Economics 101 for you know who you are!

[Wake up CALL]

Suppose the governemt refunds you $400 yet refunds me $10 million, not only would this be reasonable I will quickly demonstrate why I will stimulate the economy more than you.

YOU: The maximum amount of stimulus you will be able to offer wil be to purchase $400 worth of goods and services.

ME: My maximum would not only be $10 million but also the interest that accrued on that $10 million while I was attempting to purchase all those goods and services.

Now you contend that since I have so much money anyway I will not spend any of my $10 million refund. As far fetched as this idea may sound (the idea that you could be correct that is) let us for a moment assume you are correct.

Now if I do anything other than stuff the money under my mattress or bury it in coffee cans in the backyard I will indeed stimulate the economy much more than you. In fact even if I chose the coffee can route I would need to purchase much more than $400 worth of coffee so we had better stick to the already purchased mattress scenario.

If I am one of the typically stupid, fiscally irresponsible conservatives as you suggest who deserves to pay $10 million more than I have already paid in taxes then I just might sock this cash away in a passbook savings account at my local bank. It makes it easier to saunter down ocassionally in order to admire my hoard of cash. But wait! I cannot see all my money, why? Because the bank loans my money out to more needy people (such as a poor liberal who blew his $400 refund on cigarettes and strippers).

The above needy liberal takes out a new home loan. This money is distributed to the property developer, the bulider, the tradesmen who build the home, the local government in the way of building permits and property taxes. Now we have created jobs, added to the local infrastructure as well as paid bank employees and paid for my interest as well (which of course on which I will be forced to pay more tax so that you can get another $400 to screw off next year).

This is a much simplified example of basic economics that nearly all tax happy/spend happy liberals either chose to ignore or in all honesty do not quite understand. I believe I demonstrated quite well that the guy who gets the $10 million refund (of $50 million initially paid in tax) will do much more to stimulate the economy than a beer guzzling, cigaratte smoking, baby-making liberal who paid $1150 in total tax yet got $400 back.

[drewjustdrew]

Is there a point to all this? It seems obvious that $10 million will stimulate the economy more than $400.

I doubt you paid $50 million in taxes and were refunded $10 million. You should do a better job estimating your withholding.

[pudley4]

Wow, what a great argument [/sarcasm]

Why don't you try comparing apples to apples.

Which stimulates the economy more - giving $10,000,000 back to one individual, or giving $400 back to 25,000 individuals?

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a point to all this? It seems obvious that $10 million will stimulate the economy more than $400.

I doubt you paid $50 million in taxes and were refunded $10 million. You should do a better job estimating your withholding.



[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking about Rkiray and Hugs.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what a great argument [/sarcasm]

Why don't you try comparing apples to apples.

Which stimulates the economy more - giving $10,000,000 back to one individual, or giving $400 back to 25,000 individuals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a 25,000 to one ratio an equal comparison. I see you know nothing about apples and oranges. Why not compare 25000 $10 million refunds to 25000 $400 refunds? Is that better suited to your fair comparison?

[Boris]

Serious question for you - are you a conservative or a satirist working for the liberal cause?

Let's define conservative in this case anyone who twice voted for Ronald Reagan.

[MtSmalls]

"Since when is a 25,000 to one ratio an equal comparison. I see you know nothing about apples and oranges. Why not compare 25000 $10 million refunds to 25000 $400 refunds? Is that better suited to your fair comparison? "

No because you would have to assume that 25000 $10 million rebates are available. Your initial argument posited ONE $10 million rebate vs ONE $400 rebate. The argument should be if there is $10 million for the government to rebate in taxes should it go to ONE individual, or be divided amongst 25000 individuals (counting families as one unit). Unless you are a Reagan/Bush believer that deficits don't matter.

Clearly 25000 families are going to spend the $400 creating an increase in GDP (see third quarter 2003), temporarily. One person is going to save/invest that money, not in the local bank where it can be loaned out, but in the global capital markets where it has a very small impact once it trickles all the way down. Reagan tried all of this during the early 80's. It created massive deficits and the only known world-wide case of Stagflation, that is ZERO economic growth and the bonus of rampant inflation.

[Wake up CALL]

"Reagan tried all of this during the early 80's. It created massive deficits and the only known world-wide case of Stagflation, that is ZERO economic growth and the bonus of rampant inflation."

Rewriting history are you? Better try that on the uninformed masses. The economic data from the Reagan era shows otherwise.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Serious question for you - are you a conservative or a satirist working for the liberal cause?

Let's define conservative in this case anyone who twice voted for Ronald Reagan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be an ultra-conservative since I voted for Reagan three times.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

such as a poor liberal who blew his $400 refund on cigarettes and strippers

OK, I don't smoke, but what the hell is wrong with spending money on strippers??? Does the fact that I like strippers make me a liberal???

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when is a 25,000 to one ratio an equal comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not, and that's why your initial comparison is invalid. See, 10 million dollars returned vs 400 dollars returned is a 25000-1 ratio. You obviously failed math.

[Poker blog]

Spending money on strippers = negative EV and negative utility.

[slogger]

because you have said that putting 10 million back into the economy (however one assumes it gets back into the economy) is better than putting $400 back in (however one assumes that money gets there).

