[Talon Karride]The unflappable delusions of many Republicans

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-26 05:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:Michael Moore and the New York Times have 24-hour a day coverage now? That's news to me.

Tis called the Internaut. And lets not forget the Clinton News Network

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 07:58pm

Since the marginal tax rate was a staggering 90% when he started, this is not surprising. What makes you think this is remotely analogous to the current situation? What makes you think that lower is always better?

The need in the present day is for more investment. And a proven method of encouraging investors is providing tax breaks and investment tax credits. Especially for businesses.

Michael Moore and the New York Times have 24-hour a day coverage now? That's news to me.

The New York Times certainly does, and Michael Moore has a vast following that rivaled FOX News in terms of coverage throughout the summer.

"Made digs", eh? I see that your threshold for a declaration of extreme liberalism is set deliberately low.

When I say “made digs,” I mean suggested that Richard Nixon was lying on national television long before Watergate. At just about every chance they could get.

Actually, they said that the case was not made yet, so we should keep sending the inspectors.

Which was a stalling tactic, not a meaningful contribution to discourse on Iraq.

What does that have to do with Al-Quaeda recruiting?

It doesn’t; it has to do with the point about Kerry’s supposed appeal to people elsewhere in the world. You’ve yet to back up your arguments about how it’s a major boon. Saying, “He’s not Bush!” implies that Kerry will be able to secure deals that Bush could not. Which deals?

It is on topic; the topic is American interference in the Middle East, fuckwit. If you're going to justify involvement with Israel by saying that the goal is to avoid destabilizing the Middle East, and then ignore a point regarding the fact that you then turn around and advocate actions which cause that same problem, expect me to call you on it.

You argued that we could stabilize the Middle East by withdrawing support for Israel; but that’s impossible.

This whole "cause and effect" concept eludes you, doesn't it?

The cause-and-effect system is already rolling; trying to claim we can ignore what goes on within the countries we do business with in the Middle East with any sense of security is absolutely asinine.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-26 11:23pm

I asked my mom and my aunts the other day if they remember the kind of fundamentalist bullshit we see so much of today back when they were in school. "No" was the unanimous answer.

Why is it that there are more attempts to ban evolution from the schools, to ban Halloween, to make a public display of bible-thumping (which is against the principles of Jesus)?

It's because when people believe something fervently, proof to the contrary doesn't make them reconsider their views -it makes them dig in. Like cocaine, it "intensifies their personalities" and as Bill Cosby said, this is a problem if they're assholes to begin with.

So presenting them with facts like the discovery that humans and chimpanzees are so closely related that they can give blood tranfusions, only makes them deny evolution even more.

Republican full-mooners are shown that Bush and Co. were pulling it out of their asses when it came to Iraq. Do they think "Jeez, we made a mistake!"? FUCK NO! They claim that not only did Saddam Hussein have all those weapons, but that Bush actually found them!

When it's shown that Bush went AWOL from REMF duty in the Alabama Guard, they try to paint him as a hero and claim John Kerry was a coward who didn't deserve his medals!

This is more than dishonesty, it's just that people clutching at straws clutch at them harder when their world is turned upside down. These people are delusional.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-26 11:29pm

Republican full-mooners are shown that Bush and Co. were pulling it out of their asses when it came to Iraq. Do they think "Jeez, we made a mistake!"? FUCK NO! They claim that not only did Saddam Hussein have all those weapons, but that Bush actually found them!

When it's shown that Bush went AWOL from REMF duty in the Alabama Guard, they try to paint him as a hero and claim John Kerry was a coward who didn't deserve his medals!

This is more than dishonesty, it's just that people clutching at straws clutch at them harder when their world is turned upside down. These people are delusional.

And the Strawman of the Year award goes to ... Elfdart!

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-27 12:15am

I'm referring to the actual subject of the thread, peckerhead. I showed two obvious examples of the kinds of bullshit the R's have to tell themselves because their balloons will burst without it.

Middleclass · Post by **Middleclass** » 2004-10-27 03:39am

Axis Kast wrote:Economists wouldn’t champion lowering taxes and providing income tax credits if they couldn’t point to examples that support their conclusions, dimwit.

