• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Based on the latest tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Socialism doesn't serve the poor and the downtrodden, it just exploits them.
QFT. :thumbsup:

A successful, well-informed electorate is death to scheming politicians looking for power. Money (in the form of socialism) begets votes, which begets power. It is a vicious cycle.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Vic
Socialism doesn't serve the poor and the downtrodden, it just exploits them.
QFT. :thumbsup:

A successful, well-informed electorate is death to scheming politicians looking for power. Money (in the form of socialism) begets votes, which begets power. It is a vicious cycle.
You guys would know all about exploitation.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,167
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,167
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
Pfft... the only thing you're going to do if the Dems win next year, Dave, is switch your allegiance back to the Pubs so that you can continue to bitch, moan, and troll on the internet about whoever is in charge. I just can't wait...
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern

Potentially misleading data.

Pabster talks about (total) government tax receipts. Your data above includes only individual taxes. They are not the same thing. Find a chart on total gov tax receipts.

Fern
Gosh, Fern. Funny you should ask ...

Federal Gov't Tax Receipts (millions of $)

2006 . . . . . 2,235,644
2005 . . . . . 2,153,859
2004 . . . . . 1,880,279
2003 . . . . . 1,782,532
2002 . . . . . 1,853,395
2001 . . . . . 1,991,426

2000 . . . . . 2,025,457
1999 . . . . . 1,827,645
1998 . . . . . 1,721,955
1997 . . . . . 1,579,423
1996 . . . . . 1,453,177
1995 . . . . . 1,231,721

% Increase in Total Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

10.38% - First Six Years of George Bush
76.91% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
btw, Fern, 88% of the increase in total receipts under George Bush can be attributed to Social Insurance taxes.

Glad to be of service. Any more questions ??


Edit: I hate when I screw up :D

The above #'s shall hereby be revised:

2006 . . . . . 2,407,254 - therefore

% Increase in Total Receipts - Presidential Term

18.84% - First Six Years of George Bush
76.91% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
AND

48.45% of the increase in total receipts under George Bush can be attributed to Social Insurance taxes.

Thank you for the opportunity.

btw - these numbers are from the White House Budget of the United States Gov't - Fiscal Year 2008

 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Fern
Potentially misleading data.

Pabster talks about (total) government tax receipts. Your data above includes only individual taxes. They are not the same thing. Find a chart on total gov tax receipts.
Not potentially, but purposefully, by a hack.

How convenient to single out just one category when I was clearly referring to total monies coming in to the U.S. Treasury, not merely individual income tax receipts.

As for those who pretend to know more here than a majority of economists, I think we can all make up our own minds on who to believe.
Gosh. Another lie by Pabs.

Surprise - Surprise
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,583
0
0
Maybe raising taxes is better than cutting taxes. Especially when you consider looking at the Redistribution of Federal tax receipts and the red state blue state thing. I would think that cutting taxes would keep the money closer to the red states, and keep it from the poorer blue states.:confused: :confused:

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
Pfft... the only thing you're going to do if the Dems win next year, Dave, is switch your allegiance back to the Pubs so that you can continue to bitch, moan, and troll on the internet about whoever is in charge. I just can't wait...
No, that would be your heroes Rush and Hannity :laugh:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,167
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
Pfft... the only thing you're going to do if the Dems win next year, Dave, is switch your allegiance back to the Pubs so that you can continue to bitch, moan, and troll on the internet about whoever is in charge. I just can't wait...
No, that would be your heroes Rush and Hannity :laugh:
And yet another typical McOwen troll... do you really think you're being witty whenever you say that I'm for something I had just spoken against, or when you claim my "heroes" are the same people that I frequently condemn?
You only make yourself and your agenda look bad, by reducing your credibility to nil. Normally, that wouldn't bother me, but you pretend to represent a group that, despite your continuous trolling efforts as an agent provocateur, I would like to see win next year.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Maybe raising taxes is better than cutting taxes. Especially when you consider looking at the Redistribution of Federal tax receipts and the red state blue state thing. I would think that cutting taxes would keep the money closer to the red states, and keep it from the poorer blue states.:confused: :confused:
Saying raising taxes or lowering taxes is better is like saying eating more or eating less is better, without knowing whether you're talking to someone morbidly obese or anorexic.

Maybe taxing at a level adequate for the fiscal responsibilty of paying for the spending, and recognizing that the political issue isn't the total amount of taxation but the spending, helps.

(However, within the need to tax that total amount, who pays how much is a political issue).
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
Pfft... the only thing you're going to do if the Dems win next year, Dave, is switch your allegiance back to the Pubs so that you can continue to bitch, moan, and troll on the internet about whoever is in charge. I just can't wait...
No, that would be your heroes Rush and Hannity :laugh:
And yet another typical McOwen troll... do you really think you're being witty whenever you say that I'm for something I had just spoken against, or when you claim my "heroes" are the same people that I frequently condemn?
You only make yourself and your agenda look bad, by reducing your credibility to nil. Normally, that wouldn't bother me, but you pretend to represent a group that, despite your continuous trolling efforts as an agent provocateur, I would like to see win next year.
Nothing witty at all. Just saying it like I see it. Your posts smack of GOP support through and through. You're no different than Micheal Savage or Neil Boortz.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
I don't care what most MS economists say. Almost every economic study I have read for my MBA and CFA charter has shown convincing data that tax cuts almost always do nothing. Why?

1. They are almost always poorly timed. They come too far after the problem or too much before it.

2. They stifle economic development during the downturn because the government crowds out cheaper bonds by issuing it's own debt, this causes debt costs to raise for non-government entities. This is when all tax cuts are financed through debt, which they are now.

3. Tax cuts financed through debt issuance result in further debt, not just for this year, but for every other year until the debt is paid off. What can tax cuts be attributed for? 200bn in additional GDP over the last 3 years? Great, that $100bn tax cut will cost federal taxpayers approximately 4bn for the next 30 years in just debt payments. Good job, you just went nowhere. Especially considering #2.


The increase in tax revenue can be attributed to a few major items.

1. Economic growth through debt issuance and using houses as ATMs has caused the economy to grow significantly and stock prices to appreciate dramatically. The CapGains taxed are a direct result from this "growth", the GDP excluding MEW (mean equity withdraw) would have been about 50% of current.

2. Because of #1's debt fueled consumption and growth the stock market increased. Driving capital gains. However, what it doesn't consider that measurement of years before, during similar economic booms, say 1999-2000, the tax "increase" doesn't look as impressive. Sure, you could say that taxes are much higher than 2000, but then you'd still be lying, because on an inflation adjusted basis, they are *LOWER*.

3. Keep in mind that cash-outs from houses also are taxed if you just sell an investment property, this also caused more tax revenues.

4. Tax losses from stocks are not considered in the equation, since these *decrease* revenues, but aren't going to be factored in to tax receipts until this year. Furthermore, housing declines cannot be removed from taxes, thus the positive effects of capital gains from houses are felt in tax receipt, but not losses that we are feeling now. Thus it's an asymetrical effect, one that you cannot deny.

All in, those numbers are bullshit. They exclude several biases, including time period selection, alternate independent variables which have tremendous influence on the dependent variable.

However, I don't doubt you're going to come back with the same bullshit reply as always..."But but but...THEY SAY YOU ARE WRONG! EXPLAIN!", which I will explain until I am blue in the face, but that won't change the *fact* that you are blissfully ignorant to statistical testing methodologies of multiple regression and how R2 determines effects on the dependent variable. Since you are unable to grasp this you are unable to grasp points 1-4 and how they have a much larger effect on the dependent variable (tax receipts). Instead, you attribute everything to one variable, tax cuts, which is a stupid argument for reasons listed above (1-3).

Have fun refuting what I typed with a lame-ass 2-3 sentence reply that has to include something about "experts" and everything else. You'll never come up with your own proof against 1a-3a, nor 1b-4b. That's because you listen to sound bites, propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you and you love to be controlled.
Just bumping this to see if I'll get an answer from the righty dittoheads.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,493
0
76
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Fern

Potentially misleading data.

Pabster talks about (total) government tax receipts. Your data above includes only individual taxes. They are not the same thing. Find a chart on total gov tax receipts.

Fern
Gosh, Fern. Funny you should ask ...

Federal Gov't Tax Receipts (millions of $)

2006 . . . . . 2,235,644
2005 . . . . . 2,153,859
2004 . . . . . 1,880,279
2003 . . . . . 1,782,532
2002 . . . . . 1,853,395
2001 . . . . . 1,991,426

2000 . . . . . 2,025,457
1999 . . . . . 1,827,645
1998 . . . . . 1,721,955
1997 . . . . . 1,579,423
1996 . . . . . 1,453,177
1995 . . . . . 1,231,721

% Increase in Total Tax Receipts - Presidential Term

10.38% - First Six Years of George Bush
76.91% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
btw, Fern, 88% of the increase in total receipts under George Bush can be attributed to Social Insurance taxes.

Glad to be of service. Any more questions ??


Edit: I hate when I screw up :D

The above #'s shall hereby be revised:

2006 . . . . . 2,407,254 - therefore

% Increase in Total Receipts - Presidential Term

18.84% - First Six Years of George Bush
76.91% - Last Six Years of Bill Clinton
AND

48.45% of the increase in total receipts under George Bush can be attributed to Social Insurance taxes.

Thank you for the opportunity.

btw - these numbers are from the White House Budget of the United States Gov't - Fiscal Year 2008
I think this thread got shut down.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The tax cuts did nothing.
Your opinion is definitely a minority one. The vast majority of economists and experts agree that the tax cuts have been a huge success. How do you downplay the fact that the U.S. Treasury is receiving record tax revenues? Government has never taken in more $$$ than it is currently.

There is plenty of debate about who the cuts have helped, etc. but I don't think there is any real disagreement that they have been successful overall.
I don't care what most MS economists say. Almost every economic study I have read for my MBA and CFA charter has shown convincing data that tax cuts almost always do nothing. Why?

1. They are almost always poorly timed. They come too far after the problem or too much before it.

2. They stifle economic development during the downturn because the government crowds out cheaper bonds by issuing it's own debt, this causes debt costs to raise for non-government entities. This is when all tax cuts are financed through debt, which they are now.

3. Tax cuts financed through debt issuance result in further debt, not just for this year, but for every other year until the debt is paid off. What can tax cuts be attributed for? 200bn in additional GDP over the last 3 years? Great, that $100bn tax cut will cost federal taxpayers approximately 4bn for the next 30 years in just debt payments. Good job, you just went nowhere. Especially considering #2.


The increase in tax revenue can be attributed to a few major items.

1. Economic growth through debt issuance and using houses as ATMs has caused the economy to grow significantly and stock prices to appreciate dramatically. The CapGains taxed are a direct result from this "growth", the GDP excluding MEW (mean equity withdraw) would have been about 50% of current.

2. Because of #1's debt fueled consumption and growth the stock market increased. Driving capital gains. However, what it doesn't consider that measurement of years before, during similar economic booms, say 1999-2000, the tax "increase" doesn't look as impressive. Sure, you could say that taxes are much higher than 2000, but then you'd still be lying, because on an inflation adjusted basis, they are *LOWER*.

3. Keep in mind that cash-outs from houses also are taxed if you just sell an investment property, this also caused more tax revenues.

4. Tax losses from stocks are not considered in the equation, since these *decrease* revenues, but aren't going to be factored in to tax receipts until this year. Furthermore, housing declines cannot be removed from taxes, thus the positive effects of capital gains from houses are felt in tax receipt, but not losses that we are feeling now. Thus it's an asymetrical effect, one that you cannot deny.

All in, those numbers are bullshit. They exclude several biases, including time period selection, alternate independent variables which have tremendous influence on the dependent variable.

However, I don't doubt you're going to come back with the same bullshit reply as always..."But but but...THEY SAY YOU ARE WRONG! EXPLAIN!", which I will explain until I am blue in the face, but that won't change the *fact* that you are blissfully ignorant to statistical testing methodologies of multiple regression and how R2 determines effects on the dependent variable. Since you are unable to grasp this you are unable to grasp points 1-4 and how they have a much larger effect on the dependent variable (tax receipts). Instead, you attribute everything to one variable, tax cuts, which is a stupid argument for reasons listed above (1-3).

Have fun refuting what I typed with a lame-ass 2-3 sentence reply that has to include something about "experts" and everything else. You'll never come up with your own proof against 1a-3a, nor 1b-4b. That's because you listen to sound bites, propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you and you love to be controlled.
Just bumping this to see if I'll get an answer from the righty dittoheads.
You'd be much more convincing if you didn't resort to insults at the end.

I don't know enough to make an educated opinion on tax economics, but don't come with the ending argument that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is listening to "propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you." It makes your previous argument, however based in fact, come across as biased. It makes you appear that, whatever the merit of your argument, you're more interested in being right at your opponents expense, which is childish, rather than presenting a clear, objective point. As much fun as it may seem to you, no one will agree with you that 2+2=4 as long as you're going to make them swallow their ego to admit it.

If you want people to listen, don't call them fools.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Atreus21

You'd be much more convincing if you didn't resort to insults at the end.

I don't know enough to make an educated opinion on tax economics, but don't come with the ending argument that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is listening to "propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you."

It makes your previous argument, however based in fact, come across as biased. It makes you appear that, whatever the merit of your argument, you're more interested in being right at your opponents expense, which is childish, rather than presenting a clear, objective point. As much fun as it may seem to you, no one will agree with you that 2+2=4 as long as you're going to make them swallow their ego to admit it.

If you want people to listen, don't call them fools.
WWYBYWB?

After 8 yrs of GOP/Bush rule and these people proudly calling themselves "dittoheads", I would say those of us that totally disagree with the distruction of this country by them can certainly call every last one of them "foolish".

In fact we call the entire country foolish because the idiot got in for a second term.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Atreus21

You'd be much more convincing if you didn't resort to insults at the end.

I don't know enough to make an educated opinion on tax economics, but don't come with the ending argument that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is listening to "propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you." It makes your previous argument, however based in fact, come across as biased. It makes you appear that, whatever the merit of your argument, you're more interested in being right at your opponents expense, which is childish, rather than presenting a clear, objective point. As much fun as it may seem to you, no one will agree with you that 2+2=4 as long as you're going to make them swallow their ego to admit it.

If you want people to listen, don't call them fools.
There you go thinking that that post was for Pabster or even NonProfJohn.


I know their MO, they jump into a thread, post a few ridiculous posts, get shot down, then move onto another one. There's nothing learned, nothing used, nothing countered, they are foolish dittoheads that can only take their soundbites from other dittohead fools.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Atreus21

You'd be much more convincing if you didn't resort to insults at the end.

I don't know enough to make an educated opinion on tax economics, but don't come with the ending argument that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is listening to "propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you." It makes your previous argument, however based in fact, come across as biased. It makes you appear that, whatever the merit of your argument, you're more interested in being right at your opponents expense, which is childish, rather than presenting a clear, objective point. As much fun as it may seem to you, no one will agree with you that 2+2=4 as long as you're going to make them swallow their ego to admit it.

If you want people to listen, don't call them fools.
There you go thinking that that post was for Pabster or even NonProfJohn.


I know their MO, they jump into a thread, post a few ridiculous posts, get shot down, then move onto another one. There's nothing learned, nothing used, nothing countered, they are foolish dittoheads that can only take their soundbites from other dittohead fools.
I agree. Why then do you indulge yourself in arguing in the same exact fashion? It's a dumb way to argue, especially when you have a decent argument to make.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Atreus21

You'd be much more convincing if you didn't resort to insults at the end.

I don't know enough to make an educated opinion on tax economics, but don't come with the ending argument that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is listening to "propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you." It makes your previous argument, however based in fact, come across as biased. It makes you appear that, whatever the merit of your argument, you're more interested in being right at your opponents expense, which is childish, rather than presenting a clear, objective point. As much fun as it may seem to you, no one will agree with you that 2+2=4 as long as you're going to make them swallow their ego to admit it.

If you want people to listen, don't call them fools.
There you go thinking that that post was for Pabster or even NonProfJohn.


I know their MO, they jump into a thread, post a few ridiculous posts, get shot down, then move onto another one. There's nothing learned, nothing used, nothing countered, they are foolish dittoheads that can only take their soundbites from other dittohead fools.
I agree. Why then do you indulge yourself in arguing in the same exact fashion? It's a dumb way to argue, especially when you have a decent argument to make.
I indulge in the same fashion? Please, lets be honest here. Go back through the thread, read through NonProfJohn and Pabster's posts, then take a look at mine. Sure, in the end, there might be something that you find objectionable, but, by and large, at least my posts are worth something. Those two post nothing of worth, just trash. One-liner, falsehood, half-truthed, forked tongue, trash.

Even between the two of them they can't form a coherent and logical argument. It wasn't difficult to shut them up here, nor in any other thread. all it takes is logic (imagine that) and data.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,850
8,167
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
Pfft... the only thing you're going to do if the Dems win next year, Dave, is switch your allegiance back to the Pubs so that you can continue to bitch, moan, and troll on the internet about whoever is in charge. I just can't wait...
No, that would be your heroes Rush and Hannity :laugh:
And yet another typical McOwen troll... do you really think you're being witty whenever you say that I'm for something I had just spoken against, or when you claim my "heroes" are the same people that I frequently condemn?
You only make yourself and your agenda look bad, by reducing your credibility to nil. Normally, that wouldn't bother me, but you pretend to represent a group that, despite your continuous trolling efforts as an agent provocateur, I would like to see win next year.
Nothing witty at all. Just saying it like I see it. Your posts smack of GOP support through and through. You're no different than Micheal Savage or Neil Boortz.
Heh. You're the one who listens to them then. I haven't listened to anything on the radio since the '90s.

LK has pretty finished up the thread. I was in a sarcastic mood earlier and was just being a smartass to PJ's usual crowd of reactionaries. Occasionally, I get a little fed up at the simplistic worldviews that the loudest screamers on the internet would have us believe are real.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Atreus21

You'd be much more convincing if you didn't resort to insults at the end.

I don't know enough to make an educated opinion on tax economics, but don't come with the ending argument that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is listening to "propaganda, and foolish idiots who like to control you." It makes your previous argument, however based in fact, come across as biased. It makes you appear that, whatever the merit of your argument, you're more interested in being right at your opponents expense, which is childish, rather than presenting a clear, objective point. As much fun as it may seem to you, no one will agree with you that 2+2=4 as long as you're going to make them swallow their ego to admit it.

If you want people to listen, don't call them fools.
There you go thinking that that post was for Pabster or even NonProfJohn.


I know their MO, they jump into a thread, post a few ridiculous posts, get shot down, then move onto another one. There's nothing learned, nothing used, nothing countered, they are foolish dittoheads that can only take their soundbites from other dittohead fools.
I agree. Why then do you indulge yourself in arguing in the same exact fashion? It's a dumb way to argue, especially when you have a decent argument to make.
I indulge in the same fashion? Please, lets be honest here. Go back through the thread, read through NonProfJohn and Pabster's posts, then take a look at mine. Sure, in the end, there might be something that you find objectionable, but, by and large, at least my posts are worth something. Those two post nothing of worth, just trash. One-liner, falsehood, half-truthed, forked tongue, trash.

Even between the two of them they can't form a coherent and logical argument. It wasn't difficult to shut them up here, nor in any other thread. all it takes is logic (imagine that) and data.
I'll admit that I singled you out for criticism over others who met the same criteria, but when you bumped up your post looking for a response, I was compelled to answer.

I guess my point is that forming a coherent and logical argument is only half the battle. The transmission is the other half. I'm sure you'd agree that if Bush and FDR had the same speech prepared for them, FDR would probably come across in a more inspiring performance. What I mean is that, in my experience, I've noticed that people won't listen to you at all, regardless of how good your argument is, if you're insulting their intelligence in the transmission.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You guys would know all about exploitation.
If there ever were a definitive definition of "scheming, pandering politician", Dave, your Hillary would be it. :thumbsup:
Side-by-side in the dictionary with your GW.

"What? The military-industrial complex needs jobs? Quick! Start a war!"
Good. We had your side of this "scheming and pandering politician" for 8 years.

Time for you guys to swallow the bitter medicine.
Pfft... the only thing you're going to do if the Dems win next year, Dave, is switch your allegiance back to the Pubs so that you can continue to bitch, moan, and troll on the internet about whoever is in charge. I just can't wait...
No, that would be your heroes Rush and Hannity :laugh:
And yet another typical McOwen troll... do you really think you're being witty whenever you say that I'm for something I had just spoken against, or when you claim my "heroes" are the same people that I frequently condemn?
You only make yourself and your agenda look bad, by reducing your credibility to nil. Normally, that wouldn't bother me, but you pretend to represent a group that, despite your continuous trolling efforts as an agent provocateur, I would like to see win next year.
Nothing witty at all. Just saying it like I see it. Your posts smack of GOP support through and through. You're no different than Micheal Savage or Neil Boortz.
Heh. You're the one who listens to them then. I haven't listened to anything on the radio since the '90s.

LK has pretty finished up the thread. I was in a sarcastic mood earlier and was just being a smartass to PJ's usual crowd of reactionaries. Occasionally, I get a little fed up at the simplistic worldviews that the loudest screamers on the internet would have us believe are real.
Get a room guys.

\PSA mode on

Dave (and a lot of others including myself on occasion), please take a few seconds to review what you are about to post before hitting the "Reply to Topic" button. Think....will this add to the tread or will it send it spiraling on a downward trek into an abyss of personal attacks or stupid partisan jabs? If the answer is yes....click on "Cancel" instead.

It's a tough lesson to learn and I have personally had to do it in the past. Trust me when I say that you will feel better about yourself if you do it.

\PSA mode off
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll admit that I singled you out for criticism over others who met the same criteria, but when you bumped up your post looking for a response, I was compelled to answer.

I guess my point is that forming a coherent and logical argument is only half the battle. The transmission is the other half. I'm sure you'd agree that if Bush and FDR had the same speech prepared for them, FDR would probably come across in a more inspiring performance. What I mean is that, in my experience, I've noticed that people won't listen to you at all, regardless of how good your argument is, if you're insulting their intelligence in the transmission.
There's a big assumption there that you have. I'll leave it up to you to think about it. Honestly, I think your assumption is incorrect, at least from what is portrayed on here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY