@ Final Fan

Er, you should probably recheck your math. Really this is becoming tiresome. Using your dubious methodology Republicans would be responsible for -84 to the Dem’s -104 (and in my way of thinking, neither are “nice”). Even if you replace each of the years of 42-45 with the population average all it does is bring it to a tie. But then that only matters if you buy into the convenient assumption that WWII is the only military build up that should be discounted. The arms race with the Soviets counts for nothing? Not even the current war on Islamist extremists? Of course not! Why, that might shift the numbers in the wrong direction. While the US has not fought a conventional war in over half a century, it’s only conventional wars that count in this modern era!

But wait, it doesn’t stop there! Is it really necessary to further reduce the population of data into even smaller segments and risk amplifying other possible anomalies? Will you just continue to carve it beyond recognition until it produces the desired result? Why not just cut to the chase, focus on the last 4 years and call it good? Do you not have any integrity at all?

I call you out for using a deceptive correlation to prove your naïve world view but rather than manning up to it, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. I am usually critical of those who lazily throw out Wikipedia charts to “prove” their wild claims, but maybe it would be best for both of us if you went back to that old standby.

Oh, and you need another D in 2003.

Your “research” doesn’t cover Europe yet you are “wholly unconvinced” that their lessons might not be applicable to the US? Seems like you’re convinced of a great many things your research does not cover. Seems arrogant in my book, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I mean really, why would we ever want to test a hypothesis at another location? Oh I get it, who needs to test it, when we already know all!

Your chart shows a drop in revenues just as the economy was going into an economic slump. Are you not the least bit suspicious of that? Frankly, only a portion of Bush’s 2001 tax cut had any real immediate impact. Most of the tax rate reductions would not occur until ‘04 and ’06. The phasing in of the death tax repeal was heavily weighted to year 10. Notice how your own source references 04 and 06 in relation to the 2001 tax cut when detailing what they believed revenues could have been had there been no cuts (and do you really think Charlie Rangel and Co has a clue what the economy would have looked like, for good or bad, had the tax cut not been passed? Give me a break). And yet you would have everyone believe that the ‘01 tax cuts drove the revenue declines in 01-03? I think most would agree the 2003 tax cut was far more potent than the 2001 cut because it accelerated much of the ‘01 legislation and relied less on Keynesian rebates and credits. So we come off of an economic slump, a painful attack on our homeland, and skyrocketing fuel costs (most would say those are not helpful to the economy), but tax revenues are in line with the historical rate versus GDP by 05/06? What am I missing? Am I to presume you would have advocated tax increases in the face of those difficulties? The tax cuts were right. It was reckless spending that was wrong.

In what way have I forgotten what the fundamental issue is? I attempt to respond to each of your confused assertions yet I am being negligent? I have reiterated time and time again that cutting huge swaths of government with a chainsaw is the way to go. But by your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable if the government doubled in size so long as the tax brackets double along with it. I’m not asking about Joe voter. I’m asking about you. Would you be willing to slash government or do you just have an affinity to tax hikes. Show a little backbone and take a stand rather than hide behind some position of indifference so long as the grandkids don’t need to sell the farm to make the first month’s interest payment on Uncle Sam’s T-bills. Tell me, just how burdened are you by the debt levels that your grandparent’s sent to 109% of GDP? It’s not as if they did much to pay it down. If you are so worried about obligations placed on future generations, social security would be a nice item to add to your “research”.

It’s really an enigma to me why you would invest any time defending tax increases. Assuming it is not because you are a defender of big government (though I wonder), my guess is it’s because targeting tax cuts is simpler and if you did make passionate calls against wasteful spending many in your own party would be caught in the crossfire. I have no such allegiances to get hung up on. Spending not only contributes to the debt you are so worried about, but it has the additional injurious effect of interfering with people’s lives. Tax cuts, on the other hand, break down barriers to economic expansion and encourage more rational deployment of capital. Even the ex-communists in Russia realized this when they slashed their tax rates in favor of a flat tax. Suddenly tax shelters had less value than they did before and revenues went up. Go figure. (Oops! An example from outside the US. Please disregard.)

