GOP starting to cave on The Pledge?

[Ninjahedge]

Choc Full 'o Nuts?


Wait, that's Millionaires money.....

 

[dank69]

Are you supporting his position?





http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Argumentum+ad+absurdum
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Argumentum+ad+absurdum

It is the equivalent of arguing that raising the minimum wage by $0.50/hr is bad because if it were good then raising it by $100,000/hr would be even better. This is known on the street as 'fucktardery.'

 

[Brovane]

Even if they didnt "raise taxes" they would still be raising taxes. They continually serially borrow debt money into existence, debt money which bears interest I might add. Each dollar that is borrowed is newly created money. When you spend this money into the economy you are increasign the total amount of money in the economy, thus lowering the value of each existing dollar. This is exactly the same as "raising taxes".

Instead of taking $500 from your $1000 paycheck, they only take $300, and borrow $200. That $200 devalues the money supply and so your $700 net pay only buys $500 worth of stuff. As an added bonus, Wall Street takes their cut of every one of these serial perpetual devaluations, which is why you keep seeing those fancy charts that show the top 1% getting richer and richer. This is really simple, in-your-face deception, but for some reason people eat this crap up all day long and worship it.

Isn't it more like we are borrowing somebody else money? When the government sells a Treasury note somebody is paying money to buy that note. It isn't like the money is willed into existence.

 

[Exterous]

It is the equivalent of arguing that raising the minimum wage by $0.50/hr is bad because if it were good then raising it by $100,000/hr would be even better. This is known on the street as 'fucktardery.'

Doesn't change that Argumentum ad absurdum is a valid logical method of disproof. I'm not sure Ninja was trying to say that consumption is all that matters but just posting Argumentum ad absurdum does nothing to refute what was posted by werepossum. It actually appears to support his claim

 

[dank69]

Doesn't change that Argumentum ad absurdum is a valid logical method of disproof. I'm not saying it was properly used and, frankly I am suspicious that your analogy is not a valid one but I'm to tired/don't care enough to delve further into that

Yes, if I was to claim that you cannot increase minimum wage too much, then argumentum ad absurdum would be a valid way to disprove that claim. However, saying too much of something does not automatically mean a little of that something is a bad thing, which it what he was trying to do.

 

[werepossum]

Isn't it more like we are borrowing somebody else money? When the government sells a Treasury note somebody is paying money to buy that note. It isn't like the money is willed into existence.

Actually, a lot of that money IS willed into existence today. Check out how much of the national debt the Fed now owns (I believe its share has tripled or quadrupled in the last three or four years) and how much money the Fed has willed into existence to prop up the economy. Coincidence?

Frankly, if not for the Fed buying bonds and the shakiness of most of the rest of the world scaring investors into seeking American security over potential returns, our house of cards would probably have collapsed years ago.

 

[werepossum]

It is the equivalent of arguing that raising the minimum wage by $0.50/hr is bad because if it were good then raising it by $100,000/hr would be even better. This is known on the street as 'fucktardery.'

I WISH we were talking about fifty cents an hour. Obama's Stimulus Rex was $800+ billion and it was going to fix everything. When it failed to fix everything, the new stimulus target was set by proggie economists at $3 trillion. When the $3 trillion stimulus fails - and if the Democrats can only take the House and hold the White House it will be tried and it will fail - the next level that "everyone knows" is needed will probably be $15 trillion. There are no failed proggie policies, only failed constraints. But even at $3 trillion, that's equivalent to 30,000,000 people earning $100,000. If as Obama and the Dems say we need a $3 trillion for Obama to end the recession he already ended, and as Ninjahedge and the Dems say the problem is lack of demand and the solution is to give people jobs, why on Earth would my solution be absurd? Are the unemployed not capable of spending money just like government employees? Seems to me that hiring 15,000,000 people at $100,000 (total $1.5 trillion) is merely a compromise between your position and mine, AND mine has the advantage that none of that money is spent in infrastructure; it's all available to create demand. (Well, to create demand and pat taxes.)