Really? Perhaps you would like to tell me more about what these mythical economists of yours think, eh? I mean, Im only around them for 8 hours a day. Ive only asked them about trickle down a dozen times. Ive only heard the speech about why, exactly, that it is a steaming pile of horseshit a couple times more than that. If you are going to appeal to an authority, at least make sure that the authority agrees with you.
I am very, very tired of people claiming that economists back up thier political assertions. I could probably find a couple of economists to support damn near anything, thats why these appeals are worthless. And also, drop this 'give money to the rich, they will invest it, everyone wins!' crap. Its such a stupidly oversimplified model that it is pure fiction. Its a little like calculating a NASA launch without figuring in gravity.
How about this? I call it trickle up theory. Give massive tax breaks and welfare programs to the poor. They will spend this extra money on consumer goods. The business owners will see increased profits, and get richer. Then they will invest this new money, and everyone will win. This makes exactly as much sense as trickle down. Actually, a little more, since (I assume) the goal is to get everyone richer, with the poor people needing the riches with a much greater degree of haste. My theory gives the money to them directly.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-27 08:48am

Speaking of Republican delusions, take a recent exchange between Sean Hannity and Sam Donaldson. Apparently these two are friends in personal life. Sean had Sam on his show and was completely in over his head with the facts Donaldson was laying out against Bush.

Hannity, at one point, said, "Sam, don't you think it's disgusting that the Left keeps accusing the Right of trying to suppress the vote?" Sam said, "Why would I find that disgusting?" Hannity said, "There's not an ounce of proof that this is going on anywhere and yet they keep saying it."

Now, if that doesn't speak to being delusional then nothing does. First, it shows the Right's continued belief that if you say something repeatedly, it becomes the truth (at least in the minds of your followers). Bush keeps saying Kerry's health plan is big government. Nothing about that is true, but they just keep saying it. I also laughed when Bush criticized Kerry for basing his attacks on the morning papers' headlines. Hahahaha. IDIOT, Kerry wouldn't have these attacks if the news was positive surrounding your choices in this administration. He's responding to the world situation while you've got your head stuck in the sand.

But back to Hannity.... No proof? Florida just had to release the list of voters who were deemed ineligible to vote and it CLEARLY showed many thousands of people who should not have been on the list and of the tens of thousands of people on that list, 61 are Hispanic when Hispanic's represent a fairly large percentage of felons in Florida but who traditionally vote Republican. Give me a break.

I'm by choice and by voting history a clear Independent but if I turn on Hannity's radio show (his show is on a top station here with other good programming), I can't go more than 5 minutes before I hear Hannity lying through his teeth. Same situation with Rush. If I happen to catch Al Franken, listening for 5 minutes leads to listening for 5 more. The disparity couldn't be more clear. These guys are playing the delusional card like absolute pros. Just keep saying the same things over and over and your blinder-based following will parrot those sentiments until the job is done.

I contend that anyone that listens to Hannity or Rush and thinks one of their strongest assets is their facts is fooling themselves. All they are doing is playing you and telling you want you want to hear. No more, no less. Their commentary doesn't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-27 08:51am

BTW, Hannity's only come-back to Donaldson was to say, "Well it's obvious who you're supporting in this race." He said it in a snide, insulting way and Donaldson said, "Oh, so you're suggesting that you're still undecided Sean? Everyone knows who you're supporting." Hannity's response was a weak comment about Sam being a journalist and that he shouldn't have a side. Donaldson reminded Hannity that he was on the show as Sean's friend, speaking his mind, not giving a report on ABC News. The ability to seperate the two is what makes him a professional.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-27 06:05pm

How about this? I call it trickle up theory. Give massive tax breaks and welfare programs to the poor. They will spend this extra money on consumer goods. The business owners will see increased profits, and get richer. Then they will invest this new money, and everyone will win. This makes exactly as much sense as trickle down. Actually, a little more, since (I assume) the goal is to get everyone richer, with the poor people needing the riches with a much greater degree of haste. My theory gives the money to them directly.

Welfare consists of transfer payments; it’s money the government already possesses. Returning it “to the poor” would not promote new economic growth.

