Evil lefty Liberal subversive media lies about Bush, the war, the vets, and Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction!!!!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 19:45
VIEWED: 8008
PAGE 10 of 13
Quote:Stop- yer killin' me AU!!!!
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Dunno what your laughing about, it does prove what I was saying.
BTW, I made ya famous...
http://www.serenitymovie.org/browncoats/forums/index.php?showtopic=193
32&st=0&gopid=633050&#entry633050
Evil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You said the US wasn't a democracy, I merely pointed out that it was under the modern usage of the term, and gave my reasoning. I don't see your problem (assuming my reading of this as sarcasm is correct of course).
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Thanks for letting me know that the US is a democracy. I've been going to the polls all these years just to get the free "I Voted" sticker. Never occurred to me what they were doing behind the curtain.
Quote:Well I rather suspect that America will be feeling the effects of Bush's foreign policy for years to come. To be frank Chavez doesn't bother me, his 'wacky antics' are just that, I'm as worried as him as any other clown. George Bush is in control of the Worlds most powerful military, and has the potential to cause more real harm in the last days of his tenure than Chavez could do in his.
If the election in Venezuela goes Chavez way you'll be able to enjoy his wacky antics for years to come. Unfortunately in a little more than a year you wont have Bush to kick around anymore.
But that wasn't even my point. My point was that going on about how Chavez is the product of Democracy is a poor argument, because many, in fact maybe the majority, of people outside the US see Bush as worse. Its a bad argument for why Representative Republics are 'better' because its as equally valid to say parliamentary democracy is better because George Bush is the product of a Republic (or Jacques Chirac for that matter).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Citizen, I don't know how you feel about the quality of education in the UK, but just a suggestion, when talking to folks educated in the US, more specifically- ones from the US who also get all their news from commercial TV- dumb it down a wee bit, eh?
Originally posted by citizen:
Its a bad argument for why Representative Republics are 'better' because its as equally valid to say parliamentary democracy is better because George Bush is the product of a Republic (or Jacques Chirac for that matter).
More of our money goes for war and TV commercials than learning institutions, y'know.
Breakin' it down fr'ya Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I read the article and boy does that guy (Laffer) have some major errors.
"During the four years prior to 1925 (the year that the tax cut was fully implemented), inflation-adjusted revenues declined by an average of 9.2 percent per year. Over the four years following the tax-rate cuts, revenues remained volatile but averaged an inflation-adjusted gain of 0.1 percent per year. The economy responded strongly to the tax cuts, with output nearly doubling and unemployment falling sharply."
Followed thereafter by a spectacular crash since much of the 'economic activity' was speculation. Not sure how he ignores that leeetle fact, or how you do for that matter.
Moving on ...
The Kennedy tax cuts didn't take effect until Johnson took office. Here are some economic figures:
"Kennedy 1962-1965
The economy grew each year of the Kennedy "term" by rates of 6.0%, 4.3%, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively. Those four years average 5.6% GDP growth.
Johnson 1966-1969
The economy grew each year of the Johnson "term" by rates of 6.6%, 2.5%, 4.8% and 3.0%, respectively. Those four years average 4.2% GDP growth."
And this:
"The Kennedy administration's estimates of the nation's long-run economic and fiscal position turned out to be seriously in error. The economy did not grow by 4% per annum. It grew from 1963 to 1995 by an average of 3% per annum - which is an error of 25%, not 1%. We did not face the problem of mounting full-employment surpluses that would be a drag upon the economy because they would depress demand. Instead we faced the problem of large, persistent deficits that depressed the economy by depriving it of savings for investment."
As to Reagan's tax cuts, let me just link you to this: http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html
And quoting and linking this:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/5Debt.htm
his chart raises two points. First, it allows you to see that real tax collections actually declined in the two years following Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. (In fact, it took until 1985 to recover the 1981 level.) This is exactly the opposite of what supply-siders had predicted. They excuse it by noting that the 1981 cuts were phased in over three years, delaying entrepreneurial investment. But, according to their theory, accumulating tax cuts should have resulted in accumulating -- not declining -- tax collections.
These last two links cover long periods and indicate - by any measure you choose whether it's federal deficits, gdp, employment etc, supply-siders had far worse economies overall.
BTW, many thing are 'intuitive' - but severely wrong. It's 'intuitive' the earth is flat. It's 'intuitive' the sun moves through the sky. Intuition without solid data is mere voodoo.
***************************************************************
Voodoo Economics
A slanderous term used by President George H. W. Bush in reference to President Reagan's economic policies known as Reaganomics.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually Rue, it was intuitive to me as a child that the Earth is round; go up on any mountain and tell me you don't see the curve. Also, why wouldn't you be able to see China from here...and why do boats disappear at the horizon?
Originally posted by rue:
BTW, many thing are 'intuitive' - but severely wrong. It's 'intuitive' the earth is flat.
BTW, I don't think 'intuitive' is the right word here (my Wife thinks not, & she's always right...)
maybe 'obvious'(?)Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Thanks for letting me know that the US is a democracy. I've been going to the polls all these years just to get the free "I Voted" sticker. Never occurred to me what they were doing behind the curtain.
You said the US wasn't a democracy, I merely pointed out that it was under the modern usage of the term, and gave my reasoning. I don't see your problem (assuming my reading of this as sarcasm is correct of course).
If the election in Venezuela goes Chavez way you'll be able to enjoy his wacky antics for years to come. Unfortunately in a little more than a year you wont have Bush to kick around anymore.
Well I rather suspect that America will be feeling the effects of Bush's foreign policy for years to come. To be frank Chavez doesn't bother me, his 'wacky antics' are just that, I'm as worried as him as any other clown. George Bush is in control of the Worlds most powerful military, and has the potential to cause more real harm in the last days of his tenure than Chavez could do in his.
But that wasn't even my point. My point was that going on about how Chavez is the product of Democracy is a poor argument, because many, in fact maybe the majority, of people outside the US see Bush as worse. Its a bad argument for why Representative Republics are 'better' because its as equally valid to say parliamentary democracy is better because George Bush is the product of a Republic (or Jacques Chirac for that matter).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote. Were did I say that a Republic is better than any other form of government. I also never said that the US isn't a democracy, I said its a Republic as apposed to a "pure democracy". My point was that some don't seem to understand the traditions and customs of our election process because they live under other forms of democracy. I know that the traditions of a parliamentary democracy are much different than our own and wouldn't begin to pretend that I now them better than someone that has lived under and studied that system of government their whole life.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently some here are quick to dismiss the "Laffer Curve" because it has been used by many conservatives to justify tax cuts. Their bias has caused them to misunderstand the application of the curve. The Laffer curve does not predict that any tax cut will generate more revenue. It only says that if taxes are to high it is possible to cut taxes and not lose revenue because the difference will be made up by the increased economic activity caused by the tax cut. Same reasoning works the other way around. If taxes are to low you can raise taxes, collect more revenue and have no detrimental effect on the economy.
When I first heard Darwin's Theory of evolution it just felt right. I felt that way when I first studied the Laffer Curve. A sociology teacher once told me that "first impressions last" and I believe this is true. Someone might be able to convince me the the Laffer curve is wrong, but I doubt it will happen in this thread.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is no problem with the curve just its application. If we assume for the moment that the curve is correct then for tax cuts to generate enough economic activity to offset the revenue losses the current tax position has to be to the right of the curve out beyond the maxima. Since there is no scale on the X axis and since the exact point of the "maxima" varies from economy to economy where you are on the curve becomes a very subjective opinion.
I used to believe that there was observer bias in the interpretation of a country's position in the curve -- that if you favour lower taxes you tend to believe that the economy is to the right of the curve and that if you think the tax regime is fair then you see it being at the left. Now I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter because the purpose of the curve in political discourse is not to predict an optimal tax rate but to give some legitimacy to people that just want to cut taxes. Most people realize that taxes pay for government services, less taxes means less revenue which means fewer services. An honest advocate of lower taxes would have to deal with those questions, explain what would be cut and why and deal with the political repercussions.
What some have chosen to do instead is to use the curve as a dishonest political shell game at the public's expense. In effect they tell the voter that tax cuts today will be offset by the improved economic activity completely, which means that cuts will not result in cut programs and heads off political backlash and any honest discussion of the cuts.