Point 1: Agreed.

But since you are obviously trying to either make a political statement or a joke, please do one of the following:

1. Defend the position that rebating $10 million to one individual is better for the economy than rebating $10 million in equal $400 installments to 25,000 people. [NOTE: I'm sure there are very sound arguments on either side of this.]

2. Let me know at what point in your joke I was supposed to start laughing.

Thanks!

[Wake up CALL]

My point is that refunding $10 million to a person that paid $50 million on taxes is not unfair. Another poster had implied in another seperate thread that it was and that refunding this person that much money was less useful to the economy than refunding a "regular Joe" $400.

1. I cannot defend that position since that was not my contention although it is better to refund one person $10 million in taxes he paid than refund $400 to 25,000 people who paid no tax at all. Not necessarily better for the economy but certainly better in the spirit of fairness and equity.


2. No joke, quite serious including the beer guzzeling liberal.

[slogger]

[Vehn]

How do you have 1250 posts on a poker board, and none of them about poker, or really to any value to anyone at all?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you have 1250 posts on a poker board, and none of them about poker, or really to any value to anyone at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just lucky I guess. How is it a small minded person with an ego as large as yours has time to deign to even post in these threads? Don't you have another cat to buy or tourney to bubble out of?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
No joke, quite serious including the beer guzzeling liberal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ya know some people are so far out there, so bizaare, so weird that even if they were to accidently make a good point it just wouldn't register. (Think, for instance, if Michael Jackson suddenly started arguing politics...)

When you start slamming beer....um.....man have you crossed that line. Instant fruitcake city.

heh heh heh

--Zetack

[Wake up CALL]

Beer is great, it would be drunk liberals that I was considering as a target.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
...I voted for Reagan three times.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a shame.

[Vehn]

Why do you respond to every post you can't answer by ad hominum and glibness?

Let me try again: you are aware this is a forum to discuss poker, correct? Just why are you here, when you do not post about poker? Ever?


By the way I find it hysterical you actually believe my "ego" on this board is anything other than an act played for laughs. This is obvious if you'd actually, like, read any of the posts I make on the strategy boards. However the secondary effect is catching dumbfuck<font color="white"> </font> trolls such as yourself.

[Taxman]

Ok well I see I have to answer several things here, so we'll start with this post. GIVE US THE "ECONOMIC DATA." Again and again you are giving unsubstantiated "facts." And please don't give us something off of Rush Limbaugh's website or somewhere equally partisan. If you show me data and opinions from some widely respected objective sources proving that there was no inflation and lots of economic growth as the result of the Reagan administration, then maybe I'll listen to you on this point. But, I doubt you'll find it. Ironically, most of the "informed" conservatives out there rely on such sources as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North as if they are these omniscient beings that are incapable of lying. You may watch fox news every day, but that just makes you worse than the uninformed. It makes you part of the misinformed. All of the sources I have mentioned above have been PROVEN to have misled, lied by omission, quoted things out of context and slung mud at a variety of respectable people. You find one good source to back yourself up and we'll have something ot talk about.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Another poster had implied in another seperate thread that it was and that refunding this person that much money was less useful to the economy than refunding a "regular Joe" $400.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the distortions continue. I clearly said that giving more money to the botoom 99.99% of people (not one person) would be better. I never said tax the rich more, I never said 10 million dollars is less of an economic stimulus than 400. In short, believe it or not, I am not an idiot. If say the bottom 99.9% of the population that is not a multi millionaire got a greater percentage of a tax cut than the top .01% (who would still be getting millions of dollars back), the combined spending capacity of these people would stimulate the economy far batter than those few with their millions. CEOs don't pay employees out of their own pocket, so their tax breaks will not generate jobs. Upper middle class small business owners however do in a sense pay employeees out of their profit margin so more money for them could mean more hirees. Hundreds of millions of people getting a larger percent cut would spend a lot more and do a lot more for the economy than a few hundred thousand millionaires. The super rich are a tiny tiny fraction of the populace. If Joe Blow gets say a 1200 dollar refund instead of 400, he can get some work done on his house, creating job opportunities for contractors, or he can increase business at local retail stores making them hire more people. The middle class is the foundation of the American economy and it's stupid to neglect them. Given your general stance on most things I can't believe you're so against me considering that what I advocate would get you more money (unless you're secretly Bill Gates).

[Taxman]

What the hell is your obsession with people who "pay no taxes at all?" This is your wake up call: NEARLY ALL PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The IRS would have it no other way. Those select few who have nothing to do with anything in this debate, did not get anything close to the money that everyone else got. So what if less than 1% of the population (probably far less) that didn't pay taxes also got a small amount of money from Uncle Sam? Furthermore, it's not a tax rebate if you don't pay taxes, it's called welfare and that is a completely different issue.

[Taxman]

Don't simply accept what he says. Read the other posts and the thread on taxation below. He is trying to feed everyone a steady diet of nothing, disguised as a reason why liberals suck and conservatives will usher in a new world era (shudder). Yeah, I guess Bush's foreign policy is ushering in some kind of new era.

[Ed Miller]

Why bother saying anything to this guy? He's clearly not willing to think logically about the issue.

