23.5
I did this on the other blog but I saw Peter over at the Prime tagged me for IHHAC. Here is the 23rd post and 5th sentence:
This is some bad reasoning, it really is.
This refers to some jackass NYT columnist pointing out "media bias". But here is my made-up tale starting with that sentence.
This is some bad reasoning, it really is. Now the reasoning I am talking about the politics of greed.
Conservatives believe that economically the best way to divide limited resources amongst people is through a free market. Liberals believe that social programs will do better at filling gaps that the free market doesn't get to.
I think that historically it is pretty clear that the free market creates the most resources per individual and even the worst off in a society like the US is as good or better than the middle class in Cuba. So if conservatives don't want to give their money to the government to help the poor, then why are they considered greedy?
Well this is the bad reasoning. We believe people will get more if we spend the money to someone who has the incentive to maximize their efficiency at making their particular resource. We also believe it's greedy to demand other people's money to fulfill whatever agenda that you feel like.
You see, money is just a basic translation of time (sometimes combined with ingenuity or work or other factors). So what liberals are basically doing is taking your time out of your pocket. Matter of fact, you work until April to pay for their programs that don't even work. So they are in effect serving you a prison sentence of 4 months every single year. This is the REAL greed.
I tag:
the princess,
hatch,
Aaron,
warcrygirl (I think she's left me),
the next liberal douche bag who comes to my site
posted by Clupbert @ 12:22 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
How does this work? Am i supposed to go to the 5th sentence of the 23rd post that I did, and start from there? I am not hip to scene, if that's the right terminology amongst kids today.
And what if that sentence is something like: "And that's the last time I'll let anyone talk me into anal sex." Do I really need to relive such painful memories?
Yeah, exactly right. If your sentence is like that, then what has to happen is that I would be compelled to read your archives.
Actually, we use the terminology, " I don't fucking understand".
In the last 25 years we've had 4 presidents: Reagan, Daddy Bush, Clinton, and then Baby Bush. Now, as you may recall, the economy was terrible for the 12 years that Reagan/Daddy Bush were in office. Then It got a lot better while Clinton was president. But then, as soon as he leaves office and Baby Bush takes over, the economy sucks again. I'm just curious about how you cope with these facts.
I can't wait to see what kind of bullshit you conservative dumbfucks come up with, I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
Don't be a dumbass. The policies of the 80's made the prosperity of the 90's. The policies of the 90's led to the 00's. You have to be joking if you think high taxes help an economy.
Wow. That’s amazing. So let me get this straight, this is your theory: Reagan and Bush had the Whitehouse for 12 years, and even though they were doing wonderful things for the economy, for some strange reason the economy sucked (big time).
Then one day Bill Clinton becomes President. He starts doing all these horrible things to the economy. But somehow, after he’s President for about a year, the economy starts to improve. Why? Because all that wonderful supply-side “trickle-down” economics that Reagan and Bush practiced finally “kicked in”. After 12 years. And then, even though Clinton is doing everything in his power to ruin the economy, he just can’t do it – the economy just gets better and better.
And Then (and this is the good part) as soon as Clinton leaves office and lil’ Bush takes over, all of those terrible things he did to the economy – now THEY finally “kick in” (the timing is amazing) and the economy suddenly goes downhill, in spite of all the wonderful things that Bush is doing. Damn Clinton!
That’s one hell of a theory. Look man, you’re probably an intelligent guy and all, but it’s pretty amazing how much a person can twist shit around so that they can hang on to a certain viewpoint (no matter how irrational it is). Supply-side economics was invented (whether knowingly or not) to service rich people. For example: not only did all of the major oil companies recently get a huge tax break, but they actually received money from the government (i.e. other tax payers, like you and me) for “exploration” and “development”. This is good for the economy? No, this is good for billionaires.
And by the way: I don’t think that “high taxes” are necessarily good for the economy (although sometimes they are, depending on the situation), I think that “even” taxes are good for the economy (and are also fair). I just think that billion dollar corporations should pay their fair share. And it seems like whenever Republicans have the wheel (at least in the last 25 years), that doesn’t happen. And the economy always sucks at those times. That is what’s “historically pretty clear”.
