ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:37 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2004 9:25 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
http://www.Johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2004 12:42 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 8:14 am
Posts: 15
Location: A place where lights flicker omniously and monitors line the walls
Meh...

Every time I watch US elections, I get flashbacks to the old Duck Tales computer game, with the giant set of scales at the end. Then there's be a mountain of your money on one side and a mountain of the computers of the other one, and uncle Scrooge would either dance or cry, depending on which was bigger.

While George Bush has easily wrecked more havoc on US economy, domestic policies and foreign relations than any other leader* could, I doubt a democrat president would be much better. The two parties policies are pretty much identical, placing them somewhere on the mid- to far right in a european government with too few differences to really warrant seperate parties.

I say elect whomever can eat the most pretzels and survive.

<font size=1>*Yes, even a scitzophrenic (sp?) Josef Stalin with rabid monkeys shooting out of his orifices and a full frontal lobotomy</font>

[Edit]
Happy footnote of fluffiness™ added.

_________________
By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion. By the beans of Java do the thoughts acquire speed, do the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2004 1:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
SegFaulty wrote:
[Edit]
Happy footnote of fluffiness™ added.


Until this moment, this thread bored me.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:07 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
IcyMonkey wrote:
Forevergrey wrote:
Icy, you are a moron, much as I <3 you.

You should know better than the OMG BUSH MUST GO CAUSE.... CAUSE... CAUSE... CAUSE I DONT LIKE HIM argument.


Bush doesn't just have to go because I don't like him.

Bush has to go because he's ruined our country domestically and internationally.

[*]He turned a 5 trillion dollar budget suplus into a 5 trillion dollar budget deficit. (And no, this wasn't entirely due to 9/11, the draining of the budget was well under way by then.)


Its funny because you never tell us why this bad, what exactly it ruins etc.

IcyMonkey wrote:
Most of this money was spent on tax cuts, 51% of which will, in the end, go directly to the top 1% of the population. Whether the recession was started by Clinton or not, Bush's deficit spending did absolutely nothing to stop it.


First part: Data plz, antibush.com doesn't count. Second, even if true...so what? What exactly makes the rich unworthy of, uhm, their own money and shit?

Second part: see above.

Icymonkey wrote:
Trickle-down economics doesn't work, people. I thought we all knew this by now. Not Bush, apparently.


Someone forgot econ 201, or hates the US Census Bureau. 8 years preceeding and going after the Reagan administration.

Year % pop making < 15k (2002USD) Change From previous
1974 19.2% N/A
1976 19.9% +0.7 (Ford Administration)
1980 19.4% -0.6 (Carter Administration) (Net 8 years: +0.1%)
1984 19.2% -0.2 (Reagan 1)
1988 17.9% -1.3 (Reagan 2) (Net 8 years: -1.5%)
1992 18.5% +0.6 (Bush Sr.)
1996 17.4% -1.1 (Clinton 1) (Net 8 years: -0.5%)

Something was done right.

Pool time, I'll answer the rest later.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
An interview with Nader. Has a lot of the ideas that I heard when he spoke.

...Just wanna see what points of the article MiB wants to tear up.

...oh, and no fair calling him a "Filthy Communist" just because he cares about PEOPLE more that he does Corporations.

_________________
BDM was here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
What exactly makes corporations, which are made up of people, somehow different from some sort of arbitarily defined 'class', which is made up of people?

The corporation is self-sufficient on its own, I suppose thats evil or something. And no, I'm not reading it, Nader isn't worth my time. The amount of cognitive dissonance present in his shpeils is amazing, I often find it impossible to piece together exactly what he's getting at. You are still an idiot, and you don't even have the faintest idea of how the world works beyond the idiotic quasi-communist class warfare bullshit that you're being fed by whoever every day.

Or maybe you're just a moron and came to the conclusion on your own. Doesn't matter.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
MiB wrote:
And no, I'm not reading it, Nader isn't worth my time.

Thank you for taking a nice balanced view and giving me some sort of oppurtunity to argue :roll:

The Man In Black wrote:
What exactly makes corporations, which are made up of people, somehow different from some sort of arbitarily defined 'class', which is made up of people?


So, who makes the major amount of decisions in corporations?

_________________
BDM was here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
BDM05 wrote:
MiB wrote:
And no, I'm not reading it, Nader isn't worth my time.

Thank you for taking a nice balanced view and giving me some sort of oppurtunity to argue :roll:


He isn't. He's stupid. Read his own arguments and take them to their logical conclusion: if you don't even have the basics of logic, look them up.

BDM05 wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
What exactly makes corporations, which are made up of people, somehow different from some sort of arbitarily defined 'class', which is made up of people?


So, who makes the major amount of decisions in corporations?


The CEO, as approved/watched by the board of directors and share holders, who have varying degrees of micromanagement over day-to-day activities. The share holders consist of both random people who invested in the compnay and any employees who have either earned shares or bought them themselves. The last two categories overlap to some extent. The CEO is usually hired by the board of managers, or the majority shareholerwho are in turn under compellation by share holders to

Who makes decisions for an arbitrarily defined group?

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: By the way: saying something is obviously stupid isn't exactly skilled debating.
PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
To: MiB
Subject: I think you may be wrong

Dear Mibbers,

It came to my attention recently that you believe in the effectiveness of supply-side economics, and non-progressive taxes.

In this you are similar to Bush Sr. and Reagan, who believed that said economic and fiscal policy would lead to a boost in the economy which would eliminate record deficits in "two, maybe three years." Unfortunately, many of those even within the administrations in question believed this policy to be ineffective. Still, the Reagan administration functioned adequately at keeping deficits and the economy going at about the same clip, though Bush Senior's failed miserably despite increasing non-progressive taxes.

By the end of the "Reagan Revolution," (as the era including Reagan and Bush Sr.) deficits had increased to a record high of $290 billion.

Clinton did the exact opposite of what Reagan and Bush did, favoring progressiveness in his taxes. As I recall, many predicted the economic end of America. Bob Dole predicted the stock market would collapse, and Newt Gingrich that a new Great Depression would quickly follow due to Clinton. Yet, the economy sustained one of (if not the) longest periods of economic expansion in US History. Every year, deficits decreased. In the last three years, it was even a surplus. 18 million new jobs were created, a record, I'm told. A ten year projection of the budget included a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus.

Now, recently, Bush Jr. has taken office. If I remember correctly, he follows both your economic wisdom and his father's more closely than Clinton. Incidentally, the deficit has increased every year, and has now reached a record of $500 billion, the largest in the history of the United States. The ten year budget projection went to $5.6 trillion of deficit. This despite the fact that the $2.5 trillion set aside for the looming Social Security problem Bush promised not to touch in 2000 was eliminated within two years. While the wars play a significant part in the growing deficit, tax-cuts cost three times as much as the wars and the increased homeland security and rebuilding after Sept. 11 put together.

I do not believe that the business cycle has been flattened very much, has it?

While I may have forgotten my Econ 201, I do believe you may have forgotten your History 201.

Sincerely,
Abby

P.S. I talked to a fellow who I thought would know econ (e.g. he got gold in a national economics competition) about "Supply creates its own demand" and supply-side economics (Keynesian?). Anyways, he told me "Nobody believes in that anymore." Icy's theory seems to have some support.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:03 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
So, the govt spending too much = tax cuts are bad?

I never claimed it reduced deficiets if the govt has been spending too much. I have claimed, however, that it benefits the poor that clintonian policies supposedly did much more to are clearly there in the Reagan era as well. In addition, I also never claimed that market cycles are defeated by tax cuts. Lastly, the economic recession is put by most economists in Clinton's term or too early into BUsh's term for him to have caused it.

Riding on a wave of high GDP =/= good monetary policy. Similarly, tax cuts do not magically make a recession based in real world things - oil, war, etc - go away. But it helps. I have shown this, pretty clearly, here.

Lastly, my professor with a Ph.D. in economics trumps your gold faggy award in environmentalist economics. Nobody indeed.

I question as well the "three times" figure, the tax revenue being only (iirc) 15% or so (with variations according to the specific period) of the US govt's budget.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:05 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
I apologize; I am tired, and a plethora of other meaningless excuses.

Quote:
So, the govt spending too much = tax cuts are bad?


I like how you automatically assume the government must be spending too much if there are deficits. It's the sort of thing that makes me think a person is too stuck within their own assumptions to do anything but rationalize.