Furthermore, while the notion of wider tax breaks to middle and lower-class Americans does have merit, their new spending would consist of consumption, not capital investment to provide for future production. It’s a trade-off. In fact, giving the money to businesses in the form of tax breaks for certain firms is the best option - because they will also stimulate the creation of new jobs.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-27 06:26pm

Axis Kast wrote:
How about this? I call it trickle up theory. Give massive tax breaks and welfare programs to the poor. They will spend this extra money on consumer goods. The business owners will see increased profits, and get richer. Then they will invest this new money, and everyone will win. This makes exactly as much sense as trickle down. Actually, a little more, since (I assume) the goal is to get everyone richer, with the poor people needing the riches with a much greater degree of haste. My theory gives the money to them directly.
Welfare consists of transfer payments; it’s money the government already possesses. Returning it “to the poor” would not promote new economic growth.

I call blatant bullshit. Shifting money from the government to people who then buy things from corporations is not just shuffling money around within the government. It is money moving from the government to consumers to producers who presumably then shuffle it around sideways and down via paychecks and their own consumption. But this is based on objective reality and not the deranged rantings of some economist whose locked in a classroom, so you will claim it's not real.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-10-27 06:35pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Michael Moore and the New York Times have 24-hour a day coverage now? That's news to me.
Tis called the Internaut. And lets not forget the Clinton News Network

Clinton News Network because, like all the other outlets, they focused on what a horrible president Clinton was because he got a blowjob in office.

Amazing that we still have people who think the media went easy on Clinton

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-10-27 07:32pm

SirNitram wrote:I call blatant bullshit.

Indeed. He's ignored the multiplier on government spending entirely.

Middleclass · Post by **Middleclass** » 2004-10-27 08:42pm

Axis Kast wrote:Welfare consists of transfer payments; it’s money the government already possesses. Returning it “to the poor” would not promote new economic growth.

Furthermore, while the notion of wider tax breaks to middle and lower-class Americans does have merit, their new spending would consist of consumption, not capital investment to provide for future production. It’s a trade-off. In fact, giving the money to businesses in the form of tax breaks for certain firms is the best option - because they will also stimulate the creation of new jobs.

Hey, thanks for ignoring the major point. The money, once spent on consumers goods, ends up in the hands of the people who make the investments. Face it, this makes just as much sense as trickle down. The money will end up getting invested anyway, and along the way it would increase consumer spending and promote job growth. You are acting like once a dollar is spent on a blender, it magically disappears into a money hole, never to return. You are also pretending like there is some fundamental difference between the govt. giving you a dollar, or just taxing you one less. Either way, the govt. ends up one dollar poorer and you end up one dollar richer.

Graeme Dice wrote:Indeed. He's ignored the multiplier on government spending entirely.

Good point.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-27 08:46pm

I've yet to find true money holes, as much as some economic theories like to claim they exist.

Money spent by consumers goes to retailers. Money spent by retailers go to producers. Money spent by producers is either shuffled around sideways, or goes to the rich owner. The rich owner invests, and the money either goes directly to the invested thing, or into a bank, which then invests it(Though, to be honest, this money is far less mobile than money in other parts of the chain). Trickle Up theory is superior to Trickle Down for the simple fact it will stimulate the economy on all levels, not simply investment.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-27 10:39pm

George Bush is not a good person in any respect. Because even a good person saddled with the worst advisors in the world would do the right thing more or less consistently, even if he did it in a poor and emasculated way. But Bush more or less consistently does the worst thing possible and he does it boldly and aggressively.

So is the right so enamored with him because he's such an easy puppet for whatever they want to do with him, or what?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-28 05:22am

Axis Kast wrote:The need in the present day is for more investment. And a proven method of encouraging investors is providing tax breaks and investment tax credits. Especially for businesses.

Others have already pointed out the fallacy of your belief that money given to rich people must categorically do more for the economy than money given to poor people. Especially since rich people are far more likely to move their money offshore.

Michael Moore and the New York Times have 24-hour a day coverage now? That's news to me.
The New York Times certainly does, and Michael Moore has a vast following that rivaled FOX News in terms of coverage throughout the summer.

So you're seriously arguing that the NYT has the same number of reader-hours per day as FOXNews has viewer-hours? Or that Michael Moore actually gets as much airtime as FOXNews' 24-hour a day broadcast?

If your goal was to disprove the OP's statement about delusional right-wing extremists, you have just shot yourself in the foot. Again.