Of course later the government finances become a mess because there is no corresponding rise in revenue. At that point it becomes necessary to cut programs in order to restore the budget. Thus the curve is used as a distraction to avoid the public discourse that would accompany a legitimate tax/program cut.
I believe they call this technique "starving the beast."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know...
I don't get why folks delude themselves into thinking that it's a republic or a democracy, when it's clearly and in practice a Totalarianist Corporate Oligarchy - which is what I been calling it since 1980 when a well meaning teacher asked me what kind of Government we had.
I looked in the book, compared what I saw with what was listed, and told her that* - she looked a bit stricken and changed the subject.
"Cynics tend to be on the defensive about everything, tend to be anarchist.."
People become Cynics, become Anarchists, even, because of being lied to, and catching people doing it to them, over and over, because of never getting a straight answer, and watching the disasters that occur when other people meekly accept lies or justifications that leak like a sieve, and then obey not because it's a good idea, but because they fear the threat or coercive force of the powers that be.
When a child sees this stuff, without an innate bias pressed upon them by a family, well-meaning or not, they form their own conclusions based on the evidence in front of them, and thus become cynical, disrespectful of authority and anarchic in nature.
I saw it from inside, and now by watching my niece, I get to see the same exact process from outside - and it is a process, sparked by being lied to, accellerated by never getting a straight and honest answer, and fully calcified when deception fails and authority figures rip the mask off and reveal the true violent and coercive nature of "authority" for what it really is.
Cynics and Anarchists are whatcha call allergic to kool-aid, of any brand or flavor.
And it is the dishonesty and evasiveness of adults and authority figures, who are by their very nature dishonest in almost every respect to children - which creates that allergy.
-Frem
* I asked my niece, who had no knowledge of my original answer, and after scanning her somewhat dumbed down civics text, responded.
"We're a totalarian form of government"
Maybe it's genetic, I dunno - it's the same school, which is very oppressive and decietful in it's practices... I just hope she doesn't repeat the rest of that awful history...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes I did, perhaps you should try being clearer to save confusion?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Did you even bother to read what I wrote.
Quote:Right here:
Were did I say that a Republic is better than any other form of government.
Quote:Or are we going to play the "I didn't expressly say the words, despite the meaning of my post being clear" game?
The US is a Republic, not a pure democracy and most like it that way. Pure democracy gets you Hugo Chavez. We let the ignorant masses vote in this country but we don't let the them make foreign policy.
Quote:I know what you said, and pure democracy as opposed to democracy is an arbitrary distinction, as I indicated earlier. My first post indicated as much, did you read it, or were you too busy getting worked up at me? I very expressly said that it depended on your meaning, and I have no idea what you mean by 'pure democracy'. The current meaning of the word democracy is a country with an elective system of government, so a pure democracy is what, a country where the elective process is 'pure', unlike Iran that has its candidates chosen by the religious authority? Pure democracy is an arbitrary term, I gave you the opportunity to indicate what you meant by it earlier, you chose to become snarky and sarcastic so don't blame me for any misunderstanding.
I also never said that the US isn't a democracy, I said its a Republic as apposed to a "pure democracy".
Quote:Actually I believe Rue is American, I say this because you're original post was squarely directed at Rue.
My point was that some don't seem to understand the traditions and customs of our election process because they live under other forms of democracy.
Quote:Which is a big difference to indicating Republics are better than 'pure Democracies' because 'pure democracies' give you Hugo Chavez, and expecting people to know what you mean with your arbitrary term of 'pure democracy'. A Parliamentary Democracy is no more or less inherently a democracy than a Republic.
I know that the traditions of a parliamentary democracy are much different than our own and wouldn't begin to pretend that I now them better than someone that has lived under and studied that system of government their whole life.
To my mind a pure democracy would be Athenian Democracy (being the originator of the idea), or an elective system where candidates or votes aren't 'filtered' to ensure the status quo. So you could help me out by telling me what you mean by a 'pure democracy', or you can be sarcastic and accusatory again, whatever.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME