Occupy Wall Street

[kyrider]

Is someone disputing that this government is not being strongly influence by Keynesian economics?

[almost40]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Is someone disputing that this government is not being strongly influence by Keynesian economics?

Were still talking taxes and class warfare when we should be talking spending and how to get it under control on both sides of the isle.
For those that lean left....this seems to be impossible and for the life of me I cant understand why?
If they ran their household budget like the fed they would all be bankrupt.
That doesnt seem to sink in for some crazy reason.

["A"]

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Debating the existence or non-existence of a $1M tax bracket is beneath you. There were attempts this year and last to allow the Bush "temporary" tax cuts to expire on a subset of taxpayers. One of them was at the $250,000 level. It didn't go forward. Another was at the $1M level. It didn't go forward either. Saying that it couldn't have happened because there isn't a current $1M bracket in the tax code is completely beside the point, and irrelevant to the conversation.

And where were those "attempts" when the democrats were in full control of all 3 branches of government?
Oh yeah......thats right.....they were cutting taxes by voting to extend the bush tax cuts. As if that was somehow a tax cut.

And here we are again with you now refering to the fictional subset of taxpayers at 1 million dollars.
Were they trying to create a new tax bracket??? Please post the HR number for this proposal. Not an article from a reporter, but the HR number of this proposal in the house.
You say its out there. Prove it.
I looked briefly for it, couldnt find it.

[massacremasses]

you guys should check this book out. While there are reasons to be mad at corporations like OWS is. Take a look at your congress as well....

http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All...5010792&sr=1-1

I got it for Christmas. Ill let you all know how it is.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

you guys should check this book out. While there are reasons to be mad at corporations like OWS is. Take a look at your congress as well....

http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All...5010792&sr=1-1

I got it for Christmas. Ill let you all know how it is.

Whoever gave that to you for Christmas is awesome!

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Whoever gave that to you for Christmas is awesome!

lol My wife is pretty awesome. It was on my amazon wish list though lol

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

And you didnt bother, or dont know how to look up the true facts.
The final senate voice vote was held on Dec 15th 2010 when the democrats had 58 seats. plus the 2 independants and the 2 RINO's
So my facts do indeed get to be called facts.

Spell independents correctly, you dolt. And no, your facts continue to be as wrong as your spelling, you tired, useless hack. Check them again. I already posted a source. You're either relying on your faulty memory, or a faulty source you're too embarrassed to share. Doesn't matter either way, you're full of crap.

Originally Posted by almost40

Post all the articles you can find. None of them explain away the voting record. Although they try really really hard.

They define exactly how and why that last bill came to be. You've warped that into Democrats eagerly extending the Bush tax cuts. You make less sense here than even your normal baseline of crazy.

Originally Posted by almost40

Alex, Your not really trying to say spending isnt higher are you?? Havent we had this debate before??

Your <> You're, and "isnt" & "havent" traditionally need just a little bit more, you sack of illiterate dogmeat, but I appreciate the multiple question marks taking it straight to silly rant status. And learn how to read for content, I was pushing back on that silly 84%, which Ryan lied about on Election night and was caught out on. The treasury numbers are a fine source, and you and anyone else is more than welcome to use them to try and find that 84% rise.

Originally Posted by almost40

Were still talking taxes and class warfare when we should be talking spending and how to get it under control on both sides of the isle.
For those that lean left....this seems to be impossible and for the life of me I cant understand why?
If they ran their household budget like the fed they would all be bankrupt.
That doesnt seem to sink in for some crazy reason.

Isle <> aisle, and were <> we're, you illiterate hick. The whole "it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem" isn't accurate, it's simply a Republican talking point to "stay on message" right after the midterm.

Notice these almost identical quotes from the Sunday morning talk shows five days after the midterms:

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
-- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Washington does not have a revenue problem. It's got a spending problem.
-- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
-- House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

I think it's not a revenue problem; it's a spending problem.
-- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Except:

By David Cay Johnston

We take you now to the official data for important news. Federal tax revenues in 2010 were much smaller than in 2000. Total individual income tax receipts fell 30 percent in real terms. Because the population kept growing, income taxes per capita plummeted.

Individual income taxes came to just $2,900 per capita in 2010, down 36 percent from more than $4,500 in 2000. Total income taxes and income taxes per capita declined even though the economy grew 16 percent overall and 6 percent per capita from 2000 through 2010.

Corporate income tax receipts fell 27 percent and declined 34 percent per capita, even though profits boomed, rising 60 percent.

Payroll taxes increased slightly overall, but slipped per capita because the nation's population grew five times faster than the number of people with any work. The average wage also declined slightly.

You read it here first. Lowered tax rates did not result in increased tax revenues as promised by politician after pundit after professional economist. And even though this harsh truth has been obvious from the official data for some time, the same politicians and pundits keep prevaricating. Some of them even say it is irrelevant that as a share of GDP, income tax revenues are at their lowest level since 1951, when Harry S. Truman was president.

No matter how many times advocates of lower tax rates said it, tax rate cuts did not pay for themselves, did not spur economic growth, did not increase jobs, and did not make America better off.

Now that the news has been broken, let's see how many political leaders start speaking facts instead of fairy tales. And let's also watch to see how many Washington reporters, news anchors, talk show guests, and syndicated columnists use the actual figures. It's called holding politicians accountable, and it used to be a mainstay of journalism, where the first rule is to check it out and the second is to cross-check until you know what is going on and can give context.

Supporting data: (Table 1.pdf)



We have a deficit problem. Not solved by revenue without spending cuts, not solved by spending cuts without revenue.

Originally Posted by almost40

And here we are again with you now refering to the fictional subset of taxpayers at 1 million dollars.
Were they trying to create a new tax bracket??? Please post the HR number for this proposal. Not an article from a reporter, but the HR number of this proposal in the house.
You say its out there. Prove it.
I looked briefly for it, couldnt find it.

It was a Senate proposal in November, as listed in the article (which I'm sure you didn't read, as you've freely admitted you ignore all links posted by anyone else, or misinterpret them badly if you attempt to read them). It came up in two votes. Each of the attempts would have eliminated the Bush tax cuts for $1M+ income bracket.

Check out S.1917, which proposed the >$1M bracket at 3.25%.

And then S.1944, which was similar, but at 1.9% > $1M instead.

The facts aren't on your side, bubkis, no matter how often you repeat your poorly researched lies. I know you won't even click the links, or understand them if you do, but I'll give the rest of your readers the benefit of the doubt.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Your facts continue to be as wrong as your spelling, Check them again. I already posted a source. You're either relying on your faulty memory, or a faulty source you're too embarrassed to share. Doesn't matter to me, either way.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...irk_09-24.html



Although I hate to admit it. I am full of crap... here I was thinking I was not full of crap. And as it turns out, I am. That is, indeed a fact. It was only 56 seats.

BTW I fixed your quote for you. All the name calling is "beneath you".

But its nice to be noticed.

Originally Posted by Alex

They define exactly how and why that last bill came to be. You've warped that into Democrats eagerly extending the Bush tax cuts. You make less sense here than even your normal baseline of crazy.

And none of them explain away the way the democrats voted. Nor why the proposed tax increases on the "rich" were not pushed thru when they had the muscle.

Originally Posted by Alex

Your <> You're, and "isnt" & "havent" traditionally need just a little bit more, you sack of illiterate dogmeat, but I appreciate the multiple question marks taking it straight to silly rant status. And learn how to read for content, I was pushing back on that silly 84%, which Ryan lied about on Election night and was caught out on. The treasury numbers are a fine source, and you and anyone else is more than welcome to use them to try and find that 84% rise.

So spending has went up, but not 84%

Originally Posted by Alex

Isle <> aisle, and were <> we're, you illiterate hick. The whole "it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem" isn't accurate, it's simply a Republican talking point to "stay on message" right after the midterm.

Kind like how the "tax the rich" is a democrat talking point to "stay on message"

Originally Posted by Alex

It was a Senate proposal in November, as listed in the article (which I'm sure you didn't read, as you've freely admitted you ignore all links posted by anyone else, or misinterpret them badly if you attempt to read them). It came up in two votes. Each of the attempts would have eliminated the Bush tax cuts for $1M+ income bracket.

Did you run out of degrading remarks in this post?
How did that happen?

Originally Posted by Alex

The facts aren't on your side, bubkis, no matter how often you repeat your poorly researched lies. I know you won't even click the links, or understand them if you do, but I'll give the rest of your readers the benefit of the doubt.

That nice of ya

[revstriker]

That's pretty pathetic Alex. Personal insults and attacks, because you disagree with someone?