How can I argue with you when you have no facts? You just say, "the economy was bad" or "the economy was good".
How about throw out some numbers so I can debate the evidence or respond with some add-in to a constructive debate.
You can't tell me my theory sucks because it really isn't a theory. It was something dumb I said to your ridiculously dumb starting point to a debate.
Put forth and argument with some facts and then I will let you know why you are wrong. How can I twist non-existent things?
Billion dollar corporations don't pay taxes? I think the top 10% of the tax bracket pays something like 60% of all the taxes. I love the myth that rich people don't pay taxes. How about your idea of "even" is called "equality of condition" unlike mine which is "equality of opportunity". Whine some more please. Then ask for my money.
Just when I think it can’t get any more retarded, it does. You actually need me to “throw out some numbers” for you to accept that the economy is bad now? Or that it was bad during the Reagan/Bush years? If you can’t accept those incredibly obvious fact, then man… you really ARE in denial.
I like the part where you say “You can't tell me my theory sucks because it really isn't a theory. It was something dumb I said to your ridiculously dumb starting point to a debate”.
Hmmm. So what are you saying? That you said something dumb? Which part exactly?
Was it the part where you said: “Don't be a dumbass. The policies of the 80's made the prosperity of the 90's.”?
Or was it the part where you said: “The policies of the 90's led to the 00's.”?
Or was it the part where you said: “You have to be joking if you think high taxes help an economy”?
Because that’s all you said. And I agree that all of those things are dumb. So I guess you got me on that point. Score one for you.
Another thing you said was: “How about your idea of "even" is called "equality of condition" unlike mine which is "equality of opportunity"
Yes, you got it right, Clup. I do, in fact, favor "equality of condition". “Equality of opportunity" basically means that those with pre-existing advantages (like billionaires, for example), get all the breaks, since they are the one’s most likely to succeed in the first place. Which is nice for the billionaires. “Equality of condition”, on the other hand, means that no one is held back. Everyone gets a shot, even if you enter the race at a disadvantage. Of course, the top 1% will always have a huge advantage over the bottom 50%. So why make it easier for them? Look, dude – It isn’t “rich people” who are not paying taxes. It’s the super-rich. It’s not the top 10%, it’s the top 1%. Oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, etc. Why are you so in love with these guys? I don’t get it. What, are you a billionaire? I’m sure they really appreciate people like you, fighting for their cause for free.
Oh, and about that last statement: “Whine some more please. Then ask for my money” – I’m not whining, Clup, I’m just disagreeing with you. And I don’t need your money. I have my own.
I think all the scientific journals should just start theories out with, "It's pretty obvious, I don't need any facts or proof." Seriously, you can't just say something's obvious. Why don't you do a little research and give me some numbers? They should be there right? Blanket statements are for idiots...
And equality of opportunity literally means everyone has the same opportunity. Why are you so concerned with 1% of the population? To hold them back means you have to hold everyone else back and of course it won't even affect them anyway. The high crippling taxes doesn't affect billionaires. Look at Europe: all the old money is still there, there are princes on their lists of "wealthiest people". Royalty for christ sake... The only people who are hampered are people who try to become wealthy. High taxes are a way of entrenching the current aristocracy and stifling growth and entrepreneurship. And taxes top out around the hundred grand mark, so if you're aim is to tax only the super rich, then you sure do a shitty job of it.
Really? You’re going to harp on this “give me some numbers” thing? And, no, I don’t think scientists should approach things by saying “well, isn’t it obvious”. But I also don’t think you need to do a scientific study before making claims like “the sky is blue” or “dog shit smells bad”. You know good and well that the economy was better during Clinton years than any other in the last quarter century, (I believe it was you who used the term “the prosperity of the 90’s”). But you want to try to slow me down or throw up a roadblock by giving me the meaningless task of finding and citing references. Fine. You want some numbers? I’ll give you some numbers.
