If Conservatives Have Such Great Ideas....

[Vladimir]

The problem with the firearm limitations you promote is a lack of statistically significant evidence. There is not a single case where the infringement on the Second Amendment, solely, has proven effective in curbing violence, let alone gun violence. Look at DC for an example, where violence actually climbed at times under the ban ([url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201818.html[/url]).

Perhaps you should watch the heartbreaking testimony of a Texan politician, whose family was killed by a gunman while her pistol, by law, was left in the car, leaving her defenseless and helpless in the face of the attack (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#).

I also highly recommend Penn and Teller's "Bullshit", featuring gun control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz5o1qEB5ok).

This is of course all ignoring the basic fact that the Second Amendment unquestionably supports an individual's right to bear arms, and the liberty-based implications of such a right. Which again, is what I base my conclusions on almost without exception.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='acolorado' date='09 June 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1276139925' post='471313']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='09 June 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1276134966' post='471305']
I needed some comedy tonight.

Did I just read nobummer was getting us out of a deficit?
that is pretty good comedy. He, and rest of the progressives should spend a load more money we don't have, and get us out of it even faster. He only has the deficit up to 10+% of GDP, I bet if he doubles it, by your definition, it will go down faster. Bernanke doesn't agree with you at all, by the way.


Anyone that thinks gun control works should be the first person to put a sign in their front yard saying there are no firearms in the house. Then, after the crooks come steal all your stuff, go to the library to use a computer, and come tell us all how well that worked out. The presence, or even the possibility of encountering an armed citizen will deter crooks. How about those Aussie crime stats pre vs. post ban. Even the libs have a hard time spinning them without just plain lying.
[/quote]

Thank you Scotty. The best comedy is self-parody.

1. I've posted quite a few links to documents showing that the Republicans and their legislation are responsible for most of the deficit. 53% to be specific. At the peak after Obama took office, it was increased by an additional 10%, and is now falling.

If we don't have any money (a silly assertion) it is because the Republicans spent most of it, refused to hold themselves responsible, and now simply lie about it.

Repeating something which is not true does not make it true. You keep repeating something which is easy to show is not true. I love that you and others do this, it's the reason I started the thread, and the reason for the name.

For a dose of reality look here - [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/deficit-debt-the-republic_b_370716.html"]My link[/url]

I honestly believe no matter how much evidence piles up to the contrary - you will never acknowledge that for Republicans, fiscal responsibility is only an empty talking point. They never get around to actually PRACTICING it.

What do you call someone who can't practice what they preach? A Republican I guess .

2. I DID look up studies on the Australian gun laws at your suggestion.

- Firearms related deaths have dropped 47% in the last 10 years.
[url="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html"][i]Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 269: Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001[/i][/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Institute_of_Criminology"]Australian Institute of Criminology[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number"]ISBN[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-642-53821-2;_ISSN_0817-8542"]0-642-53821-2; ISSN 0817-8542[/url]. [url="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html"]http://www.aic.gov.a.../tandi269t.html[/url].

- An interesting article in which the Federal Attorney of Australia calls out the NRA for using false statistics to make the claim you're repeating. In the same article, the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology also points out that homicides in Australia have decreased and rarely involve firearms.
[url="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322"]http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=15322[/url]

Looks like the spin here is all yours bud.

[/quote]



Ah, the liberal spin again. Good grief, it's like reading a mix of Ward Churchill, and a PBS new announcer, at the same time.
Murders went down, but check out the rape, armed robbery, and strong-arm crimes stats. There are far more factors in considering gun stats, than just murders.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Australia-experiencing-more-violent-crime-despite-gun-ban

Initially, the ban resulted in decrease of gun related murder/suicide, but caused a spike in other methods, predictable.
After 10 years the ban had little to do with most any crime, one way , or another.


You really need to realize the R or D mean very little. You need to add a "P" to the progressives from either party, that follow a progressive mindset.

GW was a progressive. bush 1 was a progressive, Schwarzenegger, Arlan spectre, harry reid, nancy PE-losi, boxer (and on, and on) are all progressives, pebo is the progressive-wet-dream. Same doctrine, different self-assigned label. IMNHO, bubba was more of a conservative on allot of issues (after first midterm) than both of the bushes. Until we get over D & R labels that are picked by the candidates themselves, then start labeling them by their actions, and beliefs, there is no point talking about party affiliation.

Further discussion of politicians based on party labels is a bit akin to a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.

[acolorado]

I'll just answer you both in this one.

After reading the studies you provide and checking the references, then comparing to the studies I found I come to 2 conclusions.

1. Gun control in the U.S. and Australia hasn't prevented the use of illegal firearms in crimes, although it does seem to have helped lower gun homicide rates in general, but not very much.

2. I will have to look at how they do it in Europe and compare - maybe gun control isn't as effective as I believed under any circumstance, maybe it was the laws enacted. Good debate on that.

I take note neither of you wanted to argue that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy as much as Republicans like to claim, and that Republicans don't practice fiscal responsibility the way they would have us believe - I would expect you did the research there and found those were solid arguments which you didn't want to argue.

Also - just to point out in a friendly way Scotty - you and I are the 2 people on these forums who can't retreat to the "R's and D's are the same" argument. You can't put up a post without calling liberals or their elected party members some juvenile name and repeating conservative talking points like you were paid by Murdoch to do it - you love to liken me to a PBS show in the same vein - you wear your bias like a 10-gallon hat just as I do.

You see I've done a couple things here - the honest thing - admitting one of my beliefs was not grounded in as much evidence as I would have liked to believe (not a happy feeling) - and put you in the position of doing the same on another issue we've been discussing - if you want to be honest about it.