BTW, doesn't the ignorant crap like this belong in the forum about pansy East Coasters and antique libations? I thought this forum was for the important discussions about Vince Lepore's tawdry romp in Thailand.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe I demonstrated quite well that the guy who gets the $10 million refund (of $50 million initially paid in tax) will do much more to stimulate the economy than a beer guzzling, cigaratte smoking, baby-making liberal who paid $1150 in total tax yet got $400 back.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid to comment on so I thought I'd just single it out for other people to judge.

[Taxman]

I think it was my comments in the taxation thread below that ultimately led to all of this, so I apologize for the blight it's created on this forum. The good news is that responding to all of the attacks against me has let me move closer to ditching this damn "newbie" title.

[adios]

"If you show me data and opinions from some widely respected objective sources proving that there was no inflation and lots of economic growth as the result of the Reagan administration, then maybe I'll listen to you on this point."

I've made a few posts regarding historic economic growth other topics forum. I used government data but forget exactly what the number were. Really the numbers are readily available so you should be able to look them up yourself. If you're right it should be easy to disprove what you perceive Wake Up Call to be saying. Just go to the Congressional Budget Office site for budget data which also contains GDP data and the Labor Department site to find CPI data. You may find some data on real GDP growth (nominal GDP growth - inflation) if you search enough for it without computing it yourself. It may be even part of the budget data as I don't remember. Inflation was definitely higher in the 70's though. I believe that real GDP growth was stronger in the Reagan administration than it was during the Nixon,Ford and Carter administrations. This was due to a combination of fiscal and monetary policy. The Fed changed their basic monetary policy when Carter appointed Volker as Fed chairman. There's really no clear cut answer about what the right formula is for real economic growth. Keynesians have one view for instance and moneterists have another viewpoint. I think the prevailing thought today is that simply increasing aggregate demand per se does not lead to sustained, real economic growth. Real economic growth requires capital investment.

"Ironically, most of the "informed" conservatives out there rely on such sources as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North as if they are these omniscient beings that are incapable of lying."

Are you a comedian? Sorry this statement is ridiculous on it's face.

[CrackerZack]

You may be the target, but its not really your fault. About once a month wake up either starts and gets involved in a thread where he is extremely opinionated but makes little to no sense at any point in it. Eventually someone points out this
[ QUOTE ]
The only problem with a logical debate is the requirement that all parties argue logically.

[/ QUOTE ]
tremendously ironic "gem" in his signature, we all laugh, and the debate usually dies down.

[Taxman]

I don't think the top .01% of the population money scale will start making so many more investments simply because they got a few more million. Giving those who are a step below a little extra capital however could produce much better results. I am no econ expert, but I don't think making the super rich richer really does much for anyone. Also this is another time where the distinction between individual income taxes and corporate taxes is important. This is something that only I have discussed thus far.

I realize that the data is readily available. The point was more to illustrate that WAKE UP CALL does not put even a small amount of reason or fact into his arguments. I think you are perhaps right that there was modest economic growth under Reagan, but then there was also the huge national debt that eventually screwed over Bush Sr. This of course is why straight numbers can't be relied on for everything. I can give you tables supporting almost any economic claim. All you have to do is leave out the right data.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a comedian? Sorry this statement is ridiculous on it's face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I can elaborate on my statement. WAKE UP CALL accused me of being one of the uninformed masses and thus my retort was he seemed to be one of the misinformed. All three of the people I named have tens of millions if not more who are major fans. I know many many people who cite them as reliable sources. Now that is a rediculous statement. For more on that I refer you to Al Franken's excellent book Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. It's obviously partisan, but for all of the inflammatory information presented in it, only one or two very minor points have been found to be slightly inaccurate. Conservatives hate him because he points out their lies and they can't prove him wrong. Besides, anyone who watches fox news or listens to Rush Limbaugh and tells themselves these are objective sources is dellusional. You can be a fan if you want, but at least admit you are hearing stories with a slant.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you respond to every post you can't answer by ad hominum and glibness?



[/ QUOTE ]

Here was your question: "How do you have 1250 posts on a poker board, and none of them about poker, or really to any value to anyone at all? :

What kind of response could you possibly expect? Grow up young man, you may have a future.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You may be the target, but its not really your fault. About once a month wake up either starts and gets involved in a thread where he is extremely opinionated but makes little to no sense at any point in it. Eventually someone points out this
[ QUOTE ]
The only problem with a logical debate is the requirement that all parties argue logically.

[/ QUOTE ]
tremendously ironic "gem" in his signature, we all laugh, and the debate usually dies down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember having pulled your chain Zack but thanks for your two cents. I hang on your every useful word. If you increased your comprehension level you might understand true logic, practice makes perfect.

[Wake up CALL]

Taxman you have a lot to learn I posted no facts, just a scenario which was obviously true on it's face. As Adios suggested all the Reagan era economic data is readily available. I will find one link in particular which substantiates the Reagan boom and post it below. However I imagine it may be over your head but will give you a shot at understanding.

Reagan Was Right (http://masonc.home.netcom.com/veryhigh.html)

[Vehn]

[ QUOTE ]
Here was your question: "How do you have 1250 posts on a poker board, and none of them about poker, or really to any value to anyone at all? :

What kind of response could you possibly expect? Grow up young man, you may have a future.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about an honest one? You don't post in poker threads, you post nitpicks and trolls, most of them not even remotely poker related. Why you have been tolerated here thus far is beyond me. So I'll ask one more time: WHY are you here?

p.s. Please don't PM me. Thanks.

[Mike Gallo]

By the way I find it hysterical you actually believe my "ego" on this board is anything other than an act played for laughs. This is obvious if you'd actually, like, read any of the posts I make on the strategy boards. However the secondary effect is catching dumbfuck trolls such as yourself.

After this response I nominate you for poster of the year.

Last year I voted for Elysium, this years its alll you.

[Redhot_man]

not spending on hookers = -Fun

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't post in poker threads, you post nitpicks and trolls, most of them not even remotely poker related. Why you have been tolerated here thus far is beyond me. So I'll ask one more time: WHY are you here?



[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one (maybe the only one) find W.U.C. interesting. I also enjoy the fact he can dig in on a position and fight it. Not always is W.U.C.'s position properly supported, but who cares? If you can't take something away from the actual argument, you can at least appreciate his "style." I am not quite like that, but I appreciate the difference.

Yes, this immediate argument has continued ad naseum, but if there was no more fuel, there would be no more fire. I tend to enjoy someone who can kick the smouldering ashes until HE is satisfied his position is right OR wrong.

The rap on W.E.C. is overstated, once he is satisfied, he will quit; occasionally, he will concede. Sometimes the guy can be irritating, I have had problems with him myself. But in the end, the question is...WHY is HE here.

That is quite an unfair question. I know the guy plays poker and enjoys this site. Just because he cares not to post about playing small PP's in late position, does not mean he should be banished. Actually, I find this high-school, clique mentality more disturbing than anything W.E.C. has posted (at least from what I have seen). Uniformity is quite boring.

[mosch]

You misspelled Republican in your phrase 'spend happy liberal'.

And I'd like to add, pre-emptively, that you're an idiot.

[MtSmalls]

"I posted no facts, just a scenario which was obviously true on it's face."

You posted a scenario, no facts, with severely biased and unreasonable assumptions. Here are the facts from the National Economics Board and the Department of Labor

From 1981 to 1989 (assuming it would take 1 year for Reagan's policies to take effect) National GDP grew on average 3.8% per year, a respectable number. However, inflation rose at an annual average of 4.8% per year, meaning in REAL terms, the economy SHRANK by an average of 1% per year.

During that same time period, unemployment ranges from 7.6% in 1981 to 5.3% in 1989, however from 1982 to 1983 the unemployment rate was 9.7%, or nearly one working age adult in 10 was unemployed. That level of unemployment had not been seen since 1940, coming out of the Great Depression. In 1984 the unemployment number suddenly dropped 2%. This was due to the inclusion, at the administrations direction of all military personnel in the unemployment figures (they had not been counted previously).

Hmmm. Massive tax cuts and defense (deficit) spending = shrinking national economy and rising unemployment. Where have I heard this before?

[Wake up CALL]

Oski,

Considering the fact that we did go round and round in one thread in particular I appreciate your perspective that there is room for all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons on these forums.

I have little in the way to contribute to the topics in which I rarely post. There are many posters far more knowledgeable than I in the categories that discuss play on specific hands in a particular position or circumstance. Therefore I do not chime in on their posts with no useful input.

I do claim to be well learned in many other subjects which I find most facinating and at times unclear. Promoting discussion on these topics is entertaining and often educational.

The posse on this forum seems scared of anyone who does not fit in their mold. This is normal, change and subjects outside their area of expertise prove frightning and aparrently demand their group response. Generally they are young and less worldly, this is nothing that time and experience will not heal.

Wake

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You misspelled Republican in your phrase 'spend happy liberal'.

And I'd like to add, pre-emptively, that you're an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thansk mosch for the correction in my spilling. I never new how to spill dat dere word, DOh, learn sumpin new ever day.

As far as me being an idiot I beg to differ but everyone is entitled to their opinion. At least I am sure it made you feel better after posting your message. Of course coming from someone who is only able to figure out how to generate $20,000 per year from a cool million I'm sure you will understand if I take your opinion with a grain of salt.


Wake

[Wake up CALL]

MtSmalls,

thanks for your on-topic reply, even though your data is skewed. Allow me to refer you to a page which properly characterizes the Reagan era and the improvements to our economy harvested by his fiscal policies.

Reagan Era 1980-1988 (http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/1980-88.htm)

[MtSmalls]

I don't know who MW Hodges is that put together that website. However, it is clear in reading through it, which I did, that it is a site that backs a Milton Friedman type economic view, IS skewed, whereas the data that I reported to you is provided on a non-partisan basis by the Bureau of Laber and the BEA. There are thousands of ways to measure economic prosperity, I chose a few that I think are the most valid, even to the point of not saddling my analysis with the remainder of the late 70's debacle.

Supply side economics has been proven a failure in every country and every model where it has been tried. Tax cuts to the upper 1% of a society does NOT create jobs or increase the vibrancy of an economy in anywhere NEAR the same $ amount of cuts does in the bottom 15%-30%.

Reagan was a fraud and a megalomanic that had as much to do with the end of the cold war as Clinton had to do with the economic boom of the late 90's. Which is exactly NOTHING.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
The posse on this forum seems scared of anyone who does not fit in their mold. This is normal, change and subjects outside their area of expertise prove frightning and aparrently demand their group response. Generally they are young and less worldly, this is nothing that time and experience will not heal.

Wake

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I can't agree with you there! Furthermore, time and experience cannot heal a defective position (no matter who's it is).

Nevertheless, keep on truckin.

[Wake up CALL]

You are correct that Michael Hodges is a follower of Milton Friedman. I do not believe this fact alone disqualifies his data. If you clicked on his supporting links they are from unbiased government data as well. Economics is certainly not an exact science however I do not believe you can correctly claim "Supply side economics has been proven a failure in every country and every model where it has been tried.", since the proof lies in the success of the Reagan era.

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
since the proof lies in the success of the Reagan era

[/ QUOTE ] . That is the crux of the argument here, isn't it? I have a hard time, and think you will too, of naming one positive economic development from 1980 to 1988. The number of Americans living in poverty increased over that span, REAL GDP growth was negative, Unemployment reached all time highs, the U.S Debt ran to all time highs, spending on schools, roads, welfare and other social programs was an all time low (you may think this is a positive, but I can't) at precisely the time that the country needed programs like that. The increase in wealth for the top 1% of the country grew enormously, again I don't see this as a positive, since I wasn't part of that 1%. "Wall Street" wasn't just a movie, but an indictment of the greed of that period. The big corporations made out just fine, but guess what, as soon as the gravy train stopped, we saw the recession that cost Bush I his presidency.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time, and think you will too, of naming one positive economic development from 1980 to 1988.

[/ QUOTE ] In truth Reaga's fiscal policies did not pass congress unitl october 1981 and began in January 1982. It is important to remember when dissecting economic policy vs performance.


Actually it is relatively simple to provide what you believe unobtainable.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.


To summarize during the glory years (as we Reaganites so fondly recall) total jobs increased, hours worked per adult were higher, unemployement rate decreased to 5.5%, real productivity increased at an annual average rate of 1.5%, the CPI decreased throughout his term, interest rates from the 15% of the Carter years down to a 6 year low of 8.2%. Need I go on? Anyone who claims the Reagan years were not prosperous is skewing the data to support their conclusions rather than analyzing the data and reaching a conclusion. I am not accusing you of this but whomever provided the data analysis you presented has done so.

Wake

[J.A.Sucker]

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me THREE TIMES, well, uh, hmm... God help us all.

[adios]

Taxman your problem seems to be that you seem to rely too much on stereotypes instead of discussing substance, make points, and debate issues. When I asked if you were a comedian I was referring to this statement you made:

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, most of the "informed" conservatives out there rely on such sources as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North as if they are these omniscient beings that are incapable of lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of many what are considered to be informed conservatives who don't derive their positions on issues based on what the people you mention believe. Your quoted statement is pantently absurd.

[MMMMMM]

"I don't think the top .01% of the population money scale will start making so many more investments simply because they got a few more million. Giving those who are a step below a little extra capital however could produce much better results."

Isn't this generally what the tax cuts are supposed to be doing: letting those who are a step below keep more of what they earn? To the super-rich it doesn't matter a great deal either way, but to mere high-income bracket taxpayers, who are for the most part far from being truly wealthy, it does matter a great deal. Just because someone earns 6-figures--even a fairly healthy 6-figures-- doesn't nearly make them super-rich. The super-rich like the Kennedy's could care less what the tax rate is because they are so wealthy it won't affect their lifestyle in the slightest. Wealth and Income are not nearly the same thing.

[Easy E]

First, should tax redistribution only be about economic effect?

Second, on whose backs did your $120M Republican (40% tax rate, $50M in taxes) build his fortune on and do they share the same "benefit" of this "cooperation"?

Rich guy complaining "I pay the same tax in one year that you pay in 10 years!"

Poor guy rebuttal "You earn the same in one year that I have to work 10 years to earn!"

(and we won't even get into the discretionary income ratios).

Awareness and gratitude- two words for the future.

[Taxman]

I don't appreciate the shot considering that I have made many pertinent points that have been largely ignored in favor of criticizing minor issues of semantics. I know many conservatives that are well educated and can make good cases for their beliefs. I respect those people and am glad that I can debate things with them as it enhances all of our understandings of various issues. You cannot deny however, the immense popularity of the people I have listed. Millions eat up everything they say. What annoys me is people who quote "facts" about various political figures like say, Clinton, when these "facts" were taken directly from one of the aforementioned people or from a more subtle, but equally biases source. You also obviously misinterpreted the sarcasm of my statement. The quotes around "informed" were put there because I was referring to people that the knowledgeable, whether liberal or conservative, would not consider informed. Far more people consider themselves informed citizens than actually are. I'm not even sure I would put myself in that category. I know more than most, but there is much about which I am ignorant. I at least seem capable of admitting this.

[Taxman]

Give me some evidence that the super rich don't care about taxes, because I'd love to hear it. Everything I've seen or read seems to indicate that the super rich do care very much about making more money, wehther it be through tax breaks or the easing of regulations, or whatever. Why that is, I don't know, or maybe I do, but it sickens me too much to think about it. And yes, tax cuts should put more money into the hands of the people a step below the top, but they don't, at least not nearly as much as they should. Obivously wealth and income are not the same. My contention has been and always will be that the middle class and below is what drives this economy. Supply side economics is a defunct idea.

[adios]

You write this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't appreciate the shot considering that I have made many pertinent points that have been largely ignored in favor of criticizing minor issues of semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

After I responed to this:

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, most of the "informed" conservatives out there rely on such sources as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North as if they are these omniscient beings that are incapable of lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it a ridiculous statement on it's face. Certainly this is a disparaging remark about those who obviously differ from your viewpoint and is certainly as you put it a "shot" at those who disagree with you.

You responded to my post with this:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I can elaborate on my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Salient points from your elaboration:

[ QUOTE ]
All three of the people I named have tens of millions if not more who are major fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

No evidence to back this statement up, purely opinion as to the magnitude of their popularity. What ever a major fan is but doesn't equate to these "major fans" necessarily being informed.

[ QUOTE ]
I know many many people who cite them as reliable sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is anecdotal evidence as their poplularity but doesn't equate to the informed status that you claimed earlier in your dispariging remark.

[ QUOTE ]
For more on that I refer you to Al Franken's excellent book Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. It's obviously partisan, but for all of the inflammatory information presented in it, only one or two very minor points have been found to be slightly inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with informed coservatives? It's a red herring.

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives hate him because he points out their lies and they can't prove him wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're stating opinion as fact and I consider this to be very bad form. Can you cite some examples other than drawing from your anecdotal experience?

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, anyone who watches fox news or listens to Rush Limbaugh and tells themselves these are objective sources is dellusional.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're stating opinion as fact and I consider this to be very bad form. Can you cite some examples other than drawing from your anecdotal experience?

[ QUOTE ]
You can be a fan if you want, but at least admit you are hearing stories with a slant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I assert that I was a big fan of Fox News? Where did I say this? Again your stating opinion as fact.


I responded to all of this with:

[ QUOTE ]
Taxman your problem seems to be that you seem to rely too much on stereotypes instead of discussing substance, make points, and debate issues. When I asked if you were a comedian I was referring to this statement you made:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically, most of the "informed" conservatives out there rely on such sources as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North as if they are these omniscient beings that are incapable of lying.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I can think of many what are considered to be informed conservatives who don't derive their positions on issues based on what the people you mention believe. Your quoted statement is pantently absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

All I've pointed out that your statement of opinions as facts are what they are and your original dispariging remarks where absurd on their face. I don't see why you'd expect people to accept your stated opinions as facts or accept disparaging comments regarding people who hold different opinions than your own.

[ QUOTE ]
I know many conservatives that are well educated and can make good cases for their beliefs. I respect those people and am glad that I can debate things with them as it enhances all of our understandings of various issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

is a lot different than this:

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, most of the "informed" conservatives out there rely on such sources as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North as if they are these omniscient beings that are incapable of lying.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
You cannot deny however, the immense popularity of the people I have listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I can, why don't you give some criteria for "immense popularity" if you have any?

[ QUOTE ]
You also obviously misinterpreted the sarcasm of my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

People often misinterpret sarcasm.

[ QUOTE ]
The quotes around "informed" were put there because I was referring to people that the knowledgeable, whether liberal or conservative, would not consider informed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The quotes could be interpreted in a number of ways.

[ QUOTE ]
Far more people consider themselves informed citizens than actually are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion stated as fact.

[MMMMMM]

The only evidence I can think of (at the moment) that many of the super-rich don't much care what the tax rate is, is that they vote for Democrats who will raise taxes; and that some super-rich politicians try to raise taxes too. Hollywood and the Kennedy's for example.

[Taxman]

Well that was certainly a long and intimidating post that certainly semed to set me straight. Or did it? Ok, I'll take a shot here...

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly this is a disparaging remark about those who obviously differ from your viewpoint and is certainly as you put it a "shot" at those who disagree with you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion stated as fact. I never said anything disparaging about those who differ from my views, I merely stated that a lot of people blindly rely on the viewpoints of others.


I said that all three of the people I named have millions of fans. you said:

[ QUOTE ]
No evidence to back this statement up, purely opinion as to the magnitude of their popularity. What ever a major fan is but doesn't equate to these "major fans" necessarily being informed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have plenty of evidence. Rush Limbaugh is hugely popular given that his is one of the highest rated radio shows of all time. I don't think many people who don't like him can stand to listen to him day in and day out. Note the use of the word "think," thus denoting the following statement as one of opinion. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly both have best selling books (Coulter I know has more than one). Fine, hugely popular is a vague term, but I would deem anyone who gets their book to top the New York Times best seller list for multiple weeks is at least slightly popular. Half of my point is that these people aren't necessarily informed just because they are fans. Hundreds of people on dozens of message boards claim to be informed because they are fans (fact, not opinion. Just take a look around online), but they are often mistaken. Forgive my hyperbole for implying that all of their fans are this way. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that those of their fans that bother to get in political discussions (and it seems a lot tend to be this way) are like that. Others just simply vote as they're told, or so it seems to me. I do know that numerous studies have shown a shocking lack of knowledge by the majority of the voters. You can find these everywhere and it seems the point comes up every election.

