Reign of Error
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Army of Allah (Hizballah)
I realize your trying to go for a certain effect here, but Hizb means Party.
Recitation(not full prayer)in AlMasjid AlHaram Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf Eid Alfitr Turning Muslim in Texas?
You're right, Party of Allah, my fault.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
dennisd45 wrote:
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction. Old shells with degraded gas do not constitute WMD. The belief is in the context of a reason to go to war. It is the issue at hand. From the article: "(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)"
Yes they do since much of the munitions, while old, are still usable...And those are just the ones they found. Think back before the NYT articles (a dfficult thing for you, I'm sure). The concern was that Saddamn Hussein would transfer such weaponry to terrorists, not that he would personally use them.
dennisd45 wrote:
As far as you economic data goes, first you say it can't be proved then you cite evidence that you say proves it, and you call Kruger a liar on something you say can't be proven.
Are you retarded? I said causality between tax cuts and increased government revenue cannot be absoutely determined. However, that was not the claim made by Krugman. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton than it is today. I posted government revenue as illustration that his claim was false, but apparently that was too big a leap for you. Look at the unbiased economic data I posted and understand me as I say the following: "It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton. Krugman lied when he stated otherwise". You have my permission to quote me whenever you want on that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Back to "all" again. You're safe now, no nuance.
Soooooooooooo stupid.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
espeir wrote:
It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton.
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
espeir wrote:
Soooooooooooo stupid.
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
-
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
espeir wrote:
It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton.
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
espeir wrote:
Soooooooooooo stupid.
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
dennisd45 wrote:
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
dennisd45 wrote:
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
Yes it is. A lot of work goes into aggregating those summed up figures I gave you. When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better. This is indisputable and the fact that you continue to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied is nothing less than disturbing.
dennisd45 wrote:
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
It's actually extremely rare for me (unless I'm called names first, which my liberal counterparts frequently do). In this case, however, I am honestly astounded by your thick-headedness. I don't consider calling you "stupid" mere name calling, but a genuine observation.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
dennisd45 wrote:
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
Yes it is. A lot of work goes into aggregating those summed up figures I gave you. When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better. This is indisputable and the fact that you continue to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied is nothing less than disturbing.
dennisd45 wrote:
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
It's actually extremely rare for me (unless I'm called names first, which my liberal counterparts frequently do). In this case, however, I am honestly astounded by your thick-headedness. I don't consider calling you "stupid" mere name calling, but a genuine observation.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
espeir wrote:
When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better.
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964[^]
espeir wrote:
It's actually extremely rare for me
Thank you, that's a good one.:laugh: -- modified at 12:25 Friday 28th July, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
espeir wrote:
When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better.
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964[^]
espeir wrote:
It's actually extremely rare for me
Thank you, that's a good one.:laugh: -- modified at 12:25 Friday 28th July, 2006
dennisd45 wrote:
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
No...The entire point of this thread is Krugman's little op-ed piece. I pointed out the demonstrable lies and now you're trying to say that he didn't lie because you're clearly incapable of thinking for yourself. Here is what Krugman said:
"Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of
depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of
Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up
from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had
strong links with Al Qaeda."At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America
never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been
established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the
Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that
supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down
the memory hole.Those are obvious lies that you own statements confirm. And yet, quite puzzlingly, you refuse to admit that he lied. I can only assume that you do so because you would look rather silly expending such effort to defend the "truth" of the article without first thinking critically about it.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi\_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964\[^\]
Dude...Seriously...Are you retarded? There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth. Other indicators hint at the level future economic growth will be. The article you linked (ANOTHER left-wing source!) is using an irrelevant collection of factors in order to support an agenda. John Kerry tried this with his poverty index or whatever it was. I'll also point out the ob
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
No...The entire point of this thread is Krugman's little op-ed piece. I pointed out the demonstrable lies and now you're trying to say that he didn't lie because you're clearly incapable of thinking for yourself. Here is what Krugman said:
"Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of
depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of
Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up
from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had
strong links with Al Qaeda."At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America
never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been
established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the
Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that
supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down
the memory hole.Those are obvious lies that you own statements confirm. And yet, quite puzzlingly, you refuse to admit that he lied. I can only assume that you do so because you would look rather silly expending such effort to defend the "truth" of the article without first thinking critically about it.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi\_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964\[^\]
Dude...Seriously...Are you retarded? There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth. Other indicators hint at the level future economic growth will be. The article you linked (ANOTHER left-wing source!) is using an irrelevant collection of factors in order to support an agenda. John Kerry tried this with his poverty index or whatever it was. I'll also point out the ob
WMD's. The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying. Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
espeir wrote:
There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth.
