·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gbaji might have a field day?
Gbaji might have a field day?Follow
Speaking of Hilary's campaign tactics:
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Haha, I forgot about that comic.
I've always considered a "Fiscal Conservative" to be a ****, that is pussy-whipped by corporate conglomerates, that would sever his ***** to better help corporations siphon wealth, money, and power to the top further depleting the American Dream.
Colour me dumbfounded.
Colour me dumbfounded.
Rimesume wrote:
I've always considered a "Fiscal Conservative" to be a ****, that is pussy-whipped by corporate conglomerates, that would sever his ***** to better help corporations siphon wealth, money, and power to the top further depleting the American Dream.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda, Star Breaker wrote:
Rimesume wrote:
I've always considered a "Fiscal Conservative" to be a ****, that is pussy-whipped by corporate conglomerates, that would sever his ***** to better help corporations siphon wealth, money, and power to the top further depleting the American Dream.
To be fair, that pretty much sums up the last 30 years or so of Presidents, and Presidential Candidates.
yossarian wrote:
Oh, and by the way, there is basically no correlation between the rate of per capita GDP growth and the highest marginal income tax rate. From 1952-2006, binning the data in 5 year increments, the coefficient is 0.007 - basically zero. A very tenuous connection could be seen if the value were, say, 0.50 or higher.
Why would you expect there to be a correlation? Aside from the Smash strawman, no one even mentioned it as even being vaguely related.
Do the same analysis, but look at three factors: Corporate tax rates, capital gains rates, and total federal revenue as a percentage of GDP.
You will find a correlation between those values and GDP growth rates. You'll find pretty consistently that when those rates are lower that GDP grows faster. When they're higher GDP grows slower. Obviously, it's not a perfect 1 to 1 correlation, but the trend is pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't been blinded by demand side assumption.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You will find a correlation between those values and GDP growth rates.
Also: crushing debt.
How long is going to take to get past the "if we take out loans, we spend more money!" rocket science. Does the fact that taxes HAVE to be raised to deal with the crushing debt EVERY TIME ever enter your tiny pea brain?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
You will find a correlation between those values and GDP growth rates.
Also: crushing debt.
And yet, oddly, the debt ratio's maintained by Republican presidents haven't yet actually negatively impacted economic growth.
Tax increased by Dems do though. Every single time...
Quote:
How long is going to take to get past the "if we take out loans, we spend more money!" rocket science. Does the fact that taxes HAVE to be raised to deal with the crushing debt EVERY TIME ever enter your tiny pea brain?
No. They don't. We could *gasp* stop increasing federal programs at a rate that outstrips GDP growth rates! Shocker I know. See. If debt is constant as a percentage of GDP, you can maintain that debt rate forever. But if federal spending outstrips GDP growth rates, it can't. You will eventually run out of money, no matter how many additional causes you haven't fixed yet.
Get it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Tax increased by Dems do though. Every single time...
No.
//Treasury.gov/taxhistory.html
Edited, Feb 19th 2008 9:26pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
And yet, oddly, the debt ratio's maintained by Republican presidents haven't yet actually negatively impacted economic growth.
There is no way to know this after the fact. Maybe economic growth would even been more without the debt and thus it has had a negative impact?
One thing most economists agree on is that Reaganomics was a complete and utter failure in macroeconomic and socioeconomic perspective.
Edited, Feb 20th 2008 10:07am by Sjans
Wow. Um... Nice proof there Smash...
Really? Do you know that for a fact? Or did you just hear some liberal mouthpiece say it and assumed it was true. I'd like to know who exactly makes up "most economists" in your mind. Did you poll every economist on the planet to make this determination? Did you even speak to any? Did they give you reasons? Or are you just repeating what someone said about what they think most economists think?
Yeah. I think the latter. Look. How about you tell me why you think Reagan's economic policies were an "utter failure"?
Cause while we can debate whether the more regressive tax structure is "fair", and whether lower taxes are better then higher taxes (I think it's a no-brainer, but some seem to think otherwise), the macro economic facts are clear:
When Reagan took office, inflation was at 12%, interest rates were at 21%, and unemployment was at 7%. When he left office, inflation was at 4.4%, interest rates dropped to 9.3%, and unemployment dropped to 5.4%. The overall GPD doubled during that 8 year period of time as well. Yes. He "tripled" the debt during that time, but since he also doubled GDP, the result was that debt as a percentage of GDP only increased from about 26% to 40%. That's not "great", but clearly not "crushing" either. Given the overall incredible positives the economy gained under Reagan, that debt increase really isn't significant.