The following data is from Forbes Magazine. Forbes is not a “leftist” publication. It is definitely leaning strongly to the right. They go by the tagline: "Capitalist Tool”. In fact Steve Forbes himself ran for president on the Republican ticket in both 1996 and 2000. In July of 2004 Forbes ranked all of the postwar Presidents (i.e. since Truman), based on six standard and universally accepted economic measurements:
1. GDP growth
2. Per capita income growth
3. Employment gains
4. Unemployment rate reduction
5. Inflation reduction
6. Federal deficit reduction
Guess who ranked highest? Bill Clinton.
Guess who ranked Lowest? George H.W. Bush
In fact, the three highest ranking presidents were all Democrats (Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy) and the bottom three were all Republicans (Nixon, Eisenhower and Bush). So there’s your numbers, Clup. If you want to check it out for yourself, it’s right here:
http://www.forbes.com/commerce/200
4/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
If you have some numbers to the contrary, I’d just love to see them.
And to answer your question “Why are you so concerned with 1% of the population?”
I’ll tell you why. Because the richest 1% owns 41% of the nations wealth (based on the most recent census, it’s probably actually more than that). And I never said that we should “hold them back”. I said that they should “pay their fair share”, which does not happen when Republicans are at the steering wheel. And yes, that one percent actually makes a huge difference.
This is a good essay on why everything you said doesn't matter. Let me quote parts of it: "In recent decades, the president has been relegated to an increasingly minor role in fiscal policy. If Congress is controlled by the other party, then he even becomes a mere figurehead. For example, House Democrats declared seven of Reagan's eight budgets "Dead on Arrival" upon submission. Reagan lobbied Congress, and not Congress Reagan, for the final result. The same problem confronted Bill Clinton when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. The only real power that Clinton had was the threat of the veto; he could block legislation, but he couldn't actively shape it. And Congress has literally thousands of staff and lobbyists working on the budget; the president only has a small office. Congress dominates the budget process. "
"So the belief that presidents are to blame for the economy, especially the current economy, is regrettably uninformed. Unfortunately, it is a belief that many Americans share. Carter was evicted by the voters for a "misery index" that was really beyond his control; Bush was also fired for a recession that just happened to occur in the middle of his re-election campaign. Neither deserved his fate on those grounds alone. "
The fact is that your corollary is a myth. I think a good axiom instead of, "Bush made the economy bad and Clinton made it good" would be "capitalism is easily the most successful resource producing system ever." So this is why I insisted on facts. All you could do was name two things that happened at the same time, somehow implying a cause-effect relationship that just doesn't exist.
And who gives a shit what rich people own? Is your plan to requisition their wealth? Do you tax wealth? Can people not hold money? I don't understand your logic.
And here are some fun facts for how the US government treats the wealthy compared to the non-wealthy.
"An average of 20% of corporations were audited during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The largest of those, with assets of $250 million or more, faced the highest audit rate, about 44%.
The number of small businesses that faced an audit also rose after a significant dip the year before. About 1 in 126 small businesses, those with assets less than $10 million, were audited this year. "
"The IRS audited 1 in 63 wealthy individuals and families, a figure the agency said marked the highest rate in 10 years. By comparison, about 1 in 117 taxpayers who earned less than $100,000 were audited. "
You can read that here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2005-11-03-irs-audits_x.htm.
Dude. For two days we’ve been arguing about this, and you kept crying “give me the numbers, give me the numbers!”
For example, you said:
“How about throw out some numbers so I can debate the evidence or respond with some add-in to a constructive debate”
And then you said: “Why don't you do a little research and give me some numbers? They should be there right? Blanket statements are for idiots...”
So I gave you the numbers, I cited my references. And now, all of a sudden, you’re saying that the President has nothing to do with the economy. Wow. I’m sure you wouldn’t say that if it was the other way around. If you really believed that the President doesn’t affect the economy, you would have said so in the first place. And then you bring up this crap about how many rich people get audited. Who the hell said anything about audits?
That’s a standard move by a person who’s losing an argument: Say it doesn’t matter and then change the subject.