I don’t really care about your caps lock. It was your profanity that seemed misplaced. I’m not being Pollyanna about it. It just comes across as ignorant.

Ah, you want to debate the merits of the “starve the beast” theory. There is certainly nothing sacrosanct about it. By itself it is worthless, but it can be used to productive ends. Depends on who wields it (alas, the last Republican Congress was not a good example in this regard). To me it’s much too difficult an issue to define as there are too many moving parts. Human nature plays some role either way, and who wants to get into that? But the effectiveness of starve the beast seems moot to me as I would say tax cuts can be appropriate, and even necessary, whether they be matched by spending cuts or not (though I would always choose both if given the option).

N-Syte, your ad hominem attacks weaken your argument. Weaken it to the point where I didn't even read much of your last post. Too bad, I wanted to see where this is going, but I'm too tired to shift my "real argument vs. personal attack/bs" filter into high gear.

Branko2166 said: Whoever wins the presidency won't make much of a difference. In the end those that are elected are merely pawns for the powerful people that work behind the scenes.

Actually, these people are simply corporations. The oil companies have run America for quite some time now. Note how we go to Iraq for oil.

 

Ron Paul aims to change this. He wants energy independence.

 

Plus, that may happen whether we get Ron Paul or not, because Nanosolar now can make electricity cheaper than coal. This means cheap electric cars are not far off. With backers like Google, Nanosolar may be the future of ENERGY, and thus overturn the oil moguls' fortunes and change America and the world for good.

@ Entroper

It’s a testament to your fortitude that you lasted as long as you did. Truthfully, I lost all hope that this thread would reach any constructive end days ago. So why have I hung with this futile pursuit? Maybe some of it is just morbid curiosity. But a greater motivation is my distaste for people who make flippant claims as if they are speaking under some aura of infallibility. Perhaps a little humility may be in order?

Maybe you would bear with me as I share an anecdote I came upon a while back?

A college professor who taught a course in writing would start the first class with each new group of students with the same assignment. He would write a quotation, Marx’s “religion is the opiate of the masses”, and then ask the students to write anything they wished about it. It was a simple assignment meant to sample the thought processes of each student through their response to a provocative statement. Before the students would start writing he would first ask the class who they thought the author was. Often times the deafening silence that followed was a tragic indictment of the educational system. But one year a young black woman guessed it was Martin Luther. After she answered, to his surprise, the class erupted in laughter. At first he didn’t quite understand why. Sure, she was wrong, but it was not such an outrageous guess. Martin Luther, after all, was a historical figure known for his statements regarding religious matters. He wondered what made her answer so laughable. But then it hit him when the student behind her reached his hand to her shoulder and said, “doncha know he’s on one your brothas?” The entire class ridiculed her because they thought she was referring to the civil rights activist. Both the woman’s answer and the conclusion arrived by the rest of the class were wrong, but there was one striking difference. The woman knew she was guessing and could possibly be wrong. The rest of the class, on the other hand, was so confident in their flawed assumption they would mock someone who gave an otherwise respectable guess. One was aware of her own ignorance, while the others were completely ignorant of their own ignorance.

It is that latter category that I have little appreciation for. The one who acknowledges the limits of their knowledge, you can have a conversation with. Bounce ideas back and forth and maybe both will be better for it. But that’s a rarity for people who will not even acknowledge what it is they do not know (Why, we have google! Nothing is beyond our ken! All those sites to reinforce our own preconceived notions. We’ll simply draw from each one like an arrow from a quiver and pray one of them shoots straight.) Trust me, it may sound nice, but staying “above the fray” while someone whips out whatever they can to make their point is not something I aspire to.