However, it was my argument (as much as that overview of history was an argument) that Bush Sr.'s method of taxation as well as his apparent economic and fiscal policy. Additionally, I was criticizing the younger Bush on similar points, as well. However, judging by the elder's "no new taxes," I would not say I am criticizing tax cuts, per se. I am, however, criticizing supply-side economics.

Quote:
Riding on a wave of high GDP =/= good monetary policy. Similarly, tax cuts do not magically make a recession based in real world things - oil, war, etc - go away. But it helps. I have shown this, pretty clearly, here.

I concur: tax cuts do help the economy. However, it is my argument against supply-side economics that there are more and less efficient ways to implement them, and times when implementing them aren't needed (e.g. the times when Americans say they feel less taxed than ever).

I also feel that Clinton did not ride on a wave of high GDP for 8 years. While the business cycle always goes up and down, it pays to keep in mind that we can affect it in a variety of ways, and we aim for stability.

It is in the interests of stability that I promote a stable government (i.e. one not likely break deficits records until banks refuse to do business with it). As you have said before, the government can only do so much about the business cycle, so I recommend one its primary concerns being to keep itself going and doing its job, preferably with surpluses so it can afford to protect us from terrorists, et cetera.

Reagan managed to keep deficits generally where they were, Bush Sr. managed to fail, Clinton (and that amazing Treasury Seceratary of his) managed <i>surpluses</i>, and Bush Jr. managed <b>immense, record</b> deficits. It would seem, then, that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. failed in their capacities as monetary overseers. Bush Sr. implemented taxes that decreased deficits (possibly without dealing with the underlying problem), but Bush Jr. has no help. Thus, we have deficits that will affect what our government can do for years to come.&lt;/rhetoric&gt;

While it would be nice to cut taxes to nothing, and help the economy that way, we <i>have</i> to be realistic, and balance it with the (economic) need for a government, and help that way.

Quote:
<b>Second to l</b>astly, my professor with a Ph.D. in economics trumps your gold faggy award in environmentalist economics. Nobody indeed.


I wish to assuage your doubts as to the validity of the award, since it apparently matters enough to you to attach petty insults to it. The competition in question is neither minor (e.g. they had a shitty movie made about them), nor at all environmental (e.g. they like to have themes every year, and the year of the gold was "America, Growth of a Nation," a "celebration of exploitation" as another person called it). It's fagginess is also doubtful, seeing as it gave the medal to a man who likes girls almost as young as you do. Speaking of the man himself, I am actually glad he doesn't have his Ph.D. yet; considering the time it takes to get a Ph.D. in order to teach teenagers economics, his knowledge might be out of date.

Additionally, it would be better for you to assume my friends to be conservative with libertarian leanings. For that is the sort I am surrounded by, here, as you, I believe, have mentioned.

Quote:
I question as well the "three times" figure, the tax revenue being only (iirc) 15% or so (with variations according to the specific period) of the US govt's budget.

Feel free, kiddo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:31 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
BDM05 wrote:
MiB wrote:
And no, I'm not reading it, Nader isn't worth my time.

Thank you for taking a nice balanced view and giving me some sort of oppurtunity to argue :roll:


Nader is America's comedy third option.

Get an article written by a person, and not a clown in a suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:08 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Abunai! wrote:
I apologize; I am tired, and a plethora of other meaningless excuses.

Quote:
So, the govt spending too much = tax cuts are bad?


I like how you automatically assume the government must be spending too much if there are deficits. It's the sort of thing that makes me think a person is too stuck within their own assumptions to do anything but rationalize.


Or the simple idea that you shouldn't spend more than you take in, and if you take in less then, uh, you should spend less?

I know Visa told you otherwise, but its true.

Abunai wrote:
However, it was my argument (as much as that overview of history was an argument) that Bush Sr.'s method of taxation as well as his apparent economic and fiscal policy. Additionally, I was criticizing the younger Bush on similar points, as well. However, judging by the elder's "no new taxes," I would not say I am criticizing tax cuts, per se. I am, however, criticizing supply-side economics.


Well, apparently your entire argument seems to be based on deficeits, which are bad (though you havn't made a concrete case for why they should be avoided, but lets go for the sake of argument.) Alright. However, the only actual case this argues for is government spending ignoring this lack of revenue that stops via tax cuts: in this sense, the execution of supply-side economics (wherein you cut taxes, which as you said works, but then keep spending the same amount of money,) is wrong/bad for the government.

Abunai wrote:
Quote:
Riding on a wave of high GDP =/= good monetary policy. Similarly, tax cuts do not magically make a recession based in real world things - oil, war, etc - go away. But it helps. I have shown this, pretty clearly, here.

I concur: tax cuts do help the economy. However, it is my argument against supply-side economics that there are more and less efficient ways to implement them, and times when implementing them aren't needed (e.g. the times when Americans say they feel less taxed than ever).


What ways are these...? Data etc.

Abunai wrote:
I also feel that Clinton did not ride on a wave of high GDP for 8 years. While the business cycle always goes up and down, it pays to keep in mind that we can affect it in a variety of ways, and we aim for stability.


Such as...?

It'd be nice to have something to rebut etc.

Abunai wrote:
It is in the interests of stability that I promote a stable government (i.e. one not likely break deficits records until banks refuse to do business with it).


I am unaware of this ever happening to the USA. Have I missed something...?

Abunai wrote:
As you have said before, the government can only do so much about the business cycle, so I recommend one its primary concerns being to keep itself going and doing its job, preferably with surpluses so it can afford to protect us from terrorists, et cetera.


I agree. So, if tax cuts are done, the logical thing to do is to spend less in accordance, is it not?

Abunai wrote:
Reagan managed to keep deficits generally where they were, Bush Sr. managed to fail, Clinton (and that amazing Treasury Seceratary of his) managed <i>surpluses</i>, and Bush Jr. managed <b>immense, record</b> deficits.


The comparisons are somewhat faulty, given that Reagan was in the middle of an arms race, Bush Sr. invaded a country with the US military in the middle of nowhere (not cheap,) and Bush Jr. had to deal with 9-11, the war on terrorism, etc etc. Clinton faced no budget-draining initiatives in his term, so saying that the surplus was due to his fiscal policy is somewhat erroneous, I think. Apples and oranges, in other words, at least in this category.

Abunai wrote:
It would seem, then, that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. failed in their capacities as monetary overseers. Bush Sr. implemented taxes that decreased deficits (possibly without dealing with the underlying problem), but Bush Jr. has no help. Thus, we have deficits that will affect what our government can do for years to come.&lt;/rhetoric&gt;


And? This is not an implication against supply-side economics in general, it is (if anything, it is somewhat erroneous to compare two wartime president's spending records to a peacetime one's) a (possible) implication on Bush Sr and Jr. 's specificalities in handling how tax cuts were done.

Abunai wrote:
While it would be nice to cut taxes to nothing, and help the economy that way, we <i>have</i> to be realistic, and balance it with the (economic) need for a government, and help that way.


Hold...

Abunai wrote:
Quote:
<b>Second to l</b>astly, my professor with a Ph.D. in economics trumps your gold faggy award in environmentalist economics. Nobody indeed.


I wish to assuage your doubts as to the validity of the award, since it apparently matters enough to you to attach petty insults to it. The competition in question is neither minor (e.g. they had a shitty movie made about them), nor at all environmental (e.g. they like to have themes every year, and the year of the gold was "America, Growth of a Nation," a "celebration of exploitation" as another person called it). It's fagginess is also doubtful, seeing as it gave the medal to a man who likes girls almost as young as you do. Speaking of the man himself, I am actually glad he doesn't have his Ph.D. yet; considering the time it takes to get a Ph.D. in order to teach teenagers economics, his knowledge might be out of date.

Additionally, it would be better for you to assume my friends to be conservative with libertarian leanings. For that is the sort I am surrounded by, here, as you, I believe, have mentioned.


It was something of a joke, but to address it specifically: your friend's instructors have not been...uhm...very nice.

Abunai wrote:
Quote:
I question as well the "three times" figure, the tax revenue being only (iirc) 15% or so (with variations according to the specific period) of the US govt's budget.

Feel free, kiddo.


Abunai wrote:
While the wars play a significant part in the growing deficit, tax-cuts cost three times as much as the wars and the increased homeland security and rebuilding after Sept. 11 put together.


How much have homeland security and rebuilding cost, again?

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group