Now, I don’t want to get into a game of Republican whack-a-mole with you, but as for the completely unrelated topic of IRS audits (which I really couldn’t care less about) I’ll go ahead and bite. Maybe the reason rich people get audited more often is because they are more likely to cheat on their taxes. Do you have any stats on that? I mean they have these accountants who are doing all this fancy footwork with their tax returns, which can get very complex, so they need more attention than a cursory look-over. I mean most folk pay taxes with a 1040, right? And there is not a whole lot of wiggle room in a 1040. Maybe the IRS has noticed that a higher percentage of people in the $100.000 + bracket cheat on their taxes. That certainly wouldn’t surprise me (I doubt that would surprise anyone). Or maybe the IRS just feels that screwing the government out of $20,000 is a bigger deal than screwing them out of $200. Who knows. And who cares? Is that really an important issue?
Face it dude – every time these so-called “conservatives” are in charge, the deficit sky-rockets. They sure aren’t “conservative” when it comes to spending. They say that they believe in “less government”, which is a joke. Oh sure, they believe in less government when it comes to regulating businesses, that’s for sure. Clinton paid off a record deficit (which had quadrupled during Reagan/Bush), and even added a surplus. GWB went through that surplus in no time. And then he went on to set a new deficit record, in less than half the time it took to create the previous deficit. He did it in less than one term. Unbelievable. Look, man, you can believe whatever you want to, and I’m sure you will, but how much real-life proof does it take for you to see that these Republican policies are bad for the economy? Supply-side economics, man, that’s all it is. And it doesn’t work. I mean it works great for oil companies, but it fucks up the economy. And, yes, sometimes high taxes do help the economy.
Take right now, for example. We have this enormous deficit. It’s not always bad to have a deficit, a small deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. But this deficit is tremendous. Is it really the best time to give out tax cuts? We have already spent so much more than we could afford. I realize that some things about the economy are very complex, but it doesn’t take a mathematician or an accountant to figure out that we need to take in more money in order to pay our debts. You don’t see that? It’s like running a business – you don’t give all your employees a raise when your ledger is in the red. Sure, your employees would be happy to get the raise. But they won’t be happy when your business goes under and now they have no job. I would much rather pay a little more taxes if it meant living in a good economy. Because ultimately, when you tally everything up, you’ll be doing better.
Jesus, I just went on and on, didn’t I? Sorry about that. Once I get started…
Well it works like this: You come to my site and propose some argument that really has no beginning. You just cite the axiom rule and then expect me to debate you.
I don't even want to pay attention until you give me the evidence that you're basing your opinions off of. Then I will look at it and decide whether it is good or not.
So we haven't really been arguing for 2 days. You've been whining about something that really was not true. Then when you gave your facts for the untrue statement, I told you that your whole premise is wrong.
Notice you didn't even defend your premise in your last statement because the President doesn't control the economy, the congress does, and even more so, the business cycle does.
Honestly, I am interested in actual knowledge and not just rhetoric. You spouted rhetoric, I asked for knowledge, I responded with knowledge, and then you are giving me more rhetoric claiming my arguments are wrong because "I’m sure you wouldn’t say that if it was the other way around. If you really believed that the President doesn’t affect the economy, you would have said so in the first place. "
That is not a real argument. You are debating my own psyche, which gets us both nowhere. Actually, it lowers my opinion of what you think is important in discussing public policy.
If you would look over my site(here are some examples- Senators I Trust, I'd vote No on Roberts,This one is for you buddy...) you will see the complaints I have lodged against the hypocritical "small-government" republicans and you may also notice I am not a registered republican. I voted more than half libertarian in the 2004 election. High taxes never help an economy because the basic creed of distributing the most resources per individual becomes lost in government inefficiency and waste. There is simply no incentive for the government to be efficient. It takes capital and resources from people who want to actually produce something for the economy.
And the IRS audits rich people more because it's more cost effective; it's in the percentages. And why did I bring that up? Because of this..."I just think that billion dollar corporations should pay their fair share. And it seems like whenever Republicans have the wheel (at least in the last 25 years), that doesn’t happen."
Seeing as the highest rate of auditing (44%) is among the largest corporations, then I would say they are being treated more than fairly by a Republican government.
I think I understand now why you brought up the whole IRS auditing thing. When I said that “billion dollar corporations don’t pay their fair share”, you apparently thought I meant that they cheat on their taxes. That’s not what I meant. I meant that they are not taxed enough in the first place. They are not taxed their fair share. They get huge tax breaks. Some giant corporations pay no taxes at all, and actually get money back. This is a fact, and if you don’t believe me, the information is not hard to find. The Wall Street Journal's a good place to start.
As for “How much the President does or doesn’t affect the economy” – that is not something you can measure exactly. It’s not something you can show numbers for. Things that you CAN measure are things like the rate of inflation, the deficit, unemployment, etc. My argument was that the economy was better during Clintons presidency than during Reagan’s, Bush’s or W’s. I supported my argument with actual facts. You, on the other hand, make an argument that cannot be proven or disproven, it’s pure speculation. We can argue about who’s view point makes more sense, but there is no way to settle
that argument, ever.
So whatever.
You think the President doesn’t affect the economy. I partially agree with you. I believe that sometimes the President doesn’t have that much to do with the economy. But oftentimes the President’s decisions greatly affect the economy – It depends on the situation. Let’s say you have a President who inherits the biggest deficit ever. If that President raises taxes and cuts spending, thereby paying off the deficit, well, this will greatly affect the economy. This is simple math, adding and subtracting. Doesn’t take a genius.
I’m not “spouting rhetoric” (well, maybe a little, but no more than you). And I’m not “whining”, either. What’s the deal with Republicans and the word “whining”. They love that word. Whenever somebody disagrees, they are “whining”. I guess next you’ll say that I’m a “rogue activist” or that I’m “flip-flopping” or that I’m “criminalizing politics”. Talk about rhetoric. Jesus Christ, do you guys all read from the same script? Is there an actual “Republican Playbook” that gets passed around at NRA rally’s or something? Oh, that’s right, I forgot – you’re not a Republican. Of course.
Ok, dude, let’s do it like this: You respond to this post (since you’ll want to have the last word – I mean you should, it’s your blog and all) and in it you can call me an idiot, and say that I’m “whining” or whatever, and then you go ahead and keep believing that all this supply-side economics crap is a great thing.
And then in 2008, when Hillary Clinton becomes President (God, that would be funny), and suddenly the economy gets better… well, then you can say that it was because of the great economic policies of George W Bush that finally “kicked in” after eight years.
I'm still here hon, just lagging in my reading and commenting duties is all. 23rd post, 5th sentence:
"The winner will get free maid service for life." This came from my Alternate Survivor entry: http://warcrygirl.blogspot.com/2005/05/alternate-survivor.html
I was always told the reason the economy was so great while Clinton was in office was because we had a Republican Congress. Nice to see the Liberal loonies are still trying to argue with you, Clupbert.
What's that in my pocket? Oh yeah, it's the last word.
Continue to argue here buddy, my last liberal, nutjob fan's head exploded or something.
Oh hey, Clup. I was just checking back to see if you had anything interesting to say as your "last word". I was going to check back sooner, but I was busy screwing with some other conservative-type blogger. Just kidding. Actually I've been busy putting together my own "Liberal Loonie" website (thanks warcrygirl).
But anyway, ok, sure – we can argue some more… what do you want to argue about? Here, I’ll tell you what – why don’t you pick from this list of controversial topics and we’ll argue about that:
- “Intelligent Design” being taught in public schools
- Capitol Punishment
- Abortion
- Gay Marriage
- Stem cell research
- Medicinal Marijuana
- Doctor assisted suicide
- The Bush administration lying about WMD’s as a pretext to a war that he intended to start no matter what
That’s all the Liberal vs Conservative debates I can think of off the top of my head. I didn’t include Gun Control or Affirmative Action because I either haven’t made up my mind about it (gun control) or I have an un-liberal position on it (affirmative action). But, hey, we can argue about whatever you like. If you have something better in mind, bring it on.
I’d be happy to school you on whatever topic you choose.
Post a Comment
<< Home