It's amazing that you proggies don't seem to understand the magnitude of that for which you advocate. $3 trillion is $100,000 for 30,000,000 people. It's roughly $10,000 for every American. It's also roughly $10,000 for every American to pay back - or rather, it's also roughly $20,000 for every American who actually pays federal income taxes to pay back. Against that setting, my scheme to spend half that hiring 15,000,000 czars seems positively restrained. But perhaps your point was that hiring only 15,000,000 czars at $100,000 each was absurdly self-restrained? Are we perhaps needing at least 30,000,000 czars at $100,000 each to save the country?

I can even put them to work. I'd have them each work one day per month, travel and housing at their own expense (still a pretty sweet gig, most unemployed would agree.) That gives me roughly 492,821.12 working each day, assuming an average month of 30.437 days. Figure three shifts per day and I can deploy 164,274 czars at any given moment. I now have enough czars that one can be assigned to the President, every member of his cabinet and senior staff, every Congressman and Senator and every one of their senior staffs, and probably every department head in the federal government, for every moment of the day. These czars can not only advise but also supervise, making sure the taxpayers' money is spent responsibly. (You know, hoarded.) No more expensive bashes in Vegas, no more secret meetings with lobbyists; every single meeting becomes a matter of public record. Heck, we've probably got enough left over to outfit every Fortune 500 companies' CXO positions with their own 24/7 czars.

Amazing what one can do with $1.5 trillion dollars. And before you point out the absurdity here, remember that you agree with Obama that we need to spend TWICE this much to stimulate demand and fix the economy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Billionaires shop at Walmart too.

Where?

 

[Ninjahedge]

$800B was not going to fix everything WP....


That was just a start. I have never heard anyone say that one package would solve the countries problems. At best, I have just heard that it would soften the blow and aid recovery.

The pundits seem to like to throw around these unfounded absolutes to get people to listen to them.

The only thing that is worse than a politicians exaggerations is a pundits exaggeration of them.

 

[cybrsage]

It is the equivalent of arguing that raising the minimum wage by $0.50/hr is bad because if it were good then raising it by $100,000/hr would be even better. This is known on the street as 'fucktardery.'

It depends on the reasoning the person is using to say 50 cents is good. If their reason is "because they will have more money to spend", then it is perfectly fine to say $100,000 is better. If their reasoning is "50 cents will be enough to allow them to pay for their basic needs" then $100,000 is silly.

An easy example is "drugs should be legal because they are victemless crimes" rr "drugs should be legal because keeping them illegal is legislating morality". This means that having sex on the street corner should also be legal since it is also a victemless crime and is also legislating morality.

 

[cybrsage]

$800B was not going to fix everything WP....


That was just a start. I have never heard anyone say that one package would solve the countries problems. At best, I have just heard that it would soften the blow and aid recovery.

You did hear it was going to keep unemployment under 8%. How did that work out?

EDIT: In case you "forget" here is the chart:

 

[cybrsage]

Where?

Walmart, he already said that.

 

[cybrsage]

The problem is that will the economic growth from lower taxes off-set the loss of tax money into the US treasury. So far it doesn't seem to be working.

So far, we have only exited the recession on paper - in reality, the recession is far from over. Until people actually have jobs again, there is no income to spend. Those WITH jobs have more money to spend if you reduce income taxes...which will obviously stimulate the economy.

Unfortunately the US is in a real hard spot right now. We didn't have a balanced budget before the recission. We keep adding more money to overall Federal Debt. The Debt to GDP ratio keeps increasing. We cannot afford anymore the tax cuts that where en-acted in 2001-2002. They need to be alloweed to expire. If we would have been more financially responsible we wouldn't have racked up so much debt during the economic good times. That way we would have had room to borrow when the economy is in a recission. Unfortunately it is a bitter pill to swallow but we need to allow the tax cuts to expire. We also need to start doing some serious cutting. It will be tough but eventually the party needs to end.

If we raise taxes on people, will they have less money to spend on consumer goods? If they have less to spend on consumer goods, will that help or hurt the economy?

I agree on needing to cut spending.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Hey look, it's the guy who hates women. Just so you know, it's a rare poster that unites almost this entire board in revulsion at your disgusting views. You should be impressed with just how horrible they have to be for you to do that.

By the way, you never did answer my question. Have you ever had a girlfriend?


No insults or personal attacks.