Then I said that I know people that use those three as reliable sources, to which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
Again this is anecdotal evidence as their poplularity but doesn't equate to the informed status that you claimed earlier in your dispariging remark.


[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion stated as fact. First, refer to my comments above. Second: I feel that anecdotal evidence is relevant in this case, but obviously I can't claim that all people who listen to those three believe them to be perfect sources of fact. I do know that there are more than a few however, given the many discussions I've had on various political boards. You should learn to be more clear with your statements however as, "but doesn't equate to the informed status that you claimed earlier" is vaguely worded. Do you mean my informed status or the people who listen to those sources? If you meant mine, you had better reread my post, since I adressed that. If you meant their's, you had better reread my post because I already adressed that.

I then mentioned Al Franken's book, to which you responded:
[ QUOTE ]
What does this have to do with informed coservatives? It's a red herring.


[/ QUOTE ]

Opinion stated as fact (gets annoying doesn't it? It's amazing how many things can fall under this category)Obviously you (seem to) know little about the book because it does a better job of proving my point than I ever could. You should not discount something I say until you know what I meant by it. Making this statement without any knowledge of the book is a reckless argument. If Franken can provide reams of evidence about the hypocracy of various conservative "authorities," the matter of people relying on them is very relevant.

My comment about conservatives hating him was met by

[ QUOTE ]
You're stating opinion as fact and I consider this to be very bad form. Can you cite some examples other than drawing from your anecdotal experience?


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, if somewhat inflammatory. Well for easy reference, you can look at quotes by the aforementioned people, especially O'Reilly, who takes ad hominem attacks to a whole new level. Things like "Ordinarily, I would never deal with the likes of Franken, who is simply beneath contempt." Bill O'Reilly or "The Democratic party recently hired Al Franken to host its annual dinner. Mr. Franken, along with Michael Moore, is the most extreme, vicious, and unfair liberal partisan in the spotlight today" also O'Reilly. I know he's been referred to as "the devil" and a couple of other things as well (no I don't have the quotes, I heard this on fox news). Coulter prefers to simply misinterpret Franken's words in an attempt to fool people into thinking he's stupid. Considering how long this post is I'll elaborate on this later when you inevitably call me out on this. Now all of these quotes might not seem so bad if Franken was spreading decit, but the fact remains, like I said, that he has not been disproven in any siginificant way. His book holds many many examples of hypocritical behavior, bombastic behavior and outright lies.

My personal favorite example was the Fox law suit against him because his book was subtitled "a fair and balanced look at the right," which was summarily laughed out of court. And then there was his criticisms of Rush Limbaugh concerning his drug habit. He was widely attacked for his insensitivity etc. Watching Fox news at this time was quite intereting to watch. This of course was a complete misunderstanding of Franken's point. Limbaugh has consistently advocated a hard line stance on drug abusers. Franken's comments were merely to suggest that Limbaugh should submit himself to the punnishments he suggests. Of course he did not do this. Similarly Franken's book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot was criticized as for it's vicious title. Of course as a satirist, this was a painfully obvious (to most anyway, I believe ) comment on the fact that Limbaugh himself often uses ad hominem attacks on various liberal persons. To continue...

I said "Besides, anyone who watches fox news or listens to Rush Limbaugh and tells themselves these are objective sources is dellusional." To which you so cleverly repeated your same answer from above. The nature of political writers/speakers like these is to provide a slanted opinion. This applies for people of both sides. When I said "You can be a fan if you want, but at least admit you are hearing stories with a slant." I was using the infinitive form of you, which I guess you didn't catch. so let me repeat it: I am speaking in terms of those who actually are fans.

[ QUOTE ]
All I've pointed out that your statement of opinions as facts are what they are and your original dispariging remarks where absurd on their face. I don't see why you'd expect people to accept your stated opinions as facts or accept disparaging comments regarding people who hold different opinions than your own.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're argument is based on picking apart one small aspect of the many many other things I have said in this thread. I don't expect people to accept my opinions as fact, but I do expect them to back up their own opinions with fact, especially if they are going to demand the same of me. WUC has consistently made broad arguments based on absolutely no supporting evidence. Maybe you should give him several pages of analysis to discuss this. I didn't realize that expressing a dislike for people who quote questionable sources as deffinitive was such a terrible thing, but it appears that maybe I have touched a nerve ("appears" this is merely an opinion).

You try to distinguish between two comments I make on the existence of informed citizens, but I have already made it clear that the quotes around "informed" in the second was meant as sarcasm and was in no way the same as saying that there are no informed conservatives out there. Try rereading my last post one more time. You think that they could be interpreted in a number of ways, fine. I'm telling you what they mean. Ambiguity extinguished. this reminds me of WUP's incessant arguing about a hypothetical situation I proposed when it was obvious that because I created the hypothetical, I am allowed to dictate the details. In my opinion, those with sufficient insight should be able to determine the meaning of my sentence. Personally I don't think this threshold of insight is particularly high, since quotes tend to be used as an implication that the actual deffinition of the word in quotes is not being used.