And for the record I own 6 guns . My brother uses them now. I used to be a member of the NRA, but I've lost several friends to actual gun violence, one of them a close hunting buddy of mine, and I just haven't ever met anyone who has used one to defend themselves. I don't hunt or shoot anymore, but I understand the reasons people love guns, and why they hate them too. My friend may have still been killed if guns were illegal, maybe the gun that killed him was I don't know - but the truth is guns make it a lot easier to kill someone. That's why people don't usually kill people when they rob stores with a finger in their pocket. That may have colored (and may continue to color) my opinion on gun control - but you did a good debate on this.

[acolorado]

Oh and I have to mention - Vlad finally linked to something. you deserve a lot of credit for that. I really thought you were just a troll but you proved me wrong, and now you're debating like a champ. Your insults are even getting better.

Good job bud .

I think we can take this show on the road soon and give those Sunday morning goons a run for their money.

[Venger]

Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray

[mustafabey]

I am impressed with some of the data provided here, and also get a laugh at the "party line" crap. To me the problem isn't dems or repubs, the whole system is broke. Mineral management service (MMS) was taking preks and bribes instead of inspecting wells, SEC guys making 6 figure paychecks were surfing porn, then theres FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. I would have to assume a good part of federal bureaucracy is like that. Raise taxes and where is the money gonna go? Seems to me that everyone is either on the take or owned by someone. I liked Obama, I liked his fresh ideas, but he either can't implement them or has just sold us a another line of shit to get elected. All this talk about democracy, freedom, the American way, is bullshit, but people still believe the rhetoric. Conservatives think their politicians care about abortion, 2nd amendment, God etc, Libs believe their men are out to help the little guy, but in reality both groups are out for themselves and their wallets. I've lost faith in the whole system and think, that if it continues to go the way it has been, America will fold like a collapsing house of cards.
That said, i will prepare a hookah and settle down to a good movie.

[Chreees]

[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]


[quote name='mustafabey' date='10 June 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1276203814' post='471366']
I am impressed with some of the data provided here, and also get a laugh at the "party line" crap. To me the problem isn't dems or repubs, the whole system is broke. Mineral management service (MMS) was taking preks and bribes instead of inspecting wells, SEC guys making 6 figure paychecks were surfing porn, then theres FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. I would have to assume a good part of federal bureaucracy is like that. Raise taxes and where is the money gonna go? Seems to me that everyone is either on the take or owned by someone. I liked Obama, I liked his fresh ideas, but he either can't implement them or has just sold us a another line of shit to get elected. All this talk about democracy, freedom, the American way, is bullshit, but people still believe the rhetoric. Conservatives think their politicians care about abortion, 2nd amendment, God etc, Libs believe their men are out to help the little guy, but in reality both groups are out for themselves and their wallets. I've lost faith in the whole system and think, that if it continues to go the way it has been, America will fold like a collapsing house of cards.
That said, i will prepare a hookah and settle down to a good movie.
[/quote]

These are two great posts, and sum up EXACTLY how I feel about everything... I just didn't feel like writing it all in a long post. Thanks guys for speaking my mind!

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1276193113' post='471352']
I take note neither of you wanted to argue that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy as much as Republicans like to claim, and that Republicans don't practice fiscal responsibility the way they would have us believe - I would expect you did the research there and found those were solid arguments which you didn't want to argue.
[/quote]

I did address this, I mentioned that this was not something I cared about, I support low, and lowering taxes, as an important aspect of liberty, not as a means to economic growth. Any economic growth or decline is unimportant, liberty > economy, and liberty > government intervention into the economy.

[quote]And for the record I own 6 guns . My brother uses them now. I used to be a member of the NRA, but I've lost several friends to actual gun violence, one of them a close hunting buddy of mine, and I just haven't ever met anyone who has used one to defend themselves. I don't hunt or shoot anymore, but I understand the reasons people love guns, and why they hate them too. My friend may have still been killed if guns were illegal, maybe the gun that killed him was I don't know - but the truth is guns make it a lot easier to kill someone. That's why people don't usually kill people when they rob stores with a finger in their pocket. That may have colored (and may continue to color) my opinion on gun control - but you did a good debate on this.[/quote]


You don't have to be cornered by experiences, my dad has had plenty of guns pointed and fired at him (as well as lost friends) and meanwhile he still supports the Second Amendment (to be fair he is a police officer- and yes almost all police officers strongly support the Second Amendment for those wondering).

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1276193507' post='471353']
Oh and I have to mention - Vlad finally linked to something. you deserve a lot of credit for that. I really thought you were just a troll but you proved me wrong, and now you're debating like a champ. Your insults are even getting better.[/quote]


To be fair I did not directly say it, but the thing is these are all issues I could care less what the facts say. I support/attack them because I believe in liberty, which innately also requires limited government. The only reason I posted links for gun control was I finally realized there was no other way. You want to argue something like gun control [normally], abortion, taxes, capital punishment [which I am against surprisingly]- I will argue based on ideological and philosophical grounds. You want to argue something like democracy in the third world, political approval rates in the Russian Federation, medieval Kiyven-Rus history.... these things will be based in facts.



You seem a little liberal, so let's take gay marriage... when you argue gay marriage do you base your argument on facts, or the "fact" that it is just right and should be allowed?

[acolorado]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='10 June 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1276228144' post='471390']
[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1276193113' post='471352']
I take note neither of you wanted to argue that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy as much as Republicans like to claim, and that Republicans don't practice fiscal responsibility the way they would have us believe - I would expect you did the research there and found those were solid arguments which you didn't want to argue.
[/quote]

I did address this, I mentioned that this was not something I cared about, I support low, and lowering taxes, as an important aspect of liberty, not as a means to economic growth. Any economic growth or decline is unimportant, liberty > economy, and liberty > government intervention into the economy.