When I say "made digs," I mean suggested that Richard Nixon was lying on national television long before Watergate. At just about every chance they could get.

Since they turned out to be correct, this is not proof of bias. The truth is not "biased": something you obviously have yet to figure out.

Actually, they said that the case was not made yet, so we should keep sending the inspectors.
Which was a stalling tactic, not a meaningful contribution to discourse on Iraq.

Irrelevant, since I showed your claim to be bullshit. As usual, you make a completely false claim, and when it is shown to be false, you just segue into something else without admitting fault.

What does that have to do with Al-Quaeda recruiting?
It doesn’t; it has to do with the point about Kerry’s supposed appeal to people elsewhere in the world.

See above

You’ve yet to back up your arguments about how it’s a major boon. Saying, “He’s not Bush!” implies that Kerry will be able to secure deals that Bush could not. Which deals?

Perhaps I have not backed it up because I never made it, dumbshit. I said that if America is less hated in the world, it will be more difficult to convince people of these American conspiracy theories and general anti-American hate propaganda diatribes that are generally used in order to recruit people against America. But I see that the simple equation of "less hate against America" and "less approval for violence against America" is beyond your feeble intellect.

You argued that we could stabilize the Middle East by withdrawing support for Israel; but that’s impossible.

Yet more straw from our resident Tiger-boy. I never said the Middle East would magically stabilize itself if the US withdrew, only that the anti-US terror problem would be reduced. You are claiming 0% reduction from such an action, which is beyond absurd.

This whole "cause and effect" concept eludes you, doesn't it?
The cause-and-effect system is already rolling; trying to claim we can ignore what goes on within the countries we do business with in the Middle East with any sense of security is absolutely asinine.

As before, you ignore the rebuttal of your claim by simply forgetting the original claim and seguing into another one of your restatements of dogma.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-28 07:52am

Excuse me for just a second:

Comical Axi wrote:When I say "made digs," I mean suggested that Richard Nixon was lying on national television long before Watergate. At just about every chance they could get.

Hmm... Perhaps because shit like this was going on in the Nixon White House:

excerpt:

Unsure of his position, terrifyingly paranoid and with a penchant for underhand dealing, Nixon came to power in 1968 and, against all forecasts, made a good fist of his presidency. Helped by his energetic national security adviser Henry Kissinger, he drew down the curtain on the Vietnam war, built up US influence in the Middle East, created detente with Moscow and paved the way for a working relationship with China. Four years later he went for a second term in office and everything pointed to a comfortable victory -- his foreign policy successes had been popular and the badly divided Democrats had pinned their faith on radical no-win policies.

'Nixon had three goals: to win by the biggest electoral landslide in history; to be remembered as a peacemaker; and to be accepted by the establishment as an equal,' Kissinger has recalled. 'He achieved all these objectives -- and he lost them all two months later.' Tricky Dicky had no reason to live up to his nickname. His presidency was secure and his opponents had been scattered but he inhabited a world in which those not for him were against him. They included the establishment, the liberal press, pinko academics and anyone else thought worthy of being placed on his staff's 'enemies list'. The task of keeping tabs on them fell to a special unit known as the 'plumbers', another piece of nomenclature that enjoyed a brief period of notoriety.

Nixon's siege mentality ensured what happened next, and to use Woodward's thread analogy the unravelling started once the president authorised his 'plumbers' to break into the Democratic Party's national headquarters in the Watergate complex. At first it was treated as a commonplace burglary , but as a result of Woodward and Bernstein's investigations, the burglars and their two accomplices were found to have links with the White House and a trail of laundered money led back to Nixon's 'creep' committee (campaign for re-election of the president).

Although few people realised it at the time, this was the beginning of the end. Nixon began denying any involvement but following his election victory the burglars implicated him after Judge 'Maximum' John Sirica had handed down hefty jail sentences. With Congress demanding a hearing into the affair Nixon became more embattled, telling his staff, 'I don't give a shit what happens. I want you to stonewall, plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up, or anything else, if that will save it, save the plan.' In public he denied that he had anything to hide and protested that there was no cover-up but he was already doomed. In the summer of 1973, a White House aide revealed that Nixon had kept tapes of conversations and despite efforts to destroy them the recordings were released the following year.