And by the way, the two bills that you linked to are bills to create tax brackets, and raise taxes on certain classes of people. While you can repeat the same old line about it just being an expiration of Bush Tax Cuts, that is not what it is.

As for the 84%, call it whatever percent you want to. The point was and still is that Obama is spending, and continues to spend, and we have little if anything to show for it.

As for revenue increases, the Bush Tax Cuts (specifically, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) showed that income tax paid by households earning $1million or more doubled from 2003 to 2006 (as stated in the Wall Street Journal). Also, the percent of total revenue paid by the upper income brackets increased, while the percent at the mid and lower levels decreased.

[almost40]

Its ok revstriker, I can take a little childish namecalling. I dont mind him playing teacher and correcting the spelling mistakes in my posts. None of it takes away from the content that he and others choose to ignore. All while being led down the primrose path by the democrat party. The fact that 43 democrats in the senate and 139 democrats in the house voted for the bush tax cuts to remain in H.R. 4853 is not disputed.
We got the "its the republicans fault" and the fact that they could "filibuster" any legislation line. As if somehow, that explains why the vote was very lopsided in favor of the very tax cuts that are now opposed by the democrats.
Interestingly enough I did get a couple senate proposals out of him, proposals that were submitted after the democrats lost the house in historic fashion and have no chance of getting anywhere. Thats why I dont talk about proposals. I like to talk about real bills. The fact that the senate proposed a tax increase means nothing. Its merely grandstanding and positioning for the masses and democrat ideology.
If the democrats really wanted tax increases why didnt they propose them when they had all 3 branches? They did in fact have a filibuster proof majority (for quite some time) that could have rammed them home. It didnt happen. Why??? They are only interested in talking about tax increases to further the class warfare montra. Its all a smokescreen as stated before.
The democrats have a plan of attack .... Talk about "taxing the rich" but not about spending.
There is plenty of ammo out there to fire at the republicans when it comes to the spending argument. The lord knows speaker Boner is indeed a spender and is in no way conservative. So why dont we talk about spending?
Ill tell you why...As you know (revstriker) the democrats record on spending is abysmal at best. Yes..... abysmal - 1. of or like an abyss ; immeasurably deep or great. 2. extremely or hopelessly bad or severe.

So at all costs and by any means necessary divert the conversation.

I have talked about it in this very thread, I used a credible source (according to alex) for my numbers, I used numbers posted by Alex himself. You know what I got as a response?

Originally Posted by Alex

You post incorrect numbers for spending. You mistake yearly deficit spending for overall deficit. You underquote the spending done for the prior 8 years.

And then shortly thereafter

Originally Posted by Alex

I won't be involved in any political discussions on this site anymore, other than to step in when people are breaking the T.O.S. Calling someone who disagrees with you racist (as has already been done in this thread, but not by you) is mighty close to that line if anyone had reported it to me.

Now fast forward to post # 608

Alex is indeed in a political conversation and hes calling someone who disagrees with him a dolt, sack of illiterate dogmeat, illiterate hick, bubkis, and a tired, useless hack.
A T.O.S. violation, IDK? Does it matter? Who is there to report it too?

Its hard to accept the fact that you are wrong. Its even harder to admit it.
I have come to accept the fact that Alex wont admit he was wrong. Its all good.

Hes a cherry picker and the very same thing he accused me of being. A hack. Hes just like the rest of the democrats although he is a little better at holding his tounge, up until post #608
Diversion is his game when the facts dont line up with the party line. Ill talk about X when the subject is Y. Then Ill call the original poster names and correct his grammer and spelling to make it look like hes wrong. Something that used to be frowned upon here.

None of it takes away from the true argument, but it sure is entertaining.
Im well aware that there is no way you will ever get a democrat to admit that their party is wrong. They are so engrained in the ideology that it becomes blinding. Class warefare is indeed the democrat ideology because its the only way back to the white house for obama. He cant talk about his record, (abysmal) he cant talk about obamacare. (wildly unpopular) Whats does that leave for the democrats to run on??

[Alex]

Is spellcheck really that hard? Just reading your posts continues to be headache-inducing.

I pointed out the false numbers you used back then, because, wait for it, you used false numbers. You stated then that you were using my numbers, but you weren't. Check 'em back and read them slowly. You posted and agreed with the same false data that kyrider used, as it came from the same small-brained blog which bungled the math.

You've said the 3% surtax proposal didn't exist, and railed against people by calling it fictional, yet when pointed to the Senate proposal, you change your mind to saying anything proposed in the Senate doesn't exist because it won't pass.

You can stand here all day long and rail on "I don't like this, and I wish we spent less, and I wish the government was smaller, and I wish wishes were puppies", and it would be all good. What is terribly tedious is that while your posts are littered with bad data ostensibly supporting your misguided views, the prior post is the first in 600 posts in this thread where you finally admitted that your facts aren't exactly that, on even the most minor of details, until you get called on them several posts in row and you actually read (and check the dates) on the sources you copy from.

Disagreeing with your premise, your "facts", and your delivery isn't a diversion, it's just pointing out the obvious to anyone who you haven't already driven from this area.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

And by the way, the two bills that you linked to are bills to create tax brackets, and raise taxes on certain classes of people. While you can repeat the same old line about it just being an expiration of Bush Tax Cuts, that is not what it is.

Now you're really splitting hairs. Pre Bush "Temporary" tax cuts, top rate was 39.6%. The cuts lowered it to 35%. A 3.25% increase on a new top rate would reset it to 38.25%, still lower than the the pre Bush "Temporary" tax cuts rate. The second measure of 1.9 would be 36.9%. Describing anything and everything other than extending the "temporary" cuts as a tax raising measure in and of itself is a logical fallacy. Doesn't matter for the moment, as nothing will be done on it until a few crises from now.

Originally Posted by revstriker

As for the 84%, call it whatever percent you want to.

Sure thing, clearly the talking heads will do the same, as who really needs the math to be correct anyhow?

Originally Posted by revstriker

The point was and still is that Obama is spending, and continues to spend, and we have little if anything to show for it.

So which spending concerns you most, ARRA (the stimulus)?

Originally Posted by revstriker

As for revenue increases, the Bush Tax Cuts (specifically, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) showed that income tax paid by households earning $1million or more doubled from 2003 to 2006 (as stated in the Wall Street Journal). Also, the percent of total revenue paid by the upper income brackets increased, while the percent at the mid and lower levels decreased.

The numbers don't track much past that time period. They peak in 2007 but then crash downwards, whether you're looking at the top .1%, the top 1%, the top 5%, or the top 10%. Here's a good source for IRS numbers that details year by year. (Edit: Here are the same charts directly from the IRS site, while this is the specific IRS spreadsheet these numbers are pulled from).

A little more analysis does show some trends, even from the 2003 - 2006 time period, though. Tables 5 & 6 are the most interesting, especially along the .1% lines, and 1% lines. From 2003 - 2006, the top 1% went from earning 16.77% of the total US AGI, to 22.06% of the total. Which in and of itself is a 31% increase in income compared to the rest of the population. While their share of income tax paid (table 6), went from 34.27% to 39.89% over the same time period. Which is only a 16% increase in that share. Income compared to the rest of the population went up alot, share of income tax paid did not go up anywhere near correspondingly. The numbers are just as clear at the .1% level: (7.57% to 11.22%, for a 48% increase in income, while tax share went from 15.68% to 19.56%, for only a 24% increase in that share).

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

I pointed out the false numbers you used back then, because, wait for it, you used false numbers. You stated then that you were using my numbers, but you weren't.

Originally Posted by Alex

When Bush took office in January, 2001, the outstanding public debt was $5.716T as of the 31st of that month. link

Originally Posted by Alex

When Obama took office in January, 2009, the outstanding public debt was $10.632T, as of the 31st of that month. link

Originally Posted by Alex

As of September 30, 2011, the outstanding public debt is now $14.79T. So 33 months into a 48 month term, the increase in public debt has risen $4.158T

Originally Posted by almost40

So 4.1+ trillion in 33 months. Vrs just shy of 5 trillion in 8 years
Your cited numbers mind you, and the same place I have pulled numbers from.
8 years is 108 months. 33 months is just under of 1/3 of 8 years. so dividing GW's number by 1/3 for some quick math would make things a little more fair as a rough comparison??
1.6 trillion vs 4.1 trillion
That work better for you??

10.632T - 5.176 T is just over 5 trillion or 5.456T not under as I stated.

You could have corrected that at the time, but it still didnt help your argument so instead of correcting a minor mistake on my part you dismissed the whole argument as having no merit and stated

Originally Posted by Alex

You post incorrect numbers for spending.

Which was not true. I posted your numbers

Originally Posted by Alex

You mistake yearly deficit spending for overall deficit.

And apparently so did you. I did use your numbers.

Originally Posted by Alex

You underquote the spending done for the prior 8 years.

By a whopping .2 trillion in my rough comparison due to my use of the term under and not over.


Thats less than this administration spent in the past 3 months.

Did that change the argument?? No.
As of Dec 27, 2011 Obama is asking to raise the debt limit again to 16.39T because we are at or near the limit of 15.194T.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BQ0KU20111227

But lets not talk about spending lets only talk about raising taxes.

Originally Posted by Alex

You've said the 3% surtax proposal didn't exist, and railed against people by calling it fictional, yet when pointed to the Senate proposal, you change your mind to saying anything proposed in the Senate doesn't exist because it won't pass.

I said it was all a smokescreen. As it is. I said the 1 million dollar tax bracket was fictional.
Where are the bills?? in the 111th or 112th congress?

Originally Posted by Alex

You can stand here all day long and rail on "I don't like this, and I wish we spent less, and I wish the government was smaller, and I wish wishes were puppies", and it would be all good. What is terribly tedious is that while your posts are littered with bad data ostensibly supporting your misguided views, the prior post is the first in 600 posts in this thread where you finally admitted that your facts aren't exactly that, on even the most minor of details, until you get called on them 4 posts in row and you actually read the sources you copy from.

Ahhh...... but it was admitted.

Originally Posted by Alex

Disagreeing with your premise, your "facts", and your delivery isn't a diversion, it's just pointing out the obvious to anyone who you haven't already driven from this area.

Oh yeah, Im driving them out in droves.
All the usual suspects are here.
Who doesnt want to watch a "trainwreck"?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

10.632T - 5.176 T is just over 5 trillion or 5.456T not under as I stated.

You can't even get your math right when you're trying to correct your prior mistakes. If you can't spell, and you can't add or subtract, what can you do? (hint: You transposed 5.716 to 5.176 and went on a rant due to finding a mistake in your own mistakes). BTW - the mistake that you've still not realized or admitted to if you have realized was this:

Originally Posted by almost40

8 years of GW got us 1.1 Trillion
2 years of Obama got us 3.2 + trillion

Not where you eventually started to pull my numbers and get closer to reality.

Originally Posted by almost40

You could have corrected that at the time, but it still didnt help your argument so instead of correcting a minor mistake on my part you dismissed the whole argument as having no merit and stated

Nothing you say has ever proven to have merit, why would this be any different? If you read just a few posts down from where we did this the last time when you were confusing yearly deficits with total deficits, you've once again left the key questions unanswered as you have no answer for them. Namely - the deficit was pretty much locked in at that $1.186T number for 2009 before Obama took office. Anything and everything that could be done would be already starting from that baseline, whether stimulus, spending cuts, further tax cuts, expiration of earlier cuts, you name it.

Originally Posted by almost40

Did that change the argument?? No.
As of Dec 27, 2011 Obama is asking to raise the debt limit again to 16.39T because we are at or near the limit of 15.194T.

Time for another government shutdown, where we put our hands up in wonder about having to pay for something we've already agreed to pay for?

Originally Posted by almost40

But lets not talk about spending lets only talk about raising taxes.

You didn't want quotes from reporters, so you were given direct links to two recent Senate proposals. You now call them smokescreens, and are looking for corresponding legislation in the house before calling it real (which it never got to in 2011 this time around, while it did during the last excitement at the end of 2010).

[kyrider]

In response to the above......

Link to original page on YouTube.

and if you disagree with me you are a racist homophobe.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by revstriker

That's pretty pathetic Alex. Personal insults and attacks, because you disagree with someone?

And by the way, the two bills that you linked to are bills to create tax brackets, and raise taxes on certain classes of people. While you can repeat the same old line about it just being an expiration of Bush Tax Cuts, that is not what it is.

As for the 84%, call it whatever percent you want to. The point was and still is that Obama is spending, and continues to spend, and we have little if anything to show for it.

As for revenue increases, the Bush Tax Cuts (specifically, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) showed that income tax paid by households earning $1million or more doubled from 2003 to 2006 (as stated in the Wall Street Journal). Also, the percent of total revenue paid by the upper income brackets increased, while the percent at the mid and lower levels decreased.

Alex is merely correcting almost40's grammar for the 2nd or 3rd time. I guess I would call names too if I was a grammar nazi like that.

Alex points out and backs up all of his arguments with links, something I've yet to see from almost40 and revstriker. Although I'm not to keen on using the Taxfoundation's data. They may claim to be non partisan but I've seen some questionable reports. Whether Alex's links are good is not my job to validate since I share his viewpoint, it's the opposite side who should be examining it.

I heard something about almost40 having facts but I didn't see any links. I guess they're made of thin air. It's fun to note we didnt even begin to distinguish marginal and effective tax rates yet. Another fun note is we've deviated talking about the 1%, the part that even millionaires arent in, who should be taxes first at least. This is due to the conservative propaganda that lumps those 1% down there with those millionaires.

With regards to spending, do you mean how the stimulus did work?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Although I'm not to keen on using the Taxfoundation's data. They may claim to be non partisan but I've seen some questionable reports.

I don't know much about Taxfoundation, but liked their formatting of that page with it all laid out. You're right, if the original source can be found, it makes sense to go straight to that one anyway. They were pulling right from IRS charts available on the government site, so I've updated the post with a link directly there as well. Here is that spreadsheet on the IRS site itself.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Alex is merely correcting almost40's grammar for the 2nd or 3rd time. I guess I would call names too if I was a grammar nazi like that.

I don't consider personal attacks and name calling to be "merely correcting" one's grammar. I've also been reading this forum for a number of years and have seen many of Alex's posts, and I can't recall him ever correcting someone's grammar using such tactics.

As for backing things up with data, the information is out there for anyone to look up. While Alex can play the spelling and grammar Nazi, and try to turn a discussion about increased spending into whether a number is 5.716 or 5.176, none of this changes the point of the discussion. Spending and debt has increased, and is increasing.

[kyrider]

Link to original page on YouTube.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

With regards to spending, do you mean how the stimulus did work?

By the way, this is an interesting read. I have not finished it yet, but it is interesting. I first found it funny how she suggested that the rebate checks did help by increasing disposable income, even though there was no gain in consumer spending (she argues that it was down trending, and that the rebates helped it remain flat). But then she goes on to try and suggest that tax decreases do not have a lasting effect. But wouldn't they also increase dispoable income?

Anyway, I am looking forward to reading. I caught the name when I first opened the link: Christina D. Romer. She was the chair on Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisers. She was pretty much forced to resign when her prediction that the unemployment rate would drop with the $800 billion stimulus. Whoops.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I don't consider personal attacks and name calling to be "merely correcting" one's grammar. I've also been reading this forum for a number of years and have seen many of Alex's posts, and I can't recall him ever correcting someone's grammar using such tactics.

All bets were off after Kevin went off half-cocked on Samer in the same fashion, except his facts, as usual, weren't based on reality. He gets the same courtesy from me going forward as he shows others in this area of the forum. Namely - anything at all that is stated as true but can be easily shown not to be will be loudly pointed out, along with disparaging remarks about his upbringing, his fashion sense, and his table manners.

Originally Posted by revstriker

As for backing things up with data, the information is out there for anyone to look up. While Alex can play the spelling and grammar Nazi, and try to turn a discussion about increased spending into whether a number is 5.716 or 5.176, none of this changes the point of the discussion.

The difference between those two numbers isn't much at all when it comes to these discussions, but it shows a lack of attention or understanding about how all of these items fit together. And - neither of them had anything to do with him misunderstanding the discussions of yearly deficit and total deficit. He picked the wrong numbers to even try and correct.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Spending and debt has increased, and is increasing.

See - that's something that we can all agree on and start to have a discussion on. Doesn't it work better without adding made up and provably false statistics like "Obama has increased spending 84%"? Especially 1 second after chastizing someone with:

Originally Posted by revstriker

You've got to be either kidding, or very uninformed.

It doesn't play well when people actually check the numbers.

Originally Posted by revstriker

By the way, this is an interesting read.

Agreed.

From p. 24:

The one thing that has disillusioned me is the discussion of fiscal policy. Policymakers and far too many economists seem to be arguing from ideology rather than evidence. As I have described this evening, the evidence is stronger than it has ever been that fiscal policy matters—that fiscal stimulus helps the economy add jobs, and that reducing the budget deficit lowers growth at least in the near term. And yet, this evidence does not seem to be getting through to the legislative process.

That is unacceptable. We are never going to solve our problems if we can’t agree at least on the facts. Evidence-based policymaking is essential if we are ever going to triumph over this recession and deal with our long-run budget problems.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

It doesn't play well when people actually check the numbers.

I still stand by my statement. If anyone thinks that spending is not a problem, then they are very ill informed.


Pretty interesting, Romer talking about not using facts, and not letting ideology trump evidence when that is exactly what she did when she predicted that the Stimulus would lower unemployment. Right before she was forced to resign in disgrace. But she will keep calling that kettle black.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I still stand by my statement. If anyone thinks that spending is not a problem, then they are very ill informed.

That wasn't your statement, but it's clear in both places so why belabor the point. OK, I can't help myself. You posted false data, and continue to stand by it like a stubborn child who thinks people can't see through it. Just a reminder:

Originally Posted by revstriker

You've got to be either kidding, or very uninformed. Spending under Obama has gone up something like 84%.

But let's move on.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Pretty interesting, Romer talking about not using facts, and not letting ideology trump evidence when that is exactly what she did when she predicted that the Stimulus would lower unemployment. Right before she was forced to resign in disgrace. But she will keep calling that kettle black.

Did you actually read the paper? The entire point was looking for evidence on whether the first stimulus saved jobs, lost jobs, helped the economy, hurt the economy, etc. That was what they set out to find, and it's what they believe they did. The data and their analysis postulates that it saved 3M jobs over not having done it. If you want to quibble with that, use the same data, do your own analysis, and show us where they got it wrong. The entire point is trying to understand how things work to be able to make the optimal decisions going forward. Rather than some gut feel of "we need to cut deficits now because that will help the economy". Or conversely, "we need to cut taxes now because that will help the economy". Or, "we need to repeat what worked with the stimulus on a smaller or larger scale". She's an MIT-trained, PhD economist, and what you get out of her thoughts is pot & kettle & black?

Predicting the future is never going to be an exact science, the best anyone can do is have the best information and analyses possible when making decisions that rely on how the future plays out. I'll give you an example, with the type of analysis used by the Bush White house selling the first tax cut in 2001:

- Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.
- The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.
- The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax.

It turned out to be off by just a little. Who would we like to paint with the disgrace kettle?

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I still stand by my statement. If anyone thinks that spending is not a problem, then they are very ill informed.


Pretty interesting, Romer talking about not using facts, and not letting ideology trump evidence when that is exactly what she did when she predicted that the Stimulus would lower unemployment. Right before she was forced to resign in disgrace. But she will keep calling that kettle black.

Spending is a problem, did you also factor in costs? We could be spending more because costs have gone up and not because we are choosing to spend more. A great example is medicare/medicaid. We need a single payer system if we want to fix it but you'll never see on the table because of how our society works. I saw your post two pages back that partially understands how this consumer based economy works.

Consumers drives companies' profit. If consumers aren't spending, then their forecasts are low so companies cut back. The end result of this cascade is a deflationary spiral which is basically leads to the next depression. Monetary policy such as QE was introduced to fight it but it resulted in a liquidity trap. Fiscal policy like the stimulus is introduced to get consumers spending again. Christy Romer shows that it did have a impact albeit not enough to bring us out completely out of the recession. Krugman knew this already and argued the possibility that the stimulus was too small (due to republicans crying about spending) and he turned out right.

Given our current circumstances, a bigger stimulus would have most likely brought us out of the recession but prolong an issue we are seeing now. Remember since this is consumer driven economy, it all depends on the consumer spending. They need disposable income like you said. The reason there is no more disposable income is that wages have stagnated. I've seen the data shows that household income has increased steadily mainly because the wife took up a second job. That was shown in Elizabeth Warren's presentation on the dying middle class. This stagnation is one of the reasons why the capitalism machine is broken. This is a related to a flaw in capitalism itself.

"Reality Exhibits a Keynesian Bias"

I love this quote by Krugman.

[kyrider]

I love you guys but there comes a time when one has to just agree to disagree. No one is going to change anyones opinion here.

Look how much time has been wasted.

I am off to check out the new Victoria Secret catalog that came in the mail.


Here is a great video on Orcas!

Link to original page on YouTube.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I don't consider personal attacks and name calling to be "merely correcting" one's grammar. I've also been reading this forum for a number of years and have seen many of Alex's posts, and I can't recall him ever correcting someone's grammar using such tactics.

Originally Posted by Alex

All bets were off after Kevin went off half-cocked on Samer in the same fashion.

And where exactly did I do that Alex?? Care to share that post or posts with the rest of us?

I said this

Originally Posted by almost40

(BTW 3% of 1,000,000 is a little more than $.03, do they not teach math in your grade school?)
Samer you need to wake up and smell the stuff you are shoveling.

Other than that??? Where did I attack samer using anything even remotely close to what you tossed my way??

I dont recall calling him anything like this

Originally Posted by Alex

you dolt, you illiterate hick. sack of illiterate dogmeat, bubkis

On top of that. I have been a member here for years. You and I have had plenty of debates. Up until a couple days ago you never had anything to say about my writing style, my numerous spelling, grammer, and punctuation mistakes. Nor the fact that I use more than one question mark when asking a question.
Why all the attention to it, all the sudden??
Isnt samer able to handle himself? I think he gave to me as good as he got from me in this thread.
None of it deserves what you dished out, and Im quite sure if another member said the same thing, and it was complained about, to you, they would be issued a "little break".
Im just sayin..........It was uncalled for, and inappropriate. Especially from the mod and owner of the "friendliest Kawasaki Ninja 250R site on the net".

[Alex]

You chastised him post after post about what he was talking about being fictional. You made fun of his math as grade school, when you were the one who was missing the point and once again calculating things incorrectly. Your attacks are baseless, your views are comical, and are only matched by the either irrelevant or clearly wrong "data" you frantically google to try and shore up your silliness.

Off-topic hasn't shown up in new posts for quite awhile, since right around the time the political discussions kept up primarily by you and your ilk starting getting me complaint after complaint about the tone of the site. So now people have to come here specifically, and click specifically into the political threads if they want to argue endlessly with the clueless. They can have at it, and I will as well.

[almost40]

7 lies in under 2 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UErR7i2onW0

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by almost40

7 lies in under 2 min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UErR7i2onW0

Link to original page on YouTube.

If this were a Republican we would see it every day in the mainstream media.

[almost40]

It came from here.

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/20...-simpson-like/

[almost40]

"The big lie"

The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

From here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by almost40

It came from here.

http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/20...-simpson-like/

Wow. It was really hard to get through that incoherent rant but I got out two themes. One was Obama doesnt keep his promises and two is the keystone pipeline.

Now, I dont need to refer to a video to check on Obama's promises. I got this link right here to do it. Politifact has been under harsh scrutinity from the left due to to Lie of the Year fiasco they still have some credibility. We all have heard what the pipeline can do so what's the argument against. This protest site has some interesting facts. According to this Cornell study, the pipeline might do more harm than good. With regards to the keystone pipeline, I think more research needs to be done with it. Obama made the correct choice by looking further into the project. He clearly didnt want to rush it and he certainly didnt dismiss it outright. He merely delayed it for more research.

Oh here are some lies I forgot to link from a column in Bloomberg surprisingly. I think Lie No 2 was already clarified above.

[kyrider]

Is wealth more or less concentrated now than it was 100yrs ago in the US?

[kyrider]

Well, well, well......

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/ne...ey-for-warren/

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Well, well, well......

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/ne...ey-for-warren/

I dont think republicans will be able to find anything to stick to warren.

Here's another lesson in hindsight for republicans.

Super PAC Disclosure Requirements Hot Topic Of Conversation Among GOP Candidates

and

As Predicted, Florida Loses Money On Gov. Scott's Welfare Drug Testing Scheme

9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

I dont think republicans will be able to find anything to stick to warren.

Here's another lesson in hindsight for republicans.

Super PAC Disclosure Requirements Hot Topic Of Conversation Among GOP Candidates

and

As Predicted, Florida Loses Money On Gov. Scott's Welfare Drug Testing Scheme

9 Investigates: Welfare Drug Testing

Bwahahahahahaha

[shiroganeshinobi]

I wanted to drop this. It's a great exercise in critical thinking based on the tweets itself before Mark Thoma breaks it down.

Should We Feel Sorry for the Wealthy?

["A"]

After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires

Ok, so now ethanol will cost more and we'll have to pay more for less energy in our gasoline. Only in America!

Paying more, for less energy than is required to produce it.

[kyrider]

I did see an OWS guy in Nashville but he was alone with a homemade mega phone that was not being used. The weather was great around 60 and sunny. I guess at least in Nashville it has lost some steam. There were several protesters there earlier in the yr.