[quote]And for the record I own 6 guns . My brother uses them now. I used to be a member of the NRA, but I've lost several friends to actual gun violence, one of them a close hunting buddy of mine, and I just haven't ever met anyone who has used one to defend themselves. I don't hunt or shoot anymore, but I understand the reasons people love guns, and why they hate them too. My friend may have still been killed if guns were illegal, maybe the gun that killed him was I don't know - but the truth is guns make it a lot easier to kill someone. That's why people don't usually kill people when they rob stores with a finger in their pocket. That may have colored (and may continue to color) my opinion on gun control - but you did a good debate on this.[/quote]


You don't have to be cornered by experiences, my dad has had plenty of guns pointed and fired at him (as well as lost friends) and meanwhile he still supports the Second Amendment (to be fair he is a police officer- and yes almost all police officers strongly support the Second Amendment for those wondering).

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1276193507' post='471353']
Oh and I have to mention - Vlad finally linked to something. you deserve a lot of credit for that. I really thought you were just a troll but you proved me wrong, and now you're debating like a champ. Your insults are even getting better.[/quote]


To be fair I did not directly say it, but the thing is these are all issues I could care less what the facts say. I support/attack them because I believe in liberty, which innately also requires limited government. The only reason I posted links for gun control was I finally realized there was no other way. You want to argue something like gun control [normally], abortion, taxes, capital punishment [which I am against surprisingly]- I will argue based on ideological and philosophical grounds. You want to argue something like democracy in the third world, political approval rates in the Russian Federation, medieval Kiyven-Rus history.... these things will be based in facts.



You seem a little liberal, so let's take gay marriage... when you argue gay marriage do you base your argument on facts, or the "fact" that it is just right and should be allowed?

[/quote]

On gay marriage I'm sure we can agree - it's all about liberty. Any tax paying citizen deserves the same rights and benefits as any other tax paying citizen.

[acolorado]

[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]

Here's the problem many studies have found.

Tax you more, and the U.S. government has more money to put into the U.S. economy by spending on projects, programs, and employment right here.

Tax you less (especially if you're rich) and much of that money buys things made not here in the U.S., but in China and other countries. Many of the investments made are investments overseas (designed to reduce domestic tax liability), or in multinational corporations which pay reduced U.S. taxes by holding the bulk of their taxable operations (and therefore profits) in other countries. Much will simply be stashed away in overseas accounts not subject to U.S. tax laws (even when it's illegal - the reason the government is now pressing Swiss banks to reveal their U.S. account holders - many of whom are believed to have stashed hundreds of billions without paying due taxes). Yes you are helping an economy, it's just not ours much of the time.

This is why studies of the GDP multipliers for government spending and tax cuts are so divergent. A dollar spent by the government creates substantially more wealth in OUR economy than a dollar spent on tax cuts.

Also - when the Republicans ran up the debt by trillions - although you may not have realized it at the time - it would become inevitable that someday we would have to raise taxes in order to pay that off. It's just like a credit card. Spend today - pay tomorrow.

[Vladimir]

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1276232356' post='471394']
Here's the problem many studies have found.

Tax you more, and the U.S. government has more money to put into the U.S. economy by spending on projects, programs, and employment right here.
[/quote]

Here's the problem with that logic, the US Government spends money at a horrible rate of efficiency, and I can speak specifically to job creation has a pretty horrible rate of effectiveness. I do sales in construction, and I DO know what I am talking about. Their spending got a few heavy machinery operators their jobs back... these "shovel ready jobs" were more like "excavator ready jobs," and last time I checked it takes very few people to operate an excavator.

Though less taxes may result in spending on products created overseas etc (which by the way, if everyone followed a similar model the global economy would level out and help us as much as them) at least it puts the power in our hands, and not the government's, which is rarely actually representative, efficient, or all around intelligent.

[Chreees]

So... did you guys finally run out of stuff to argue about? I was having a rather enjoyable time reading all of the bickering back and forth.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1276193507' post='471353']
Oh and I have to mention - Vlad finally linked to something. you deserve a lot of credit for that. I really thought you were just a troll but you proved me wrong, and now you're debating like a champ. Your insults are even getting better.

Good job bud .

I think we can take this show on the road soon and give those Sunday morning goons a run for their money.
[/quote]


Before you can hit the Sunday-roadshow you have to demonstrate the ability to use the words "comprehensive" and "accountable" in at least every 3rd sentence, with a bonus for "efforting" "previous administration" and "bipartisan commission". But most of all, we need to develop the ability to blabber-on, talking over each-other in an ever-increasing crescendo of BS, which never really answers any question whatsoever.

[Dr. B]

[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Solow_growth_model2.png[/img]

this considers that government expenditure is a facet of savings in the GDP identity, particularly in the realm of "investments".I'll try to find the diagrams that show changes in GDP over time when changes to the savings rate are instituted. Edited June 17, 2010 by Dr. B

[Dr. B]

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1276232356' post='471394']
...Also - when the Republicans ran up the debt by trillions - although you may not have realized it at the time - it would become inevitable that someday we would have to raise taxes in order to pay that off. It's just like a credit card. Spend today - pay tomorrow.
[/quote]

or, you know, hold interest rates artificially low during the incurring of a plethora of corrective spending... encumbrances so that the real cost of acquired debt is smaller, relatively.

I don't know if I'm helping you or hurting you, but y'all don't wanna get me talking econ.

[Dr. B]

[quote name='Vladimir' date='11 June 2010 - 03:32 AM' timestamp='1276245175' post='471400']
Though less taxes may result in spending on products created overseas etc (which by the way, if everyone followed a similar model the global economy would level out and help us as much as them) at least it puts the power in our hands, and not the government's, which is rarely actually representative, efficient, or all around intelligent.
[/quote]

Labor-wage convergence is a reality only in similar economies: Parity does not exist among the nations which share in the outflow of US capital. By your logic, arbitrage does not exist.

sorry for the triple post fellas... maybe I do wanna dive in.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1276232356' post='471394']
[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]

Here's the problem [b]many studies have found[/b].