So you are correct. It’s really no longer a matter of defending a position, although I will do so along the way. My chief quarrel is with the lack of intellectual honesty brought to these discussions. It’s no longer a matter of learning from another. Is it unfortunate? Sure. But how else to deal with someone who’s only real goal is to “win”?

They are posers, and I don’t mind calling them on it. Ad hominem attacks? You betcha.

So I don’t blame you for losing interest. You’re smarter than I for doing so.

N-Syte said: One was aware of her own ignorance, while the others were completely ignorant of their own ignorance.

She is by far the worse offender in this case. She was ignorant and knew of her own ignorance and did nothing to fix it. While the others did not know they were ignorant, thus could not do anything to try to fix it.

One who doesn't know the limits of their knowledge is a lot easier to correct than the person who knows the limits of their knowledge and doesn't care to expand them.

Thinking a religous leader like martain luther would ever say a line like that is much more ignorant than the mistaking of historical figures due to their names being identical excepting 2 letters.

 

Nintendownsmii said: N-Syte said: One was aware of her own ignorance, while the others were completely ignorant of their own ignorance. She is by far the worse offender in this case. She was ignorant and knew of her own ignorance and did nothing to fix it. While the others did not know they were ignorant, thus could not do anything to try to fix it. One who doesn't know the limits of their knowledge is a lot easier to correct than the person who knows the limits of their knowledge and doesn't care to expand them. Thinking a religous leader like martain luther would ever say a line like that is much more ignorant than the mistaking of historical figures due to their names being identical excepting 2 letters.

Considering that Luther wanted to reform the church, it's not such an outrageous guess. And the girl at least had the balls to speak up, which to me indicates that she did, in fact, want to learn. Engaging in discussion with the class and professor is a good way to remove one's ignorance.

@N-Syte: I probably lasted this long because I didn't read the first 3 pages of this thread. :)

I try to "stay above the fray," but I'll be the first to admit I don't always (or don't often?) succeed. The problem is that 99% of people try to win the argument rather than have an interesting discussion. I would rather lose an argument and learn something than "pwn a noob" if you get my drift -- but when you try to learn something, the noobs pwn you in the eyes of all the other noobs.  The high road is pretty rough on the ego.

Nintendownsmii said: N-Syte said: One was aware of her own ignorance, while the others were completely ignorant of their own ignorance. She is by far the worse offender in this case. She was ignorant and knew of her own ignorance and did nothing to fix it. While the others did not know they were ignorant, thus could not do anything to try to fix it. One who doesn't know the limits of their knowledge is a lot easier to correct than the person who knows the limits of their knowledge and doesn't care to expand them. Thinking a religous leader like martain luther would ever say a line like that is much more ignorant than the mistaking of historical figures due to their names being identical excepting 2 letters.

Well isn’t this rich.  In a bizarre sort of twist, your response provides a timely proof of the rule.  There would be 6 letters different, if you count the Jr, as Martin Luther was not a King.  But let us not quibble over such inanities. 

If you could, for a moment, try looking at the bigger picture.  While it’s a very sad thing that few know their history, I would rather someone acknowledge they’re not certain, try to think through what they believe the answer is, and be open to correction if they are wrong. 

I thought this would be a fairly straight forward concept.  Ever read Plato recount Socrates’ search for wisdom?  It’s a similar principle.  Remember how he questioned those that claimed to be great thinkers from various backgrounds throughout Athens?  It was a quest to find men of great wisdom.  He concluded that the men he questioned were not wise at all despite their claims to great insight.  He decided that those aware of their own ignorance were the wiser while those who thought themselves wise were really fools. 

Of course his discovery did not go over very well with the influential of the day.  He made them look like the fools they were and was later sentenced to death for his impertinence. 

 

Full Disclosure: I did not pay Nintendownsmii any sum of money to word his post the way he did.

Entroper said: Nintendownsmii said: N-Syte said:   @N-Syte: I probably lasted this long because I didn't read the first 3 pages of this thread. :) I try to "stay above the fray," but I'll be the first to admit I don't always (or don't often?) succeed. The problem is that 99% of people try to win the argument rather than have an interesting discussion. I would rather lose an argument and learn something than "pwn a noob" if you get my drift -- but when you try to learn something, the noobs pwn you in the eyes of all the other noobs.  The high road is pretty rough on the ego.

I agree entirely.  The adage about wrestling with pigs comes to mind.  Ah, maybe it's a vice of mine.  I'll work on it in the future but I can't promise anything.

My eyes are bleeding now... Too much typing!

I don't claim to know every thing, but from what I read of those articles in your sig, APolitical, Ron Paul only mentions the "topics" once or twice. Most of his preaching is about government infidelity, at least, that's what I gather. I don't claim to be right about his opinions, as it stands.

Any ways, he would seem like a real Lincoln-like president if he were to ever preside over the States in the case of a second Civil War. What do you guys think?

 

EDIT: In response to N-syte's story-of-sorts, I must say that I haven't heard that one. Now that I've read it, it only makes partial sense, though. What if the young lady didn't fit with the professor's presumption? What if she only took a guess just to say some thing rather than try to learn from a mistake? Otherwise, I agree with it and Plato's recollection of Socrates' experiences with those men.

I acknowledge that my calculations may not have been performed perfectly accurately, but that's a pretty huge discrepancy. Are you sure you did use my methodology? How did you arrive at those numbers?

I gave several reasons why I thought WWII ought to be excluded, and you refute none of them. Instead, you throw out half-baked counterexamples, some of which have been discredited in advance of your making them here.

Most if not all of your posts have been dripping with snide condescension, but that doesn't bother me as much as the continual accusations of intellectual dishonesty. What possible justification do you have for asserting that I have a tendency to do what you describe here? Unless you take "slippery slope" very seriously indeed.

Me: "Look at debt growth WRT sitting presidents."
You: "What about Congress, idiot?"
Me: "OK, let's add Congress to the numbers."

The Senate changed hands several times in the 107th Congress, so you may be right there, depending on what party was in charge when the relevant stuff happened. Do you know which it is?

"Not convinced it's true" =/= "Convinced it's false" I'm surprised you're ignorant of that fact.

I would not have advocated tax cuts. I would have supported a tax increase on the highest bracket. Taxes usually are raised in wartime, you know. To pay for the war. And tax cuts are wrong when they are accompanied by increased spending -- or, for that matter, a lack of decrease in spending.

Fine. I think that there is a lot of government waste to be cut, but I am not such an expert as to know exactly where the waste lies. I don't favor the abolition of the Dept. of Education or Social Security or Medicare and so on. I think that Medicare needs a serious overhaul along with the whole health care system in this nation, and that if such overhaul were to happen greater government involvement in the new system would be in the best interest of the public. Also, the airline industry needs to either admit it can't function without government involvement or stop getting government bailouts every decade or so.

I have nothing against emergency wartime deficits; it's the endless deficits even in a booming peacetime economy (e.g. 1980s and don't give me that Cold War crap [see 1960s] and 2000s, or late 2000s if you insist) that are the real threat.

Woud that be a problem if not for the deficit spending?

Oh, so now I'm a yellow-dog Democrat? I would have voted for McCain in 2000 if he'd made the ticket.

So cut spending. THEN cut taxes. 22% of the budget is spent on interest of the debt, as I recall. That is a lot of wasted money. Tax cuts that precede spending cuts increase this waste.

Really? You should have said so in the first place. Profanity, used sparingly, can be a powerful tool in language.

You didn't actually say anything specific in this entire paragraph about the "policy" in question. Are you aware of that?

By the way, that's a nice anecdote you told Entroper. What I find interesting is that we both have the same opinion about the person we are arguing with.