What is significant is the huge amount of oversignificance paid to this debt by critics of Reagan style supply side economics. As Smash does, they latch on to the *one* indicator that seems to be negative and attach huge significance to it (ie: "crushing debt"), while ignoring that every other economic indicator improved at the same time. As though the only thing we should care about is the level of debt. I'm not saying that debt is unimportant. I'm just saying that it should be taken in the context of other economic indicators and that when you do this, you'll find that it's quite often to our overall benefit to increase debt slightly if we gain in other, more important, areas.
Sjans wrote:
One thing most economists agree on is that Reaganomics was a complete and utter failure in macroeconomic and socioeconomic perspective.
Really? Do you know that for a fact? Or did you just hear some liberal mouthpiece say it and assumed it was true. I'd like to know who exactly makes up "most economists" in your mind. Did you poll every economist on the planet to make this determination? Did you even speak to any? Did they give you reasons? Or are you just repeating what someone said about what they think most economists think?
Yeah. I think the latter. Look. How about you tell me why you think Reagan's economic policies were an "utter failure"?
Cause while we can debate whether the more regressive tax structure is "fair", and whether lower taxes are better then higher taxes (I think it's a no-brainer, but some seem to think otherwise), the macro economic facts are clear:
When Reagan took office, inflation was at 12%, interest rates were at 21%, and unemployment was at 7%. When he left office, inflation was at 4.4%, interest rates dropped to 9.3%, and unemployment dropped to 5.4%. The overall GPD doubled during that 8 year period of time as well. Yes. He "tripled" the debt during that time, but since he also doubled GDP, the result was that debt as a percentage of GDP only increased from about 26% to 40%. That's not "great", but clearly not "crushing" either. Given the overall incredible positives the economy gained under Reagan, that debt increase really isn't significant.
What is significant is the huge amount of oversignificance paid to this debt by critics of Reagan style supply side economics. As Smash does, they latch on to the *one* indicator that seems to be negative and attach huge significance to it (ie: "crushing debt"), while ignoring that every other economic indicator improved at the same time. As though the only thing we should care about is the level of debt. I'm not saying that debt is unimportant. I'm just saying that it should be taken in the context of other economic indicators and that when you do this, you'll find that it's quite often to our overall benefit to increase debt slightly if we gain in other, more important, areas.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
What is significant is the huge amount of oversignificance paid to this debt by critics of Reagan style supply side economics. As Smash does, they latch on to the *one* indicator that seems to be negative and attach huge significance to it (ie: "crushing debt"), while ignoring that every other economic indicator improved at the same time.
So your contention is that EVERY ECONOMIC INDICATOR HAS IMPROVED since the Bush tax cuts?
Is that correct, little Gabajito?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
That's not "great", but clearly not "crushing" either. Given the overall incredible positives the economy gained under Reagan, that debt increase really isn't significant.
It is when you consider that there is absolutely nothing showing causality between tax cuts and the recovery.
You know, "how many times have I made the argument that because one thing happens after another, doesn't mean it was caused by it".
Remember that one? Pro hoc ergo propter hoc when it comes to this though, right?
What a shock, a Republican hypocrite. What were the chances.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
That's not "great", but clearly not "crushing" either. Given the overall incredible positives the economy gained under Reagan, that debt increase really isn't significant.
It is when you consider that there is absolutely nothing showing causality between tax cuts and the recovery.
Except that the economic model being used predicts that lower taxes will increase economic growth. Sure. You can point to the recovery and growth during Reagan's terms and say it was a coincidence. But what about the Bush tax cuts? Same deal. Model predicts that lowering taxes will turn around a recessionary trend and turn it into increased growth. And that's exactly what happened.
At what point do we decide that there's sufficient evidence and testing of this and conclude that the model is correct? This is now two times in my lifetime that a president has specifically and deliberately used this form of supply side economics, and in both cases the results were similar (increased economic growth).
It stops being coincidence at some point, right?
More to the point, I can point directly at those two uses and show how they produced the results that was predicted. Can you do the same for raising taxes? Can you show me how increased government spending and entitlement has improved our economy? Can you even show that it's improved standard of living? Cause I could show you lots of data showing that while the worst cases are improved by demand side economics (starving in the street type situations), the number of "needy" seems to increase as a result, causing at best a wash in terms of average quality of life and in some cases a reduction in quality (lets just look at African Americans as a group for the last 50 years, shall we?).