Tax you more, and the U.S. government has more money to put into the U.S. economy by spending on projects, programs, and employment right here.

Tax you less (especially if you're rich) and much of that money buys things made not here in the U.S., but in China and other countries. Many of the investments made are investments overseas (designed to reduce domestic tax liability), or in multinational corporations which pay reduced U.S. taxes by holding the bulk of their taxable operations (and therefore profits) in other countries. Much will simply be stashed away in overseas accounts not subject to U.S. tax laws (even when it's illegal - the reason the government is now pressing Swiss banks to reveal their U.S. account holders - many of whom are believed to have stashed hundreds of billions without paying due taxes). Yes you are helping an economy, it's just not ours much of the time.

This is why studies of the GDP multipliers for government spending and tax cuts are so divergent. A dollar spent by the government creates substantially more wealth in OUR economy than a dollar spent on tax cuts.

Also - when the Republicans ran up the debt by trillions - although you may not have realized it at the time - it would become inevitable that someday we would have to raise taxes in order to pay that off. It's just like a credit card. Spend today - pay tomorrow.
[/quote]

"Many studies have found" -- Good grief, could any statement be more open-ended? That is what Wikipedia would term [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word"]"weasel-words"[/url]

Studies also found:
earth was flat
The Edsel, and pacer were good looking cars
NY would be covered in a mile-thick layer of ice
the ozone would disappear, and we would be BBQ'd like a rack of ribs
If you spent too much time on cell phone you would get brain cancer in short order
that MTBE was a good way to oxygenate fuel for lower emissions
that PCBs were not significantly toxic
that an aircraft would be shredded by the shock waves as it went transonic
That herring communicate by farting
that women whose waist measurement is 70 % of their hip measurement were smarter

Hell, there is even a study that says most [url="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915"]studies reach incorrect conclusions[/url]-thus, assuming that study was one of the few that had actually reached a correct conclusion, most of your "many studies" are wrong.



trillions, huh? cite me some numbers, dates, and who was in congress (since they have the purse strings) or we will call that more propaganda. I find it mystifying that your posts are, typically, nearly exactly quoted DNC talking points. That isn't a discussion, it's dissemination of propaganda.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='19 June 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1277013533' post='472199']
[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1276232356' post='471394']
[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]

Here's the problem [b]many studies have found[/b].

Tax you more, and the U.S. government has more money to put into the U.S. economy by spending on projects, programs, and employment right here.

Tax you less (especially if you're rich) and much of that money buys things made not here in the U.S., but in China and other countries. Many of the investments made are investments overseas (designed to reduce domestic tax liability), or in multinational corporations which pay reduced U.S. taxes by holding the bulk of their taxable operations (and therefore profits) in other countries. Much will simply be stashed away in overseas accounts not subject to U.S. tax laws (even when it's illegal - the reason the government is now pressing Swiss banks to reveal their U.S. account holders - many of whom are believed to have stashed hundreds of billions without paying due taxes). Yes you are helping an economy, it's just not ours much of the time.

This is why studies of the GDP multipliers for government spending and tax cuts are so divergent. A dollar spent by the government creates substantially more wealth in OUR economy than a dollar spent on tax cuts.

Also - when the Republicans ran up the debt by trillions - although you may not have realized it at the time - it would become inevitable that someday we would have to raise taxes in order to pay that off. It's just like a credit card. Spend today - pay tomorrow.
[/quote]

"Many studies have found" -- Good grief, could any statement be more open-ended? That is what Wikipedia would term [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word"]"weasel-words"[/url]

Studies also found:
earth was flat
The Edsel, and pacer were good looking cars
NY would be covered in a mile-thick layer of ice
the ozone would disappear, and we would be BBQ'd like a rack of ribs
If you spent too much time on cell phone you would get brain cancer in short order
that MTBE was a good way to oxygenate fuel for lower emissions
that PCBs were not significantly toxic
that an aircraft would be shredded by the shock waves as it went transonic
That herring communicate by farting
that women whose waist measurement is 70 % of their hip measurement were smarter

Hell, there is even a study that says most [url="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915"]studies reach incorrect conclusions[/url]-thus, assuming that study was one of the few that had actually reached a correct conclusion, most of your "many studies" are wrong.



trillions, huh? cite me some numbers, dates, and who was in congress (since they have the purse strings) or we will call that more propaganda. I find it mystifying that your posts are, typically, nearly exactly quoted DNC talking points. That isn't a discussion, it's dissemination of propaganda.
[/quote]

I have to call BS on you Scotty. I've linked tons of information - numbers, dates, and who was in congress, to support my arguments. At this point I would just be pointing back to old links that you didn't bother to read in the first place and won't bother to read now. If you had read through my posts in this thread you would find most of the information you're asking for, but I doubt you even did that.

In the past you've ask for evidence, and when I happily provided it, you then claimed you didn't believe the evidence or trust the source (the government of all entities, is in your mind unreliable), then presented your own evidence, from sources far far more unreliable, and expect us to accept it. You can't live by the same standards you ask me and others to follow - and don't even seem to be aware of that contradiction.

You are not someone who argues in good faith, and on honest ground. That is not a personal insult, that is a personal observation from reading your posts over many months now. You are quite happy to change the "rules" of any debate the moment it becomes obvous you don't know what you're talking about.

Arguing with you is pointless because no matter how overwhelming the evidence and facts might be - your beliefs do not rest on facts and evidence, and you do not seem to have the ability to honestly admit when the facts do not support your position.

Instead, like a 5 year old, you resort to calling other people ridiculous names like "libtard", "Obummers", and now propagandists.

Oh, and just to make you look as ridiculous as you deserve today - here's that history lesson you asked for.
[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/"]My link[/url] - 5 TRILLION added on Bush's watch, most of it from programs passed when REPUBLICANS controlled the White House, House, and Senate.

Makes you look kind of silly saying you don't believe it, when anyone can look it up on the net, and most people remember it.

If you're such a small-government supporter - how is it possible you didn't know this anyway? EVERY person who really believes in limited government spending figures this out pretty quickly. Why not you? How RIDICULOUS is it for you to claim you know the first thing about that and not know about THIS?

Answer: You just don't know what you're talking about.

You're a REPUBLITROLL

[mustafabey]

I would suppose it would be hard to convince anyone with a strong passion for an issue,ideology or political party. The truth is that you find "facts" and "studies" and of course scripture to prove just about any point you want. the documentation is nice, but just proves you are a more dedicated whatever than the other guy. OK, so lots of people are comfortable with instant ideologies, such as baptist,catholic, republican, democrat or anarchist. Rush Limbaugh has said things like "I'll do the thinking for ya" and that kind of slavish devotion to canned ideologies leads to people saying man and dinosaur coexisted in the not to distant past, or , as we've found out here, the earth is flat. There is so much information out there today, one can't possibly digest it all. And most information we get has been been altered to fit a view point, or witheld for similar reasons. The fact is, we don't know the truth( speaking politically here, not spiritually), we may only know of it. Take global warming, for instance, some conservatives will tell you it's all BS, while certain activist environmentalists will have you believe the flood will be here tomorrow. The truth is we don't really know what effect man will have on his environment until it happens. So you have degrees. Degrees of truth.
Walking thru this jungle of bullshit is not easy. To me, every pronouncement from every country,corporation,religious sect sounds like bullshit to me. Watching everybody throw BP under the bus so as to detach themselves from disaster is such fun. Soon they'll find some guy, Joe the roughneck,and we'll find out it was all his fault,and fire him. Kind of like Abu Ghraib. Just a couple of bad apples, don't ya know.
Everybody has an agenda and you can bet you're ass that your individual freedoms, rights, etc, isn't on that agenda.

[acolorado]

Yeah I'm out on this - you can't have an honest debate with people who have to play by their own set of rules to make any headway.

Scotty has used facts and studies on more than a few occasions, and he always expects everyone to take them at face value.

As soon as the evidence show's he's wrong - he claims that all facts and studies are unreliable, except I guess, his own.

He needs the goalposts at the 20 yard line but expects everyone else to play to the full 100.

That is simply dishonest.

Also, he reverts to using silly names that most people left behind during the 3rd grade as soon as his points are shot down.

He knows full well that the real world doesn't back up his loopy ideas and beliefs - so he has to try to claim that all facts are not facts, except his, and all studies are unreliable, except his, and God forbid someone calls him a name - that is his special privilege.

I know quite well that my positions are correct. I know also that Scotty's are mostly destined for the dustbin of history.

I just have a hard time accepting that someone can be so two-faced, openly dishonest, hypocritical, and feel the need to resort to childish name calling when they don't win an argument. That is just sad, but that is what I have seen from him here time and again.

I will let the rest of you read his drivel while I go off to do things I really enjoy.

[Venger]

[quote name='acolorado' date='20 June 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1277072879' post='472246']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='19 June 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1277013533' post='472199']
[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1276232356' post='471394']
[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]

Here's the problem [b]many studies have found[/b].

Tax you more, and the U.S. government has more money to put into the U.S. economy by spending on projects, programs, and employment right here.

Tax you less (especially if you're rich) and much of that money buys things made not here in the U.S., but in China and other countries. Many of the investments made are investments overseas (designed to reduce domestic tax liability), or in multinational corporations which pay reduced U.S. taxes by holding the bulk of their taxable operations (and therefore profits) in other countries. Much will simply be stashed away in overseas accounts not subject to U.S. tax laws (even when it's illegal - the reason the government is now pressing Swiss banks to reveal their U.S. account holders - many of whom are believed to have stashed hundreds of billions without paying due taxes). Yes you are helping an economy, it's just not ours much of the time.

This is why studies of the GDP multipliers for government spending and tax cuts are so divergent. A dollar spent by the government creates substantially more wealth in OUR economy than a dollar spent on tax cuts.

Also - when the Republicans ran up the debt by trillions - although you may not have realized it at the time - it would become inevitable that someday we would have to raise taxes in order to pay that off. It's just like a credit card. Spend today - pay tomorrow.
[/quote]

"Many studies have found" -- Good grief, could any statement be more open-ended? That is what Wikipedia would term [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word"]"weasel-words"[/url]

Studies also found:
earth was flat
The Edsel, and pacer were good looking cars
NY would be covered in a mile-thick layer of ice
the ozone would disappear, and we would be BBQ'd like a rack of ribs
If you spent too much time on cell phone you would get brain cancer in short order
that MTBE was a good way to oxygenate fuel for lower emissions
that PCBs were not significantly toxic
that an aircraft would be shredded by the shock waves as it went transonic
That herring communicate by farting
that women whose waist measurement is 70 % of their hip measurement were smarter

Hell, there is even a study that says most [url="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915"]studies reach incorrect conclusions[/url]-thus, assuming that study was one of the few that had actually reached a correct conclusion, most of your "many studies" are wrong.



trillions, huh? cite me some numbers, dates, and who was in congress (since they have the purse strings) or we will call that more propaganda. I find it mystifying that your posts are, typically, nearly exactly quoted DNC talking points. That isn't a discussion, it's dissemination of propaganda.
[/quote]

I have to call BS on you Scotty. I've linked tons of information - numbers, dates, and who was in congress, to support my arguments. At this point I would just be pointing back to old links that you didn't bother to read in the first place and won't bother to read now. If you had read through my posts in this thread you would find most of the information you're asking for, but I doubt you even did that.

In the past you've ask for evidence, and when I happily provided it, you then claimed you didn't believe the evidence or trust the source (the government of all entities, is in your mind unreliable), then presented your own evidence, from sources far far more unreliable, and expect us to accept it. You can't live by the same standards you ask me and others to follow - and don't even seem to be aware of that contradiction.

You are not someone who argues in good faith, and on honest ground. That is not a personal insult, that is a personal observation from reading your posts over many months now. You are quite happy to change the "rules" of any debate the moment it becomes obvous you don't know what you're talking about.

Arguing with you is pointless because no matter how overwhelming the evidence and facts might be - your beliefs do not rest on facts and evidence, and you do not seem to have the ability to honestly admit when the facts do not support your position.

Instead, like a 5 year old, you resort to calling other people ridiculous names like "libtard", "Obummers", and now propagandists.

Oh, and just to make you look as ridiculous as you deserve today - here's that history lesson you asked for.
[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/"]My link[/url] - 5 TRILLION added on Bush's watch, most of it from programs passed when REPUBLICANS controlled the White House, House, and Senate.

Makes you look kind of silly saying you don't believe it, when anyone can look it up on the net, and most people remember it.

If you're such a small-government supporter - how is it possible you didn't know this anyway? EVERY person who really believes in limited government spending figures this out pretty quickly. Why not you? How RIDICULOUS is it for you to claim you know the first thing about that and not know about THIS?

Answer: You just don't know what you're talking about.

You're a REPUBLITROLL
[/quote]

[url="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rahm-emanuel/"]Rahm Emanuel[/url] on Sunday, January 18th, 2009 in a news interview
you really think Obama's guy is gonna give you objective stats. Sorry if this was a non partisan economics guy I could buy it. Stats from this guy are just not reliable. This is not the one quote I would have used to prove your links can be trusted as gospel.
Ray

[acolorado]

[quote name='Venger' date='20 June 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1277082929' post='472266']
[quote name='acolorado' date='20 June 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1277072879' post='472246']
[quote name='TheScotsman' date='19 June 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1277013533' post='472199']
[quote name='acolorado' date='10 June 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1276232356' post='471394']
[quote name='Venger' date='10 June 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1276197965' post='471357']
Just a quick thought. Now I am only using my brain here and it is NOT a reliable source (it has failed me on many occasions)
If you tax me more I will have less money to spend therefore a lesser chance of affecting the economy.
If I have more disposable income I could buy a car.the dealer ship can pay the dealer and he spends more.the car manufacturer get money for making the car so all the people who assemble the car get money to spend more.All the parts had to be manufactured so they get paid to spend more.The auto company pays dividends to stock holders stimulating the economy further giving them more money to invest.
Now the other thinking. Tax me more. I have no disposable income so I don't buy a car.everybody that would have made money in the previous chain will also not get money so they will not have it to spend.some may lose their job making the problem worse.
Who gets the money that was taken away from me? The government who I have little or no control over and can not make them accountable for those funds? where will they spend it? who will benefit? them? their special interest groups? and I am talking about the whole government not one group or another.If this trend continues we will either be communist (as in we would all work for the government and they pay us) or super socialist where the ratio of government paid jobs far out weighs the private sector. I don't pretend to have an answer to this as with a corrupt 2 party, system both hell bent on spending us blind, we have too few options. I do miss the idea of the American dream, the idea that a person could start with nothing but a good idea and a great work ethic could be a million\billionaire without a nanny state saying he is a bad person because he\she want to keep what they have made and give it to their kids or spend it on what is important to them and not spend it on welfare,someone elses insurance,an abortion for an under aged girl,or whatever you don't want your money spent on.
Flame on
Ray
[/quote]

Here's the problem [b]many studies have found[/b].

Tax you more, and the U.S. government has more money to put into the U.S. economy by spending on projects, programs, and employment right here.

Tax you less (especially if you're rich) and much of that money buys things made not here in the U.S., but in China and other countries. Many of the investments made are investments overseas (designed to reduce domestic tax liability), or in multinational corporations which pay reduced U.S. taxes by holding the bulk of their taxable operations (and therefore profits) in other countries. Much will simply be stashed away in overseas accounts not subject to U.S. tax laws (even when it's illegal - the reason the government is now pressing Swiss banks to reveal their U.S. account holders - many of whom are believed to have stashed hundreds of billions without paying due taxes). Yes you are helping an economy, it's just not ours much of the time.

This is why studies of the GDP multipliers for government spending and tax cuts are so divergent. A dollar spent by the government creates substantially more wealth in OUR economy than a dollar spent on tax cuts.

Also - when the Republicans ran up the debt by trillions - although you may not have realized it at the time - it would become inevitable that someday we would have to raise taxes in order to pay that off. It's just like a credit card. Spend today - pay tomorrow.
[/quote]

"Many studies have found" -- Good grief, could any statement be more open-ended? That is what Wikipedia would term [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word"]"weasel-words"[/url]

Studies also found:
earth was flat
The Edsel, and pacer were good looking cars
NY would be covered in a mile-thick layer of ice
the ozone would disappear, and we would be BBQ'd like a rack of ribs
If you spent too much time on cell phone you would get brain cancer in short order
that MTBE was a good way to oxygenate fuel for lower emissions
that PCBs were not significantly toxic
that an aircraft would be shredded by the shock waves as it went transonic
That herring communicate by farting
that women whose waist measurement is 70 % of their hip measurement were smarter

Hell, there is even a study that says most [url="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915"]studies reach incorrect conclusions[/url]-thus, assuming that study was one of the few that had actually reached a correct conclusion, most of your "many studies" are wrong.



trillions, huh? cite me some numbers, dates, and who was in congress (since they have the purse strings) or we will call that more propaganda. I find it mystifying that your posts are, typically, nearly exactly quoted DNC talking points. That isn't a discussion, it's dissemination of propaganda.
[/quote]

I have to call BS on you Scotty. I've linked tons of information - numbers, dates, and who was in congress, to support my arguments. At this point I would just be pointing back to old links that you didn't bother to read in the first place and won't bother to read now. If you had read through my posts in this thread you would find most of the information you're asking for, but I doubt you even did that.

