Reign of Error
-
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
-
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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
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.
Bla bla bla. That's irrelevant and partially wrong (as homeownership is at an all-time high). It has nothing to do with the state of the economy. Those are tertiary measurements and any Republican can pick and choose the elements that are most politically advantageous to them as there are literally thousands of different ways to measure all of that.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
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.
Well, it works. Keep in mind that fiscal policy originates in the Congress, so attributing the late 90's to Clinton is erroneous (he was a very weakened president and didn't get any legislation through). If you want to claim that supply-side economics doesn't work, then you have to make the crazy claim that America's long-term economy sucks, considering that it's what has been in effect since Reagan. Since we're by far the richest nation in the world, you'd be hard-pressed to actually prove it wrong.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Not only do not listen to anybody else, you don't listen to yourself. What you "demonstrated" is not at issue. You called me a liar for disputing the state of the current economy. I never did that, I didn't lie about it.
dennisd45 wrote:
Not only do not listen to anybody else, you don't listen to yourself. What you "demonstrated" is not at issue. You called me a liar for disputing the state of the current economy. I never did that, I didn't lie about it.
I gave you the data which you are free to download and pick apart any way you choose. The fact of the matter is Bush inherited a deep recession, pushed for a tax cut, and since then economic performance has bested Clinton's grandest years by a whopping 23%. You continue to deny that it's a simple and straightforward fact because you're afraid that it might make Republicans look good. You're also a liar.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Not only do not listen to anybody else, you don't listen to yourself. What you "demonstrated" is not at issue. You called me a liar for disputing the state of the current economy. I never did that, I didn't lie about it.
I gave you the data which you are free to download and pick apart any way you choose. The fact of the matter is Bush inherited a deep recession, pushed for a tax cut, and since then economic performance has bested Clinton's grandest years by a whopping 23%. You continue to deny that it's a simple and straightforward fact because you're afraid that it might make Republicans look good. You're also a liar.
"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.
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign): Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists. Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office. Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997). You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
I gave you the data which you are free to download and pick apart any way you choose
I have no interest at all. I care not a whit about your economic theories.
espeir wrote:
You're also a liar.
:|:rolleyes::zzz:
dennisd45 wrote:
I have no interest at all. I care not a whit about your economic theories.
Again not mine...The Federal Reserve's. I guess sometimes it's just more important to feel like part of the group, huh?
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I have no interest at all. I care not a whit about your economic theories.
Again not mine...The Federal Reserve's. I guess sometimes it's just more important to feel like part of the group, huh?
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that. That was on another sub-thread, anyway. So again peddle your pseudo-theories to someone who cares.
-
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that. That was on another sub-thread, anyway. So again peddle your pseudo-theories to someone who cares.
dennisd45 wrote:
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that.
Retard...See the "data" link? And financial analysis is a large component of my job. And I would never call Kruger a liar. He would slash me up in my dreams. -- modified at 15:31 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
You are drawing conclusions based on graphs, again you conflate facts with conclusions. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your theories. You said Kruger was lying, that is what I disagree with. You haven't proved that.
Retard...See the "data" link? And financial analysis is a large component of my job. And I would never call Kruger a liar. He would slash me up in my dreams. -- modified at 15:31 Friday 28th July, 2006
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
thank you for living down to my expectations.
Maggot.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
thank you for living down to my expectations.
Maggot.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign): Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists. Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office. Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997). You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists.
According to the link you provided, it seems to currently be at 1997 levels after a dramatic increase in 2000 (what significance does that year have?) following years of decrease. It is considered "full employment" by some economists. Also, just measuring employment levels does not take into account people layed off from a high-tech or manufacturing job who are now flipping burgers at McDonald's or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers.
espeir wrote:
Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office.
And were up a similar amount during his last term. The increase is linear, and means little without taking into account the methodology (income disparity, for example -- are the numbers only hourly employees, or are they skewed by executive salaries?), and the corresponding increases in cost of living, including housing costs.
espeir wrote:
Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
Again, the link you provided shows that after steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2000, it has followed a steady increase, and is now back up to a level similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
espeir wrote:
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign):
They weren't. But perhaps now you can dispute your own numbers, jackass.
espeir wrote:
You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
Yammer on, Republican spin-boy.
-
espeir wrote:
Unemployment[^]: Currently at 1997 levels and is considered "full employment" by most economists.
According to the link you provided, it seems to currently be at 1997 levels after a dramatic increase in 2000 (what significance does that year have?) following years of decrease. It is considered "full employment" by some economists. Also, just measuring employment levels does not take into account people layed off from a high-tech or manufacturing job who are now flipping burgers at McDonald's or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers.
espeir wrote:
Average hourly earnings[^]: Are up about 25% since Clinton left office.
And were up a similar amount during his last term. The increase is linear, and means little without taking into account the methodology (income disparity, for example -- are the numbers only hourly employees, or are they skewed by executive salaries?), and the corresponding increases in cost of living, including housing costs.
espeir wrote:
Poverty Level[^]: Similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
Again, the link you provided shows that after steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2000, it has followed a steady increase, and is now back up to a level similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
espeir wrote:
Ah....And to dispute your numbers (which are probably from the Kerry campaign):
They weren't. But perhaps now you can dispute your own numbers, jackass.
espeir wrote:
You should update the statistics in your propaganda machine.
Yammer on, Republican spin-boy.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
According to the link you provided, it seems to currently be at 1997 levels after a dramatic increase in 2000 (what significance does that year have?) following years of decrease.
2000 was Clinton's last year in office, if that's what you mean. :rolleyes: Bush did not enter office until 2001 and economic policy takes years to take effect, not days. 2000 was simply a cyclical stall in the economy that was exacerbated by irrational exhuberance and overinvestment.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Also, just measuring employment levels does not take into account people layed off from a high-tech or manufacturing job who are now flipping burgers at McDonald's or greeting Wal-Mart shoppers.
I frequently see this claim and never see any actual evidence. The personal income statistics seem to contradict this. Although I'm sure it is true that some people with cushy jobs in the 90s are worse off. I saw a lot of crappy developers back then and I hope to God that they are flipping burgers right now.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And were up a similar amount during his last term. The increase is linear, and means little without taking into account the methodology (income disparity, for example -- are the numbers only hourly employees, or are they skewed by executive salaries?), and the corresponding increases in cost of living, including housing costs.
That's my point. You're trying to draw a correlation to Bush's term and there simply isn't one.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, the link you provided shows that after steadily decreasing from 1992 to 2000, it has followed a steady increase, and is now back up to a level similar to the late 90's (about the same level as 1997).
Right...again that goes against your claim that we're seeing drastically increasing poverty, etc...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They weren't. But perhaps now you can dispute your own numbers, jackass.
My numbers only serve to demonstrate that your claims were unfounded. Even you admitted it accidentally.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yammer on, Republican spin-boy.
The problem is you're buying into Democratic spin that the slowed economic activity a couple years ago is Bush's fault. In fact, t