Administrator Idontcare

Well I for one would like to understand what it is your saying here . I understand the other guys post . and I agree . Women don't need special laws made just for them . Same as minorities . No special laws for them either as it is The majority than are subject to discrimination . Enforce the laws that were all ready on the books . The law can't not serve 2 masters and stand. Murder is murder no matter what you say or think . Your frequency is vary low . Leave your fear open your arms and embrace love . These are in fact the only 2 real choices you have in this reality. This is my reality and not yours. You are soon to be leaving this reality for your own.

 

[Jhhnn]

So far, we have only exited the recession on paper - in reality, the recession is far from over. Until people actually have jobs again, there is no income to spend. Those WITH jobs have more money to spend if you reduce income taxes...which will obviously stimulate the economy.

You assume that massive deleveraging is not occurring, when it is, expressed as a liquidity trap.

If my taxes are cut & I just put the money in the bank who doesn't lend it, no meaningful stimulus occurs. That's why interest rates are so low- a glut of savings. You must have money income to borrow money, oddly enough, and when national employment & worker compensation dip far enough, the demand for credit based money falls with it in a self reinforcing fashion.

 

[cybrsage]

You assume that massive deleveraging is not occurring, when it is, expressed as a liquidity trap.

If my taxes are cut & I just put the money in the bank who doesn't lend it, no meaningful stimulus occurs. That's why interest rates are so low- a glut of savings. You must have money income to borrow money, oddly enough, and when national employment & worker compensation dip far enough, the demand for credit based money falls with it in a self reinforcing fashion.

You are assuming Americans are not going to act like Americans. I am assuming Americans will continue to spend as much as they possibly can, which is what Americans have done for decades.

Few Americans save their excess money.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are assuming Americans are not going to act like Americans. I am assuming Americans will continue to spend as much as they possibly can, which is what Americans have done for decades.

Few Americans save their excess money.

They do in times of uncertainty, like during the depths of the recession-

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

That last upward blip was much of the taxcut portion of the stimulus being socked away.

The big money is in corporate cash reserves, anyway-

Nonfinancial companies held more than $2 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of June, the Federal Reserve reported Friday, up more than $88 billion from the end of March. Cash accounted for 7.1% of all company assets, everything from buildings to bonds, the highest level since 1963.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html

Obviously, they need a taxcut, so they can create jobs, even when there's no demand to justify doing so...

 

[cybrsage]

Corps are afraid to spend their money until after the election - too much uncertainty. They also need to find out how horribly damaged they will be by ObamaCare if the Surpreme Court does the wrong thing and allows it to stay.

I would not spend money right now if I was a corp.

 

[Jhhnn]

Corps are afraid to spend their money until after the election - too much uncertainty. They also need to find out how horribly damaged they will be by ObamaCare if the Surpreme Court does the wrong thing and allows it to stay.

I would not spend money right now if I was a corp.

Hogwash. They see no demand for the production of expansion, so they don't. The only people creating uncertainty are Repubs, anyway. What's more uncertain than the govt not paying its bills, anyway? Than an economy nearly collapsed by the ideology of failure? Than the cut, cut, Cut! mentality towards govt spending, which is over 30% of the economy? Than what clamoring for war with Iran does to the price of oil?

You mindlessly spout the usual right wing talking points with the monotony of a metronome.

 

[cybrsage]

You mindlessly spout the usual right wing talking points with the monotony of a metronome.

LOL This is funny coming from you. Though I have to admit, you are an expert at spouting mindless talking points with monotony...

 

[jman19]

You did hear it was going to keep unemployment under 8%. How did that work out?

EDIT: In case you "forget" here is the chart:

Where's the chart that shows what would have actually happened without stimulus? What alternative course of action would the GOP have taken that would have been better?

All this chart does is show that the Dems were bad at forecasting.

 

[cybrsage]

You quoted it. The middle line is labeled "Without stimulus plan".

 

[jman19]

You quoted it. The middle line is labeled "Without stimulus plan".

That's also a forecast. Wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

That's also a forecast. Wrong.

At least you are starting to realize you should blame Obama as his team said it would be there. They bet around a trillion dollars on it.

 

[jman19]

At least you are starting to realize you should blame Obama as his team said it would be there. They bet around a trillion dollars on it.

I blame them for sucking at forecasting. You haven't convinced me they did the wrong thing.