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
espeir wrote:
ANOTHER left-wing source!)
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
espeir wrote:
retarded
espeir wrote:
Moron.
You do keep me entertained.
-
WMD's. The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying. Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
espeir wrote:
There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth.
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
espeir wrote:
ANOTHER left-wing source!)
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
espeir wrote:
retarded
espeir wrote:
Moron.
You do keep me entertained.
dennisd45 wrote:
The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying.
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
dennisd45 wrote:
Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
Again you're trying to defend Krugman's outward lies by changing the subject. It is comical at this point. Krugman was not talking about reasons for invading Iraq if you actually reread his article. He accused the administration of misinforming the public and causing 50% of us to believe that Iraq had WMD before we invaded. Guess what...You even admitted that! And yet your blatant bias cannot allow you to admit that Krugman lied in his article by saying there was an "absence of WMD in Iraq"! You're absolutely pathetic.
dennisd45 wrote:
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
I am absolutely flabergasted over the extents to which you will dilute your own perception of the world in order to conform to this guy simply because he shares your political views. This is seriously cult-like and at this point I'm beginning to think that you're just a crafty jokester. Even a lot the people at Jamestown resisted the Kool-Aid.
dennisd45 wrote:
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
Besides the obvious fact that it was a left-wing article that jived with the Kerry campaign and came out during his presidential bid, it uses data three years old when the US economy was indeed performing poorly (and was recovering). So no, that article does not dispute the conclusions of the Federal Reserve (they weren't my conclusions...I just passed them on). You need something relevant to Krugman's claim...That the economy is weaker today than under Clinton.
dennisd45 wrote:
Yo
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying.
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
dennisd45 wrote:
Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
Again you're trying to defend Krugman's outward lies by changing the subject. It is comical at this point. Krugman was not talking about reasons for invading Iraq if you actually reread his article. He accused the administration of misinforming the public and causing 50% of us to believe that Iraq had WMD before we invaded. Guess what...You even admitted that! And yet your blatant bias cannot allow you to admit that Krugman lied in his article by saying there was an "absence of WMD in Iraq"! You're absolutely pathetic.
dennisd45 wrote:
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
I am absolutely flabergasted over the extents to which you will dilute your own perception of the world in order to conform to this guy simply because he shares your political views. This is seriously cult-like and at this point I'm beginning to think that you're just a crafty jokester. Even a lot the people at Jamestown resisted the Kool-Aid.
dennisd45 wrote:
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
Besides the obvious fact that it was a left-wing article that jived with the Kerry campaign and came out during his presidential bid, it uses data three years old when the US economy was indeed performing poorly (and was recovering). So no, that article does not dispute the conclusions of the Federal Reserve (they weren't my conclusions...I just passed them on). You need something relevant to Krugman's claim...That the economy is weaker today than under Clinton.
dennisd45 wrote:
Yo
espeir wrote:
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
Here: "discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.) " On WMD's - I have not changed the subject at all. The subject of WMD's is in the context of a reason to go to war otherwise it is irrelevant. As for the rest of your post, nothing but meaningless name-calling. -- modified at 17:28 Friday 28th July, 2006
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
espeir wrote:
but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you
Just a note: the Greenspan article is from January 2001, and so did not take into account the massive borrowing and spending in which the government is currently engaged. Even then, he only states that decreasing taxes will benefit the economy more than increasing government spending. I found a more recent article[^] on the topic. The strength of the economy is not disputed, although its strength relative to the Clinton years is not mentioned. He does chide the government about its disregard for the deficit and its practice of borrowing money to finance tax cuts.
-
espeir wrote:
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
Here: "discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.) " On WMD's - I have not changed the subject at all. The subject of WMD's is in the context of a reason to go to war otherwise it is irrelevant. As for the rest of your post, nothing but meaningless name-calling. -- modified at 17:28 Friday 28th July, 2006
dennisd45 wrote:
On WMD's - I have not changed the subject at all. The subject of WMD's is in the context of a reason to go to war on it is irrelevant.
Wrong. Read his op-ed piece. The context was related to supposed recent presidential propaganda. I do see what you're referring to, but I have not heard or seen anything about those munitions more than once and it was a while ago. So thank you for pointing out another lie (about the "hyping").
dennisd45 wrote:
As for the rest of your post, nothing but meaningless name-calling.
Allow me to sum up this thread: Krugman: The sky is yellow. Me: Krugman is obviously lying since the sky is blue. You: You just say that because he's a liberal. Me: No, the sky is blue. Go outside and see. You: No, it's yellow. Me: Here are some links to pictures of the sky being blue. You: No, it's yellow. Me: Care to back that up? You: Yes, here's a link from the National Association of the Colorblind. This guy says he sees the sky as yellow. Me: The sky is blue. Here it is broken down on a chromatic spectrum and, as you can plainly see, it's blue. You're such an idiot. You: Ummmmm...It's yellow, and you're immature for calling me names! Me: Idiot. As further evidence of your own bias, I do agree with Krugman on the Bush Administration's response to Katrina being very poor (as was the state of Louisiana's). The difference between you and I is I will disregard biased statements and accept the factual ones regardless of the source. You're so pathetically in need of association to a larger group, that you won't disagree with ANYTHING, no matter how obvious it is, which comes from your hive mind. I mean, come on...We're not even talking ideology here. These are basic verifyable facts that you refuse to accept because a liberal told you how to think. It's really almost sad.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
On WMD's - I have not changed the subject at all. The subject of WMD's is in the context of a reason to go to war on it is irrelevant.
Wrong. Read his op-ed piece. The context was related to supposed recent presidential propaganda. I do see what you're referring to, but I have not heard or seen anything about those munitions more than once and it was a while ago. So thank you for pointing out another lie (about the "hyping").
dennisd45 wrote:
As for the rest of your post, nothing but meaningless name-calling.
Allow me to sum up this thread: Krugman: The sky is yellow. Me: Krugman is obviously lying since the sky is blue. You: You just say that because he's a liberal. Me: No, the sky is blue. Go outside and see. You: No, it's yellow. Me: Here are some links to pictures of the sky being blue. You: No, it's yellow. Me: Care to back that up? You: Yes, here's a link from the National Association of the Colorblind. This guy says he sees the sky as yellow. Me: The sky is blue. Here it is broken down on a chromatic spectrum and, as you can plainly see, it's blue. You're such an idiot. You: Ummmmm...It's yellow, and you're immature for calling me names! Me: Idiot. As further evidence of your own bias, I do agree with Krugman on the Bush Administration's response to Katrina being very poor (as was the state of Louisiana's). The difference between you and I is I will disregard biased statements and accept the factual ones regardless of the source. You're so pathetically in need of association to a larger group, that you won't disagree with ANYTHING, no matter how obvious it is, which comes from your hive mind. I mean, come on...We're not even talking ideology here. These are basic verifyable facts that you refuse to accept because a liberal told you how to think. It's really almost sad.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
More pointless name calling. The whole point of our discussion is that you wished that the author is a liar. You haven't proven it. You conflate facts with conclusions. You impute motives to others in an attempt to discredit them. You have spent about as much time attacking the messenger as the message.
-
espeir wrote:
but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you
Just a note: the Greenspan article is from January 2001, and so did not take into account the massive borrowing and spending in which the government is currently engaged. Even then, he only states that decreasing taxes will benefit the economy more than increasing government spending. I found a more recent article[^] on the topic. The strength of the economy is not disputed, although its strength relative to the Clinton years is not mentioned. He does chide the government about its disregard for the deficit and its practice of borrowing money to finance tax cuts.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Just a note: the Greenspan article is from January 2001, and so did not take into account the massive borrowing and spending in which the government is currently engaged. Even then, he only states that decreasing taxes will benefit the economy more than increasing government spending.
Yes, Greenspan recommended lower taxes coupled with moderated federal spending. The Republicans succeeded on the first (which most attribute to the economic rebound) but failed miserably on the second. The deficit becomes less relevant with greater income, but is still far too high.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I found a more recent article[^] on the topic. The strength of the economy is not disputed, although its strength relative to the Clinton years is not mentioned. He does chide the government about its disregard for the deficit and its practice of borrowing money to finance tax cuts.
dennidd45 is disputing it, and to be honest I'm absolutely perlexed why. The economy has sustained longer and stronger growth than it had under Clinton (although I believe and today's economic report suggests that the economy will cool a lot over the next year...I'm selling stocks and going for large-cap and bonds). However, I think it's incorrect to say the government is borrowing money to finance tax cuts. Government revenue has actually increased to levels higher than the Clinton years, despite there being a lower tax rate. Republicans believe (and this has been demonstrated under both Bush and Reagan) that lower taxes result in higher government revenue and there is therefore a double benefit. The deficit is not a result of government income, but of a drastic increase in spending (which I thought Republicans opposed).
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Yeah, my check from Zog is in the post. You antisemetic turd.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
You're one ignorant person. Those who don't agree with your pathetic world view are not automatically antisemitic nor are they jew haters.
-- Hey, TiVo! Suggest this!
-
John Carson wrote:
Strange thing then that egregious misinformation regarding current events seems to be so concentrated on the right.
No it isn't. Just take the example that Krugman mentions - the weapons recently discovered. There were tons of them, they were WMDs, they were the very weapons Hussien was supposed to get rid of. Now, perhaps the notion that these justified Bush's invasion is invalid, but they are a big deal. To dismiss them as meaningless as Krugman does, is a perfect example of why we need Fox Limbaugh, etc, in the mix. Otherwise, no one would have ever even known that any thing at all had been found. Krugman would have happily covered up the truth, just as his buddy Cronkite purposefully covered up the truth about the Tet offensive, and its conseguences in 1968. Too bad we didn't have a Limbaugh and a Fox in 1968 to counter that kind of propaganda.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
.....a perfect example of why we need Fox Limbaugh, etc, in the mix. Otherwise, no one would have ever even known that any thing at all had been found. Krugman would have happily covered up the truth, just as his buddy Cronkite purposefully covered up the truth about the Tet offensive, and its conseguences in 1968. Too bad we didn't have a Limbaugh and a Fox in 1968 to counter that kind of propaganda.
If we had Limbaugh, Fox News and Coulter in 1968, American dead would have topped 200,000 in Vietnam.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Just a note: the Greenspan article is from January 2001, and so did not take into account the massive borrowing and spending in which the government is currently engaged. Even then, he only states that decreasing taxes will benefit the economy more than increasing government spending.
Yes, Greenspan recommended lower taxes coupled with moderated federal spending. The Republicans succeeded on the first (which most attribute to the economic rebound) but failed miserably on the second. The deficit becomes less relevant with greater income, but is still far too high.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I found a more recent article[^] on the topic. The strength of the economy is not disputed, although its strength relative to the Clinton years is not mentioned. He does chide the government about its disregard for the deficit and its practice of borrowing money to finance tax cuts.
dennidd45 is disputing it, and to be honest I'm absolutely perlexed why. The economy has sustained longer and stronger growth than it had under Clinton (although I believe and today's economic report suggests that the economy will cool a lot over the next year...I'm selling stocks and going for large-cap and bonds). However, I think it's incorrect to say the government is borrowing money to finance tax cuts. Government revenue has actually increased to levels higher than the Clinton years, despite there being a lower tax rate. Republicans believe (and this has been demonstrated under both Bush and Reagan) that lower taxes result in higher government revenue and there is therefore a double benefit. The deficit is not a result of government income, but of a drastic increase in spending (which I thought Republicans opposed).
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
dennidd45 is disputing it,
I have not disputed the strength of the current economy. I have simply disputed your assertion that the author way was lying. -- modified at 14:23 Friday 28th July, 2006
dennisd45 wrote:
I have not disputed the strength of the current economy
Liar...
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I have not disputed the strength of the current economy
Liar...
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
That was in reference to your contention that it is better than the Clinton years. 'The current economy is good' is not the same as 'the economy is better than it was under Clinton'. -- modified at 14:42 Friday 28th July, 2006 So, no, I was not lying.
dennisd45 wrote:
That was in reference to your contention that it is better than the Clinton years. 'The current economy is good' is not the same as 'the economy is better than it was under Clinton'
Liar. I provided graphs with data that clearly demonstrated that and you still deny it. Cherry or grape? BTW, your resistance to the facts is pointless, because I'm not attributing economic success to either president (although the tax cuts did come directly from Bush, so he had a greater role). It's not a political issue...Just a statement of the obvious. So you're allowed to agree with me. The liberal hive mind won't get mad at you. -- modified at 14:47 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Just a note: the Greenspan article is from January 2001, and so did not take into account the massive borrowing and spending in which the government is currently engaged. Even then, he only states that decreasing taxes will benefit the economy more than increasing government spending.
Yes, Greenspan recommended lower taxes coupled with moderated federal spending. The Republicans succeeded on the first (which most attribute to the economic rebound) but failed miserably on the second. The deficit becomes less relevant with greater income, but is still far too high.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I found a more recent article[^] on the topic. The strength of the economy is not disputed, although its strength relative to the Clinton years is not mentioned. He does chide the government about its disregard for the deficit and its practice of borrowing money to finance tax cuts.
dennidd45 is disputing it, and to be honest I'm absolutely perlexed why. The economy has sustained longer and stronger growth than it had under Clinton (although I believe and today's economic report suggests that the economy will cool a lot over the next year...I'm selling stocks and going for large-cap and bonds). However, I think it's incorrect to say the government is borrowing money to finance tax cuts. Government revenue has actually increased to levels higher than the Clinton years, despite there being a lower tax rate. Republicans believe (and this has been demonstrated under both Bush and Reagan) that lower taxes result in higher government revenue and there is therefore a double benefit. The deficit is not a result of government income, but of a drastic increase in spending (which I thought Republicans opposed).
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
The economy has sustained longer and stronger growth than it had under Clinton...
And yet there are fewer jobs (especially jobs with good wages), more people living without insurance, more people living in poverty, lower median household income, fewer new homeowners, etc. I'm sure it's strong by some measures -- productivity, for example -- but weaker in others. If you measure quality of life (I know you Repubs don't like that "touchy feely" stuff), rather than just raw money raked in by the federal government, the country was unquestionably better off during Clinton's terms. The Republicans continue to improperly apply supply-side economics, with repeatable results. Not that supply-side is all that solid to begin with. John Kenneth Galbraith has referred to the trickle-down effect as the "horse and sparrow theory," on the idea that "if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows." That description seems to fit the results.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
That was in reference to your contention that it is better than the Clinton years. 'The current economy is good' is not the same as 'the economy is better than it was under Clinton'
Liar. I provided graphs with data that clearly demonstrated that and you still deny it. Cherry or grape? BTW, your resistance to the facts is pointless, because I'm not attributing economic success to either president (although the tax cuts did come directly from Bush, so he had a greater role). It's not a political issue...Just a statement of the obvious. So you're allowed to agree with me. The liberal hive mind won't get mad at you. -- modified at 14:47 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