In the past you've ask for evidence, and when I happily provided it, you then claimed you didn't believe the evidence or trust the source (the government of all entities, is in your mind unreliable), then presented your own evidence, from sources far far more unreliable, and expect us to accept it. You can't live by the same standards you ask me and others to follow - and don't even seem to be aware of that contradiction.

You are not someone who argues in good faith, and on honest ground. That is not a personal insult, that is a personal observation from reading your posts over many months now. You are quite happy to change the "rules" of any debate the moment it becomes obvous you don't know what you're talking about.

Arguing with you is pointless because no matter how overwhelming the evidence and facts might be - your beliefs do not rest on facts and evidence, and you do not seem to have the ability to honestly admit when the facts do not support your position.

Instead, like a 5 year old, you resort to calling other people ridiculous names like "libtard", "Obummers", and now propagandists.

Oh, and just to make you look as ridiculous as you deserve today - here's that history lesson you asked for.
[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/"]My link[/url] - 5 TRILLION added on Bush's watch, most of it from programs passed when REPUBLICANS controlled the White House, House, and Senate.

Makes you look kind of silly saying you don't believe it, when anyone can look it up on the net, and most people remember it.

If you're such a small-government supporter - how is it possible you didn't know this anyway? EVERY person who really believes in limited government spending figures this out pretty quickly. Why not you? How RIDICULOUS is it for you to claim you know the first thing about that and not know about THIS?

Answer: You just don't know what you're talking about.

You're a REPUBLITROLL
[/quote]

[url="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rahm-emanuel/"]Rahm Emanuel[/url] on Sunday, January 18th, 2009 in a news interview
you really think Obama's guy is gonna give you objective stats. Sorry if this was a non partisan economics guy I could buy it. Stats from this guy are just not reliable. This is not the one quote I would have used to prove your links can be trusted as gospel.
Ray
[/quote]

You probably should have read the rest of the fact checking that politifact did on that. It's right below the point where you evidently stopped reading.

Ironic that politifact was fact checking Rahm's claim - and found that he had actually understated it. How did you miss that anyway?

The reality is that Republicans are far more fiscally irresponsible than Dems right now, and have been for a long time. The only way you can get around it is to lie about it, ignore it, or try to rewrite history to more closely resemble the fantasy land Republicans are living in right now. That may sting, but it's true.

They practice fiscal responsibility like they practice family values - only when they're standing in front of a podium.

[Venger]

You probably should have read the rest of the fact checking that politifact did on that. It's right below the point where you evidently stopped reading.

Ironic that politifact was fact checking Rahm's claim - and found that he had actually understated it. How did you miss that anyway?

The reality is that Republicans are far more fiscally irresponsible than Dems right now, and have been for a long time. The only way you can get around it is to lie about it, ignore it, or try to rewrite history to more closely resemble the fantasy land Republicans are living in right now. That may sting, but it's true.

They practice fiscal responsibility like they practice family values - only when they're standing in front of a podium
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I wasn't disputing the validity of the statement. I was just pointing out that if you are trying to prove a point that your sources are non-biased that using Rahm and that particular web site was not a good choice. Google politifact + bias.
I would just like to see some numbers from a non-partisan economist or a CPA that isn't being paid by either party. Both spend recklessly.
Ray
Ps there is a youtube of the owner of politifact about him admitting he was biased in favor of the left and he feels by trying not to be biased you can actually make it worse. Edited June 21, 2010 by Venger

[TheScotsman]

Using politifact, and Rahm-boy [url="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Rahm-Traded-Favors-with-Blago-Report-96812049.html"](the guy trading favours with blaggo-the-crook)[/url] may be fine for a freshman class powerpoint you are presenting to a captive room of obama-zombies, but makes you look ridiculous, and completely out of touch with the general political attitude in the USA.

What's next? ak-ma-dinner-jacket as a source to support nuclear disarmament?

Bush was a progressive masquerading as a repub. He was in no way a conservative by any stretch of the imagination-just a true RINO.

Here are some good bush numbers- In a PPP survey (a democratic controlled pollster) [url="http://politifi.com/news/Poll-On-Disaster-CleanUps-Louisiana-Voters-Give-Poorer-Marks-to-Obama-Than-Bush-816566.html"]Louisiana residents said bush was better at managing a disaster[/url], by 50% to 35% for barry. Not to say they were at all happy with bush-league, which would really make the 'bummer's ratings garbage. I guess he should have gotten down there, and done something beyond standing on the beach in a white shirt, and faking anger. Maybe he could just do a junk-shot with teleprompters, and do us all a favour. He has set up a federal response to a local problem. When it takes a local official a dozen calls that go unanswered at a federal level, to get permission to pickup a tar-ball, or homeland security sends everyone to shore because they don't have a life jacket???? That is what always happens when the feds try to "fix" any problem. Happened in Katrina, is happening now. What does anyone expect? The intensity of any clusterfuck is directly proportional to the number of bureaucrats involved in solving it.

32% of the USA says we are on the right track, 60% say we are going the wrong way. [url="http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm"]CBS/NYT[/url]

Bush's "mission accomplished" was a stupid comment, but when the GIC decides to turn the flame thrower on the commander in chief, something is way wrong. McChrystal started the last 2 years as a strong obambi supporter, but, it would [url="http://theweek.com/article/index/204297/5-insubordinate-quotes-in-rolling-stones-stanley-mcchrystal-profile"]seem he has come to his senses[/url]. The National security advisor is a "clown" and obambi is just out for a photo-op. Really, we already knew that, but hearing it from the GIC is a reality check for the regime. The shame of the whole mid-east war is found in the fact that the reason we are still there, and doing nothing to actually win/end the conflict is found in the unemployment numbers. They are already an embarrassment to the regime, and sure to figure into the mid-terms. The last thing the current regime will do is let a bunch of [url="http://www.military.com/news/article/unemployment-spikes-for-iraq-afghan-vets.html"]unemployed soldiers[/url] flood back into the states to swell that number.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='22 June 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1277220857' post='472452']
Using politifact, and Rahm-boy [url="http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Rahm-Traded-Favors-with-Blago-Report-96812049.html"](the guy trading favours with blaggo-the-crook)[/url] may be fine for a freshman class powerpoint you are presenting to a captive room of obama-zombies, but makes you look ridiculous, and completely out of touch with the general political attitude in the USA.

What's next? ak-ma-dinner-jacket as a source to support nuclear disarmament?

Bush was a progressive masquerading as a repub. He was in no way a conservative by any stretch of the imagination-just a true RINO.

Here are some good bush numbers- In a PPP survey (a democratic controlled pollster) [url="http://politifi.com/news/Poll-On-Disaster-CleanUps-Louisiana-Voters-Give-Poorer-Marks-to-Obama-Than-Bush-816566.html"]Louisiana residents said bush was better at managing a disaster[/url], by 50% to 35% for barry. Not to say they were at all happy with bush-league, which would really make the 'bummer's ratings garbage. I guess he should have gotten down there, and done something beyond standing on the beach in a white shirt, and faking anger. Maybe he could just do a junk-shot with teleprompters, and do us all a favour. He has set up a federal response to a local problem. When it takes a local official a dozen calls that go unanswered at a federal level, to get permission to pickup a tar-ball, or homeland security sends everyone to shore because they don't have a life jacket???? That is what always happens when the feds try to "fix" any problem. Happened in Katrina, is happening now. What does anyone expect? The intensity of any clusterfuck is directly proportional to the number of bureaucrats involved in solving it.

32% of the USA says we are on the right track, 60% say we are going the wrong way. [url="http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm"]CBS/NYT[/url]

Bush's "mission accomplished" was a stupid comment, but when the GIC decides to turn the flame thrower on the commander in chief, something is way wrong. McChrystal started the last 2 years as a strong obambi supporter, but, it would [url="http://theweek.com/article/index/204297/5-insubordinate-quotes-in-rolling-stones-stanley-mcchrystal-profile"]seem he has come to his senses[/url]. The National security advisor is a "clown" and obambi is just out for a photo-op. Really, we already knew that, but hearing it from the GIC is a reality check for the regime. The shame of the whole mid-east war is found in the fact that the reason we are still there, and doing nothing to actually win/end the conflict is found in the unemployment numbers. They are already an embarrassment to the regime, and sure to figure into the mid-terms. The last thing the current regime will do is let a bunch of [url="http://www.military.com/news/article/unemployment-spikes-for-iraq-afghan-vets.html"]unemployed soldiers[/url] flood back into the states to swell that number.
[/quote]

Just the idea that Bush was a progressive says it all bud. You are not connecting with the real world. Every policy Bush put into practice is the same policy Republican's are still embracing and would put into practice if elected. Not one thing has changed, and they would drive us off a cliff just like before.

You can try to blame their failure on Bush, but the thing is it's the IDEAS you have that don't work. This is part of the reason conservatives have to live in a fantasy land of rewritten history and outlier polls, blaming all their failures on others such as immigrants, homosexuals, and minorities.

Politifact is widely recognized as an independent fact checker. As I noted before - when you can't argue with the facts you resort to the claim that the source is not legitimate, no matter how ridiculous or dishonest that claim is.

Just go look at the treasury dept.'s records, the CBO reports, or any debt tracking tool and you and everyone else who does will find that the claim Rahm made is true - you just aren't being honest enough to admit it. And this is something that is easy to look up, so you have no excuse. Your dishonesty here is glaring.

Once again you're proving the point of my thread - rather than addressing the facts you just resort to dishonesty or try to change the subject.

In regards to Louisiana -

Obama gave the state authorization to deploy 6,000 national guardsmen to help with cleanup.

Jindal (the Republican governor) only called up 1,100 of them. He also dragged his feet on releasing millions in funds BP provided to help with costs. Both were his responsibility.

Then he tried to blame all this on the President. - [url="http://www.netnoir.com/2010/06/bobby-jindal-avoiding-job/"]My link[/url]

Perhaps if the Republican governor wasn't trying to use the spill as a political opportunity to grandstand and actually doing what he was elected to do - the cleanup in Louisiana would have gone better?

On McChrystal, I have no doubt you were one of those who claimed that any criticism of a President during wartime was un-American and possibly treasonous, right up to the second Obama took office. Now all we hear from those people is criticism of a President during wartime. Hypocritical much?

Maybe the flap with McChrystal has something to do with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 88?

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." - [url="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#888.%20ART.%2088.%20CONTEMPT%20TOWARD%20OFFICIALS"]My link[/url]

But I know, I know, laws don't apply to Republicans or the people they support in your mind, only to the people who criticize them.

Now tell us why Republicans would rather apologize to the [u]foreign[/u] oil company responsible for the worst environmental disaster in American history rather than stick up for the thousands of Americans losing businesses and livelihoods because of that? - [url="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/17/bp-shakedown-barton/"]My link[/url]

The longer this thread goes on and the more lies these guys bring out - the happier I am with my choice to be a Dem.