I said "Far more people consider themselves informed citizens than actually are." You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Opinion stated as fact

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only argue further semantics with you here and that is not worth it. Like I said before, there have been many surveys revealing an incredible lack of knowledge throughout the US. You're right, I don't know exactly how many people "think they're informed," but I doubt that many people would willingly admit to being ignorant. I do notice that you have succeeded in completely anulling anything else relevant I might have said by drawing attention away from everything else with your methotical examination of but a few loosely worded sentences. We can continue this rhetorical fillibuster for as long as you wish but I will find a response to everything you have to offer. I tend to know what areas of my argument I have not fleshed out and it is usually because I can back them up, but don't want to spend another page doing so. The pure number of charges you have brought against me has made it hard enough to not write for the rest of the evening. And please no clever statements about how you can't argue with the irrational or whatever else you can come up with. I've heard quite enough of that (HA HA). I may not be right, but you certainly haven't proven that you are. I do appreciate you pointing out the ambiguities of my arguments, but I feel that you don't give enough credit to those who read my posts. If you want to discuss something more relevant, you should refer to something I said about the issues at hand rather than blasting me over everything else. I think that both of us are actually quite similar in our knowledge base and argumentative tactics and thus a further continuation of this line will only result in an endless series of hair splitting comments and rhetorical jockying.

[Taxman]

Yet many many more oil tycoons and big business owners vote for Republicans and throw millions at them. Have you looked at the amount of financial support Bush receives and from whom? It's in the public domain. To revise my statement then, The richest of the filthy rich tend to favor Republicans, especially those who can benefit from lax environmental standards etc.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
WUC has consistently made broad arguments based on absolutely no supporting evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You young man are living in a dream world that is topy turvey at best. I have provided facts and links galore yet you continue to express your opinions as fact and then have the audacity to accuse me of doing the same.

You certainly need a Wake Up CALL!!!

[MMMMMM]

I perceive that Wake up CALL makes more sense in one short paragraph than do some other posters in twenty (or in what ought to be twenty).

[Taxman]

Ok this is the last time I will ever respond to one of your posts, because you are completely unable of having a reasonable debate. You provided facts and figures and links on exactly one thing. The supposed economic success of the Reagan administration, which is but one of many many issues we have addressed. Your links are to two obviously pro Reagan sites, which are not at all objective. Most likely the statistics you trust so much are from the same or similar sources. Having taken a number of political statistics classes, one thing I have learned very well is that statistics can easily be misleading. For instance, Reagan's administration generatred record debt (which is now being surpassed by the Bush regime). Sooner or later that has to be accounted for. You can't just allow the US to accumulate more and more debt. It's like living in a big house and having a nice car, but also having 4 maxed out credit cards. Eventually, someone has to pay. Just take a look at the dozens of domestic and foreign articles about the danger posed by the rising deficit. The growth in the GDP during the Reagan era was almost exclusively due to government spending. This can be helpful, but only to a point. Also, it's not exactly a revolutionary idea. Reagan claimed he could lower taxes and balance the budget, but most articles on economic theory I have read indicate that at best, this is quite unlikely. At least I will grant that the Reagan administration was less reckless than the current one. Ultimately of course, everything is much more complicated than anything you or I can understand and in this respect, it must be agreed that no one man can be credited with anything. Or can he?...

Ok here's an argument for you using your very own special brand of pretzle logic. You said previously that policies take a couple of years to impliment so Clinton could not in any way be credited for the economic boom during his term. Fine, accepting that, President Bush Sr. is responsible for the boom. But then why was he not reelected? Oh that's right, because we experienced some economic difficulties require him to reneg on his campaign promises. Well it wasn't his fault since these things take a few years to take hold. Thus it must have been Reagan's fault (and in this case they very likely were). And since things supposedly went so well during the Reagan years, this must actually be attributed to President Carter. So I guess the real two greatest presidents of the modern era have been Carter and Bush Sr. Hmmmm....

[Taxman]

You're right, he's a modern political genius. Or maybe his partisan views simply happen to agree with your own.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, he's (WUC)a modern political genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally you see the light, well, better late than never.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
. You said previously that policies take a couple of years to impliment so Clinton could not in any way be credited for the economic boom during his term.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should quote me accurately, here is what I wrote:

"You must have missed all the classes in Economics in college there Taxman. If you understood that there is generally an 18 to 24 month delay between policy and results you might understand that the Clinton Boom began because of Republican policies, then as Clinton and the Democrats began carving up the pie they got lucky and the DOT-COM bubble began "OH Boy!" , They rejoiced. More pie to distribute, unfortulately the pie was in the sky and when the bubble burst and 911 had occurred there was no pie left from the years of the tax and spend democrats so we were forced into deficit spending."

This is no way conflicts with reality. One nice thing about history, no matter how hard liberals try to distort it we have a record of the truth.

[Zetack]

essentially then: Rich people are cool, poor people suck, and people who think government ought to help poor people more than rich people really really suck.

A lot of people seem to hold that opinion. Even though I'd like to be rich, I rather hope I never become a devotee of that opinion.

--Zetack

[ChipWrecked]

Conservatives drink beer. Liberals smoke dope.