I have all the components of a scientific "proof". A model predicting behavior. Two tests of that model. And results from both tests that bear out the predictions. You have what? Piles of data showing that demand side policies do nothing but increase the power and scope of the government, while increasing the total number of "poor", and not a single example or "proof" that demand side improves *anything* at all when applied on a macro economic scale. Certainly, we've seen no firm examples of demand side economics turning around a recession, or improving GDP growth, or lowering unemployment rates, or interest rates, or inflation rates. None at all...
But my "side" is unproven? Hah...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It stops being coincidence at some point, right?
I have all the components of a scientific "proof". A model predicting behavior. Two tests of that model. And results from both tests that bear out the predictions.
I have all the components of a scientific "proof". A model predicting behavior. Two tests of that model. And results from both tests that bear out the predictions.
A-hahahahahaha
I have all the components of a scientific "
HA.
Edited, Feb 22nd 2008 5:49pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Um.... Sure guys.
Way respond to fact with ignorance there. Just bury your head in the sand I suppose...
Way respond to fact with ignorance there. Just bury your head in the sand I suppose...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Way respond to fact with ignorance there
Look, I know you have no formal education in science of any kind, but your statement would have made anyone who did, including Milton Freeman, Arthur Laffer, et all literally laugh out loud.
I'm not sure what they teach for critical thinking in the California Community College system, but let me assure you it's a radical departure from reality if you can make statements like that based on it.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
wrong thread
Edited, Feb 20th 2008 9:35pm by Smasharoo
Edited, Feb 20th 2008 9:35pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Look, I know you have no formal education in science of any kind, but your statement would have made anyone who did, including Milton Freeman, Arthur Laffer, et all literally laugh out loud.
I'm quite sure my background and use of scientific method is considerably broader and more extensive then yours. I'm an engineer. You're a sociologist. Which one do you think uses science more?
Your failings in this area are amusing Smash. They really are. You're like a small child insisting that his dad is wrong about how the car operates because he's certain that it's powered by pixie dust or something...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm quite sure my background and use of scientific method is considerably broader and more extensive then yours. I'm an engineer. You're a sociologist.
I hate to break this to you, but you aren't an "engineer" because your job title says so. While we're at it, while Social Sciences certainly suffer from a certain degree of "mushiness" around falsifiability, the standards for research and peer review are equally rigorous in an academic setting. I'll grant you that the books written afterwards rarely are.
At any rate, I'm a poker player. If I get theory wrong, I don't eat. So if you want to compare which one of us has to apply scientific method on a daily basis with unforgiving outcomes, I'm game. If you do job poorly for a year, you get a smaller raise. If I do my job poorly for a year, I'm homeless.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Your failings in this area are amusing Smash. They really are. You're like a small child insisting that his dad is wrong about how the car operates because he's certain that it's powered by pixie dust or something...
No, I'm like an adult explaining to a small child that the fact that they ate French fries in the car both times it ran out of gas doesn't mean it caused it. EVEN IF THE SECOND TIME THEY SAID "Oh nos, we might run out of gas like the last time!"
Sad, and wasting my time at this point, mate. I'm really amazed this works at making you feel better or whatever your motivation is. It's certainly not swaying anyone else.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
It's certainly not swaying anyone else.
In fairness, I get swayed by an irrestible desire to go back to bed for a week almost everytime gbaji writes a seveteen paragraph long post.
So, that's something I guess.
Smasharoo wrote:
No, I'm like an adult explaining to a small child that the fact that they ate French fries in the car both times it ran out of gas doesn't mean it caused it. EVEN IF THE SECOND TIME THEY SAID "Oh nos, we might run out of gas like the last time!"
Sigh. More like observing the correlation between the gas gauge approaching "E" with the need to fill the tank.
While you're correct that causation does not imply correlation, it's equally wrong to just assume anything you don't agree with is not correlative. In this case, there *is* a correlation. It does not take any particular genius to realize that if companies have more money in their pockets, they're going to be more likely to hire more workers and spend more on R&D and all the other things that are very clearly linked to economic growth.
If you can't see the correlation there, then by what criteria do you use to determine correlation? Do you think that *anything* has to do with anything else? Or do you just make stuff up as you go along?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Do the same analysis, but look at three factors: Corporate tax rates, capital gains rates, and total federal revenue as a percentage of GDP.
You will find a correlation between those values and GDP growth rates. You'll find pretty consistently that when those rates are lower that GDP grows faster. When they're higher GDP grows slower. Obviously, it's not a perfect 1 to 1 correlation, but the trend is pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't been blinded by demand side assumption.
Capital gains rates I can tell you offhand have no effect. They have declined precipitously and no corresponding gain is seen in per capita GDP.
But it is pretty trivial to do yourself.
Recent Visitors: 100
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (100)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Gbaji might have a field day?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC