverty in general by saying, “Oh it’s not that bad really.” Are you fucking serious here? You wouldn’t happen to mind if I just take your money away, as well as any money your mommy and daddy are giving you for that nice college with those idiot professors up in Wisconsin, and see what it would be like for you to live below the poverty level, would you? Would you be willing to participate in such an experiment? I’m just curious after living in such conditions if you will continue to say such trite bullshit.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Great...Just try to do it without oppressing me with your authoritarian economic policies, ok?

Who said I would? And explain how any policies I have ever advocated here are authoritarian in the economic sense in any way, please.

Then contrast those policies with the various labor laws that clearly benefit the business over the worker and his/her health, as well as the worker's pay status.

And then tell me which is more authoritarian, please.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby ...I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards, is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living. Now I hope you can understand this argument. You failed to understand it the first time I put it out there by the comment you made, but what do I expect. Don't call me a black and white simpleton if you can't fucking understand simple arguments.

Because your arguement is TOO simple. Big surprise that all your sources you've mentioned are conservative talk radio, Fox News and the Drudge Report. Using talking points media from either side as an exclusive source of information is highly inaccurate. If you want to say I'm calling you a simpleton, well maybe it seems that way because you made the argument that "the poor" would be better off by cutting all government programs and providing more capital to the highest tax brackets and that the "liberals" are actually hurting future poor people. That's the argument you made. You've used your stereotype of poor people near the poverty line several times, which is what you've used to say that means tested programs should be cut. Well if that's only a certain segment, depending on how many people your stereotype actually fits, why would you suggest that the entire programs should be cut to help people do better? It's just like the "Welfare Queen" image that was used in the 1980s and it could be done the other way too. Are you even aware how the poverty line is calculated? And I say you stereotype "liberals" because you think everyone to the left of you wants to spend tons of money to resolve every problem. There are a lot of progressive people who have hybrid ideologies to resolve such problems, an example being Rebecca Blank's overview of different experimental programs and their results in "From Welfare to Work."

By the way, even Charles Murray, author of "The Bell Curve" wrote in his later work ,"Losing Ground", that to solve the problems of inner city poverty there would have to be far greater investment in public education, which would come from people in higher tax brackets.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

(Wolverine)What do I suspect? Keep on plugging away because you have yet to understand WHY I made the comment regarding a segment of the poor of this society. Either you don't want to understand or your not that bright.

(Opus) Your fucking arguments are so fucking piss poor that you actually recite facts that don't pertain. You give me shit from quoting conservative radio, fox news, liberals on fox news, etc., but what do you quote, The New York Times. The New York Times repeatedly lies when paraphrasing what other people say, and spins great news for this country to be the worst ever. "Less people are dying on the Battlefield in Iraq because of medicine, thats horrible they shouldn't live, why they have bad injuries." I read the NYTs several times a month and I can tell you that they are the biggest example of back ass backwards reporting I have ever heard. You don't understand arguments.

Colmes was proclaimed King of Liberal Media by liberals when they saw that he was getting better ratings on liberal talk radio then all the other bastards.

You don't think I can lump democrats, labour, socialists, and marxists as command economy parties. I ask you one question. Are you in support of nationalizing 1/8th of our economy, i.e. healthcare. Anybody want to take bets on his answer? I rest my case.

You want to take a look at who thinks Condi is dumb, just take one look at the Rice bashing political cartoons, and you will get the idea pretty damn fast.

"Anyday now" shit, you demanded sources so I opened with that statement to tell you my sources. But you are just a retard how would you understand something like that?

I don't think you understand my argument about the specific segments of poverty either because if you did you wouldn't make a stupid statement like the one you did.

No I haven't lived in poverty before, but I have to say all your liberal programs have done so much for them. Gee "Great Society" end poverty as we know it, huh? Yeah sure it increased the number of people in poverty. Medicare increased the amount of money going into healthcare, but decreased the number of beds and such at a faster rate. Since you demand fucking sources for everything here enjoy.http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/ECON...S/Friedman.html this is an article written again by the Einstein of economics. I listen to the pros when it comes to this shit unlike some people who wont even fucking pick up a econ book. Here I'll give you the site of all his articles, you then tell me who is fucking wrong here http://www.ideachannel.com/Friedman.htm There so you can eat shit.

Now on to Woverine. Just because something comes from a source like conservative talk radio doesn't make it fallacious. You guys quote from NYTs, liberal wackos on the net, and other organizations that try to maintain the idea that they are unbiased when they are anything but. Gee everybody thought oh we could always count on network news. Hah, Rathergate people. FORGED DOCUMENTS ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, FORGED DOCUMENTS. Gee the last time I checked I didn't see a bunch of people looking into my sources for lying and coming up with anything. Our tract record is better than yours. Go head and spend a month prying over Fox News transcripts, Drudge Reports , and Conservative Talk Radio. You try to find facts or evidence that doesn't exist. Until then leave my fucking sources alone. And as I said in other threads maybe this one, I watch, listen, and read many many different sources. Go and look at the few other top threads right now and you'll see my list.

Then you accuse me of being a simpleton, when you can't even attempt to understand the nuance in something like less government programs to foster more economic growth to help the poor. You are stuck in a frame of mind that will never allow you to appreciate other peoples arguments. And none of you have even attempted to undue my argument that less government programs would help the poor, you just dismiss it because of your warped fucked up brain that can't allow yourselves to comprehend that anything besides government programs can help the poor.

I haven't stereotyped the poor at all that's why you most certainly couldn't have understood the argument. I have described a certain standard of living that would constitute below the poverty line. This is an example not a stereotype. Then using that you know that peoples arguments saying so many people live in poverty are off base. Why? Because the mental picture that goes into so many peoples heads is that these people are living on the street or projects and barely eat, etc. When that is far from the truth. Some of them do. Some of them don't. My argument is that you guys spin the idea of x amount of people living below poverty line when a huge amount of them wouldn't be living in bad conditions by many peoples standards. I use an example of a certain standard of living to show what can constitute poverty. Instead of saying x amount of people live in poverty you should be going around saying y amount of people are homeless, a much smaller number. Its a small argument, but simpletons like wolverine can't understand them so they take it out on me. If I don't understand something you guys are saying I'll ask you guys to elaborate. I don't misrepresent you and bastardize your arguments.

I don't use the example of a particular standard of living as a reason for ending social programs. I use economics as my reason for ending social programs. Go fucking read the pros yourself