Everything that a former president, Harry S Truman, had once said about the man had come true: 'Nixon is a shifty-eyed goddamn liar and everyone knows it. He is one of the few men in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides.' The tapes also revealed Nixon as a foul-mouthed and bad-tempered bully but the lasting damage was the evidence of wiretaps, break-ins, illegal payments and obstruction of justice that had been used by the White House to keep the president in office. Just as bad, noted Woodward, 'the Nixon tapes in the end revealed a President obsessed, small and, ultimately, incompetent. He was not able to carry out his crimes of concealment and cover up. He was the wrong man to lead, according to those tapes.'

Oh, and there were all those accusations about his lying about the secret bombings of Cambodia which were subsequently revealed as the fact that he actually was lying about the secret bombings of Cambodia.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-28 07:57am

Kast's method of proving media bias by listing a case where they correctly accused someone of lying reminds me of a satirical interview on the Daily Show where they had a guy accusing the facts of being biased against the Bush Administration, and saying that people should therefore stop listening to facts.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-28 08:50am

Look, it's simple in my view:

If you're someone who believes they stand for doing things the right way and not taking the easy way, you know and I know that this Bush has done very little in life but to take the easy way out of everything that was put before him. There is absolutely no comparison between these two men that does not honorably end up with Bush on top. Be honest with yourself and ask, deep down, whose full life resume would you most be proud to call your own?

If your answer to that is Bush, then it's time to admit you've gone over the edge of objectivity.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-28 09:59am

I call blatant bullshit. Shifting money from the government to people who then buy things from corporations is not just shuffling money around within the government. It is money moving from the government to consumers to producers who presumably then shuffle it around sideways and down via paychecks and their own consumption. But this is based on objective reality and not the deranged rantings of some economist whose locked in a classroom, so you will claim it's not real.

First, welfare money has already gone through the “tax loop;” there are significant opportunity costs associated with collection and redistribution.

Second, welfare recipients are far more likely to consume than invest; much more so than the government. One of the things a “trickle-up” plan would do is to trade long-term increases in productivity for short-term increases in consumption. But we know that investment yields greater returns.

Third, when you increase the benefits of welfare recipients, you provide for the creation of what has become known as a “welfare culture,” where, in countries like Germany and Australia, the numbers of unemployed on the government dole for a year or more have skyrocketed in recent years.

Fourth, I think I’ll accept the arguments of an educated group of money managers over that of an Internet jockey with incredulous disdain for the “cloudy-headed elite” who dare contradict his “practical man’s theory” any day.

Hey, thanks for ignoring the major point. The money, once spent on consumers goods, ends up in the hands of the people who make the investments.

No, they are consuming. They are not investing. They are purchasing commodities immediately rather than offering up capital for long-term projects – which is eminently more profitable.

Face it, this makes just as much sense as trickle down. The money will end up getting invested anyway, and along the way it would increase consumer spending and promote job growth. You are acting like once a dollar is spent on a blender, it magically disappears into a money hole, never to return. You are also pretending like there is some fundamental difference between the govt. giving you a dollar, or just taxing you one less. Either way, the govt. ends up one dollar poorer and you end up one dollar richer.

The money will “end up getting invested” only after it has incurred the opportunity costs of significant redistribution. Along the way, you’ll have discouraged as much as encouraged job growth by raising the incentives to remain unemployed.

Finally, there is a fundamental difference between the government surrendering or reallocating one dollar, and never having received it at all: the cost of collection and redistribution.

Hey, thanks for ignoring the major point. The money, once spent on consumers goods, ends up in the hands of the people who make the investments. Face it, this makes just as much sense as trickle down. The money will end up getting invested anyway, and along the way it would increase consumer spending and promote job growth. You are acting like once a dollar is spent on a blender, it magically disappears into a money hole, never to return. You are also pretending like there is some fundamental difference between the govt. giving you a dollar, or just taxing you one less. Either way, the govt. ends up one dollar poorer and you end up one dollar richer.

Consumption is not investment. But, as a self-proclaimed economist, shouldn’t you already know this?

In your proposed framework of “trickle-up” economics, the money is invested only at the final stage – only after the original tax yield has been collected, sorted, redistributed, and moved through the economy where individuals are likely to hold any given fraction as savings.

I've yet to find true money holes, as much as some economic theories like to claim they exist.

Money spent by consumers goes to retailers. Money spent by retailers go to producers. Money spent by producers is either shuffled around sideways, or goes to the rich owner. The rich owner invests, and the money either goes directly to the invested thing, or into a bank, which then invests it(Though, to be honest, this money is far less mobile than money in other parts of the chain). Trickle Up theory is superior to Trickle Down for the simple fact it will stimulate the economy on all levels, not simply investment.

The final investment yield at the end of the welfare-redistribution process is significantly lower than what it might have been had the government never collected the tax money in the first place. And this isn’t even taking into account the additional dangers of empowering welfare-seekers by raising benefits inordinately.

Others have already pointed out the fallacy of your belief that money given to rich people must categorically do more for the economy than money given to poor people. Especially since rich people are far more likely to move their money offshore.

No, not just “rich people.” Firms.

So you're seriously arguing that the NYT has the same number of reader-hours per day as FOXNews has viewer-hours? Or that Michael Moore actually gets as much airtime as FOXNews' 24-hour a day broadcast?

At the height of the Iraq War, FOX News averaged somewhere around 3.3 million viewers per day. The New York Times circulated a daily 1.1 million newspapers in 2004. Considering that not every FOX News viewer is treated to the same message, but that every NY Times subscriber sees the same front page, that disparity is actually slightly lower than advertised. FOX News may be the winner, but it’s certainly not unrivaled by other biased news sources. Especially when one considers that FOX News is a conservative bastion amidst a generally liberal print media and a left-leaning television media.

Since they turned out to be correct, this is not proof of bias. The truth is not "biased": something you obviously have yet to figure out

Rather and Cronkite assailed Nixon from the moment he arrived in office; your attempt to paint their bias as a targeted attack on his activities at Watergate (which occurred late in his tenure) or just his Vietnam policy is dishonest and misleading, and you know it.

rrelevant, since I showed your claim to be bullshit. As usual, you make a completely false claim, and when it is shown to be false, you just segue into something else without admitting fault.

Europe did not want to confront the problem at all. They neither pressed to challenge Iraq before Bush brought up the issue, and despite originally concurring opinions about what was to be found in that country, denied that any solution was remotely acceptable except for continued inspections under the watchful eye of a regime known for deception.

Perhaps I have not backed it up because I never made it, dumbshit. I said that if America is less hated in the world, it will be more difficult to convince people of these American conspiracy theories and general anti-American hate propaganda diatribes that are generally used in order to recruit people against America. But I see that the simple equation of "less hate against America" and "less approval for violence against America" is beyond your feeble intellect

But it isn’t George Bush’s brusque attitude they take issue with; it’s his policies in Iraq – which Kerry plans to follow. Oops.

Yet more straw from our resident Tiger-boy. I never said the Middle East would magically stabilize itself if the US withdrew, only that the anti-US terror problem would be reduced. You are claiming 0% reduction from such an action, which is beyond absurd.

Remaining in the oil market – thus perpetuating our need to act as a guarantor of security in that part of the world – does not constitute a withdrawal, and still necessitates all the unscrupulous dealing with corrupt regimes that serve as the engines for, ironically, the stagnation and desperation that breed terrorism, and anger for the West.

Furthermore, you act as if, by withdrawing, we can also wipe clean a slate marred by more than one hundred years of active intervention in the Middle East. But that’s a falsehood predicated on your own inability to understanding lingering hatreds, not a point of fact. Iraqis are already promising to continue the fight in the United States if we leave their home.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-10-28 10:19am

Axis Kast wrote:Third, when you increase the benefits of welfare recipients, you provide for the creation of what has become known as a “welfare culture,” where, in countries like Germany and Australia, the numbers of unemployed on the government dole for a year or more have skyrocketed in recent years.

Australia's unemployment rate has actually recovered greatly, we're below 6%. America's is 5.4. You're not really that far ahead.

We had a 23 year low in April too.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-28 10:35am

Gandalf wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:Third, when you increase the benefits of welfare recipients, you provide for the creation of what has become known as a “welfare culture,” where, in countries like Germany and Australia, the numbers of unemployed on the government dole for a year or more have skyrocketed in recent years.
Australia's unemployment rate has actually recovered greatly, we're below 6%. America's is 5.4. You're not really that far ahead.

We had a 23 year low in April too.

Don't try to refute him with facts (never mind the way American unemployment statistics are collected, which is a story in itself because they take people off the unemployment rolls after a certain period of inactivity regardless of whether they've found work). The facts obviously have a liberal bias, so we shouldn't pay attention to them.

This is typically repetitive for a Tigerboy-dominated thread. If Tigerboy was attempting to prove that the original post was wrong about how far-rightists refuse to budge an inch from their positions no matter what, he's failed spectacularly by offering himself up as an object lesson in how very true that accusation is. Even when his points are refuted, he either repeats his claim (again without evidence) or simply moves onto the next "talking point" without acknowledging error.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-10-28 10:42am

Darth Wong wrote:Don't try to refute him with facts (never mind the way American unemployment statistics are collected, which is a story in itself because they take people off the unemployment rolls after a certain period of inactivity regardless of whether they've found work). The facts obviously have a liberal bias, so we shouldn't pay attention to them.

This is typically repetitive for a Tigerboy-dominated thread. If Tigerboy was attempting to prove that the original post was wrong about how far-rightists refuse to budge an inch from their positions no matter what, he's failed spectacularly by offering himself up as an object lesson in how very true that accusation is. Even when his points are refuted, he either repeats his claim (again without evidence) or simply moves onto the next "talking point" without acknowledging error.

Right-o.

Sorry about that, clearly I need to look in these threads more often.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-28 10:50am

Beowulf wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:George W. Bush is a man who has never seen combat
Only because he never ended up getting sent there. It doesn't really matter that he checked a box saying I don't want to go overseas. If the Air Force decided that they needed that squadron, they would have sent it over. And of course, since Bush later did volunteer to get sent over, but was turned down due to lack of flight hours, does this whole thing even matter?

Sorry to bring this post back to the forefront this late, but it shows ignorance of some facts.

Fact: Bush's squadron flew aircraft that were not permitted to leave the country for being technically obsolete.

Fact: Pilots were not switched between aircraft types.

Fact: It was known before Bush joined the ANG that the aircraft the Texas unit flew would soon be pulled out of front line service.

Logical Conclusion: Bush knew he would not be sent overseas, as his squadron was equipped with obsolete aircraft, making them ineligible for deployment to Vietnam.

With regard to Axis' argument, there is one fault with the current trickle-down theory. Why the fuck will companies invest in capital when they're using under 75% of existing capacity? Increasing consumption will raise that usage, leading to a heightened demand for capital and creating demand for investment naturally. Trickle-down theory ignores the demand side of the supply and demand curves, leading to an imbalanced approach to economics that leads (inevitably, if history is any indicator) to a retarded economy unable to produce efficiently.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-28 11:33am

Axis Kast wrote:
I call blatant bullshit. Shifting money from the government to people who then buy things from corporations is not just shuffling money around within the government. It is money moving from the government to consumers to producers who presumably then shuffle it around sideways and down via paychecks and their own consumption. But this is based on objective reality and not the deranged rantings of some economist whose locked in a classroom, so you will claim it's not real.
First, welfare money has already gone through the “tax loop;” there are significant opportunity costs associated with collection and redistribution.

No duh. This is a strike against the fact this works on multiple levels of the economy instead of just the top how?

Second, welfare recipients are far more likely to consume than invest; much more so than the government. One of the things a “trickle-up” plan would do is to trade long-term increases in productivity for short-term increases in consumption. But we know that investment yields greater returns.

Again, you pretend there's a money hole for consumption. Trickle Up would induce more consumption and, since the money will make it to the upper echelons, induce more investment. I explained this, but you're going to lie.

Third, when you increase the benefits of welfare recipients, you provide for the creation of what has become known as a “welfare culture,” where, in countries like Germany and Australia, the numbers of unemployed on the government dole for a year or more have skyrocketed in recent years.

So this refutes providing a large scale tax break to the lowest earners how? Oh yea, it doesn't: It is simply normal Tiger-Man logic that if you ignore a chunk of the argument and focus on a minor part, you can defeat the whole thing by knocking over straw.

Fourth, I think I’ll accept the arguments of an educated group of money managers over that of an Internet jockey with incredulous disdain for the “cloudy-headed elite” who dare contradict his “practical man’s theory” any day.

You're the retard who thinks Iraq was a threat to anyone but it's own citizens. What you 'accept' is beyond suspect.

Hey, thanks for ignoring the major point. The money, once spent on consumers goods, ends up in the hands of the people who make the investments.
No, they are consuming. They are not investing. They are purchasing commodities immediately rather than offering up capital for long-term projects – which is eminently more profitable.

Re-fucking-tard. Money doesn't disappear once spent on consumption, you pathetic little monkey. It is now in the hands of the retailer, who then spends money to replenish their stores. The money is now in the hands of the producers, part of which flaps up the chain to the investors. But again, this is basic objective reality. It's not surprising you can't get it.

Face it, this makes just as much sense as trickle down. The money will end up getting invested anyway, and along the way it would increase consumer spending and promote job growth. You are acting like once a dollar is spent on a blender, it magically disappears into a money hole, never to return. You are also pretending like there is some fundamental difference between the govt. giving you a dollar, or just taxing you one less. Either way, the govt. ends up one dollar poorer and you end up one dollar richer.
The money will “end up getting invested” only after it has incurred the opportunity costs of significant redistribution. Along the way, you’ll have discouraged as much as encouraged job growth by raising the incentives to remain unemployed.

Again, you strawman the argument from 'Tax breaks and some programs' into 'Just welfare' and pretend this is logical. Go play in traffic, troll.

Finally, there is a fundamental difference between the government surrendering or reallocating one dollar, and never having received it at all: the cost of collection and redistribution.

Whoop de shit. This is a strike against the fact this works on multiple levels of the economy instead of just the top how?

Hey, thanks for ignoring the major point. The money, once spent on consumers goods, ends up in the hands of the people who make the investments. Face it, this makes just as much sense as trickle down. The money will end up getting invested anyway, and along the way it would increase consumer spending and promote job growth. You are acting like once a dollar is spent on a blender, it magically disappears into a money hole, never to return. You are also pretending like there is some fundamental difference between the govt. giving you a dollar, or just taxing you one less. Either way, the govt. ends up one dollar poorer and you end up one dollar richer.
Consumption is not investment. But, as a self-proclaimed economist, shouldn’t you already know this?

Another outright lie; we should be surprised, but why bother? You always lie in these debates. After the money is spent on consumption it will climb the ranks. Basic fucking objective reality. Something you still have no contact with.

In your proposed framework of “trickle-up” economics, the money is invested only at the final stage – only after the original tax yield has been collected, sorted, redistributed, and moved through the economy where individuals are likely to hold any given fraction as savings.

That's the thing, retard boy. The poverty level workers of the world don't have much savings, the top ten percent do. This allows the money to spend more time working on improving the economy(You are acquainted with reality sufficiently to understand that more people buying stuff is good for the economy, right? Or are you still out to lunch that badly?), instead of instantly vanishing into a rich guy's bank account.

I've yet to find true money holes, as much as some economic theories like to claim they exist.

Money spent by consumers goes to retailers. Money spent by retailers go to producers. Money spent by producers is either shuffled around sideways, or goes to the rich owner. The rich owner invests, and the money either goes directly to the invested thing, or into a bank, which then invests it(Though, to be honest, this money is far less mobile than money in other parts of the chain). Trickle Up theory is superior to Trickle Down for the simple fact it will stimulate the economy on all levels, not simply investment.
The final investment yield at the end of the welfare-redistribution process is significantly lower than what it might have been had the government never collected the tax money in the first place. And this isn’t even taking into account the additional dangers of empowering welfare-seekers by raising benefits inordinately.

Again with the strawman, again Axis thinks this proves something when he knocks over straw. It's pitiful to watch. As for the investment yield being lower, yes.. But the economy has been stimulated on more than just the investment level by the end of the day.

Others have already pointed out the fallacy of your belief that money given to rich people must categorically do more for the economy than money given to poor people. Especially since rich people are far more likely to move their money offshore.
No, not just “rich people.” Firms.

Which do the exact same thing. But hey, be pedantic.